Four Brave Gurkha Daredevils of History

For the past many days I have been reading in News regarding Gurkha veterans’ legal battle to settle in United Kingdom, due to changed immigration restrictions on the Nepalese soldiers and also their attempt to claim the same pensions as their British comrades. Today they face the illegitimate discrimination of Ministry of Defence, which is biasedlly based on their country of origin instead of the country in whose Army they loyally served for the last 200 years, with 200,000 Gurkha soldiers fighting in the last two world wars and about 3,500 Gurkhas currently serving in the British Army, including in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Gurkha Bridage world famous for its bravest of the brave soldiers, so much that the former British Empire even regarded it as one of the brightest jewels in the royal crown and had no other way save for taking one Gurkha brigade back home after the Indian independence in 1947. But today the British Government is accused by the Gurkhas for the act of 'treachery' over UK settlement right.

Though the British Government has forgotten the contribution of Gorkha veterans in World War II, I would like to mention here the Heroic Act of only four Gorkha Daredevils. Although there are thousands of story for bravery but Im mentioning the story of only four Gorkha Heroes here, which are exceptionally mind blowing jackass, its hard to picturize the daredevil stun they pulled that day.

But again as the Gurkha Motto goes, “Better to die then to be coward”.

On the word of erstwhile Chief of Staff of the Indian Army, Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, “If a man says he is not afraid of dying, he is either lying or he is a Gurkha.”

Heed this too as said by none other than the Nazi dictator Adolph Hitler, if he had Gurkhas then he can win all over the world. He went further and said “there is nothing in the world I scare of but Gurkhas.”

So here are the Four Brave Gurkha Daredevils of History who are gonna make anybody go crazy after reading their deeds of bravery :

1.      Tul Bahadur Pun

Tul Bahadur Pun (23 March 1923 (or 1919) – 20 April 2011) was a recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces. He later achieved the rank of Honorary Lieutenant. In addition to the Victoria Cross, Pun was awarded 10 other medals, including the Burma Star.

At the age of 21 years old, and as a Rifleman in the 3rd Battalion, 6th Gurkha Rifles, in the Indian Army during World War II when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC :

In Burma on 23 June 1944, a Battalion of the 6th Gurkha Rifles was ordered to attack the Railway Bridge at Mogaung. Soon enemy started cross fire from close range from a position known as the Red House and from a strong bunker position two hundred yards to the left of it, so intense was this cross fire that both the leading platoons of 'B' Company, one of which was Rifleman Tul bahadur Pun's, were pinned to the ground. The whole of his Section was wiped out, except for himself, the Section commander and one other man. The Section commander tried to lead the remaining two men but was at once badly wounded. Rifleman Tul bahadur Pun and his remaining companion continued the charge, but the latter too was immediately wounded.

Rifleman Tulbahadur Pun then seized the Bren Gun and firing from the hip He continued the charge on this heavily bunkered position alone. With the dawn coming up behind him and in the face of the most shattering concentration of automatic fire directed straight at him he presented a perfect target to the Japanese. He moved further ahead for thirty yards over open ground, ankle deep in mud, through shell holes and over fallen trees.

Despite these overwhelming odds, he reached the Red House and killing its Japanese occupants, captured two light machine guns and much ammunition. He then gave accurate supporting fire from the bunker to the remainder of his platoon which enabled them to overcome the remaining enemy bunkers.

2.      VC Ganju Lama

 

Ganju Lama (22 July 1924 - 2000) was a Gurkha recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

At the age of 19 years old, and as a Rifleman in the 1st Battalion, 7^th Gurkha Rifles, in the Indian Army during World War II when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the Victoria Cross:

In Burma, on the morning of the 12th June 1944, the enemy put down an intense artillery barrage lasting an hour; on north of the village of Ningthoukhong. The heavy artillery fire knocked out several bunkers and caused heavy casualties, and was immediately followed by a very strong enemy attack supported by five medium tanks. "B" Company, 7th Gurkha Rifles, was ordered to counter-attack and restore the situation. Shortly after passing the starting line it came under heavy enemy medium machine-gun and tank machine-gun fire at point blank range, which covered all lines of approach.

Rifleman Ganju Lama attacked the enemies only carrying a gun in his hand and not being noticed by the enemies he crawled forward towards them on his own initiative, with great coolness and complete disregard for his own safety. In spite of a broken left wrist and two other wounds, one in his right hand and one in his leg, caused by withering cross-fire concentrated upon him, He succeeded in bringing his gun into action within thirty yards of the enemy tanks and started firing at the enemy Type 97 Chi-Ha tanks knocking out first one and then another, the third tank being destroyed by an anti-tank gun. Blood was flowing down his body and with one grenade in his hand he was crawling towards the enemies, when he was quite close to the enemies he threw the only grenade he had with him, killing some more enemies.

The Japanese were not at all expecting this solo attack by Ganju lama who had destroyed their fully loaded two powerful tanks. The Japanese still did not give up and this fight lasted for about 13-14 hours, the Gorkhas did not let a single enemy to enter their territory. During this battle the Japanese 67th Regiment lost about 330 or more soldiers where the Gorkha Regiment lost only 30 soldiers.

3.      Lachhiman Gurung

 

 

Lachhiman Gurung (30 December 1917 – 12 December 2010) was a Nepalese recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

At the age of 27 years old, and as a Rifleman in the 4th Battalion, 8^th Gurkha Rifles, in the Indian Army during World War II when the following deed took place on 12/13 May 1945 for which he was awarded the VC:

His Battalion was part of the 89^th Indian Infantry Brigade of 7^th Indian Infantry Division, which was ordered to cross the Irrawaddy River and attack Japanese forces to the north of the road from Prome to Taungup. The Japanese withdrew towards Taungdaw, where Gurung was part of the two companies of the 4th Battalion, 8th Gurkha Rifles waiting, when the Japanese attacked in force in the early morning.

Rifleman Lachhiman Gurung was manning the most forward post of his platoon which bore the brunt of an attack by at least 200 of the Japanese enemy. They attacked with guns, machines guns, tanks and grenades, twice he hurled back grenades which had fallen on his trench, but when He tried to clear the third grenade, it exploded in his right hand, blowing off his fingers, shattering his arm and severely wounding him in the face, body and right leg. His two comrades were also badly wounded but the rifleman, now alone and disregarding his wounds, loaded and fired his rifle with his left hand for four hours, calmly waiting for each attack which he met with fire at point blank range. Afterwards, when the casualties were counted, it is reported that there were 31 dead Japanese around his position which he had killed, with only one arm.

"It is only that we have such bad tempers when something makes us angry"
Lachhiman Gurung VC when asked "What makes Gurkhas so brave?"

4.      Bhanbhagta Gurung (My personal favourite) 

Havildar Bhanbhagta Gurung (September 1921 – 1 March 2008) (also known as Bhanbhakta Gurung) was a Nepalese recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

At the age about 24 years old, and as a Rifleman in the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Gurkha Rifles, British Indian Army when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC :

On 5 March, 1945, at Snowdon-East, near Tamandu, Burma (now Myanmar), Gurung and his unit were approaching Snowdon-East. His company became pinned down by an enemy sniper and was suffering casualties. As this sniper was inflicting casualties on the section, Rifleman Bhanbhagta Gurung, being unable to fire from the lying position, stood up fully exposed to the heavy fire and calmly killed the enemy sniper with his rifle, thus saving his section from suffering further casualties.

The section advanced again but came under heavy fire once again. Without waiting for orders, Gurung dashed out to attack the first enemy fox-hole, throwing two grenades, he killed the two occupants and without any hesitation rushed on to the next enemy fox-hole and killed the Japanese in it with his bayonet. He cleared two further fox-holes with bayonet and grenade. During his single-handed attacks on these four enemy fox-holes, Rifleman Bhanbhagta Gurung was subjected to almost continuous and point-blank Light Machine Gun fire from a bunker on the North tip of the objective. For the fifth time, Gurung went forward alone in the face of heavy enemy fire to knock out this position. He doubled forward and leapt on to the roof of the bunker from where, his hand grenades being finished, he flung two No. 77 smoke grenades into the bunker slit. Gurung killed two Japanese soldiers who ran out of the bunker with his Kukri, and then advanced into the cramped bunker and killed the remaining Japanese soldier.

SECURING LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS

What can be termed as a progressive move that will have a far reaching impact, the Maharashtra government recently proposed an amendment in the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) that would give a woman in a live-in relationship the right to seek maintenance post-desertion.

The Maharashtra Government approved that a woman in a live-in relationship for a “reasonable period” of time would get the status of a “wife”. The approval came on the heels of the recommendations of the Justice Malimath Committee, which said that if a man and a woman are living together shall be deemed to have married according to customary rights of either party.

However, the Centre has comfortably chosen to ignore them as they are bound to raise the hackles of the moral police. When the proposed amendment was announced, critics immediately sprung up to say that the move would encourage men and women to get into multiple relationships outside of marriage. One of the major reasons for this move was that numerous women were finding it very difficult to get any assistance from men who had deserted them after living with them on the promises of marriage in the future. In many cases, the women did not even know that the man they had been living with was, in fact, already married.

As per the Malimath Committee recommendations, the state government, therefore, wants the Cr.P.C. to be amended so that the word “wife” under section 125 includes a woman living with a man like his wife for a “reasonably long period”. This will ensure that these women are entitled to alimony. When the amendment comes through, it will, for the first time, protect the interest of women who have been taken for a ride by uncaring men. But the State has yet to clarify how long the “reasonably long period” should be and this ambiguity many feel may give rise to bigamy.

Following the case law of Madan Mohan Singh Vs. Rajni Kant, Supreme Court of India in this case had held that a couple in a long-term live-in relationship would be presumed to be married under law, unless proven otherwise. A live-in relationship if continued for such a long time cannot be termed as a “walk in and walk out” relationship and there is a presumption of marriage between them. Justice P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan allows son born out of wedlock to be named as property heirs, the children in such cases will not be considered illegitimate under section 144 of the Evidence Act.

The Supreme Court while examining whether a woman can claim maintenance from a man with whom she was in a live-in relationship, the Bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly appointed senior advocates Altaf Ahmed and P.S. Patwalia and counsel Shibu Shankar Mishra as amicus curiae in the matter to assist the court and seek their suggestions on the issue. The court decided to adjudicate on the issue as the man, who was asked by the High Court to provide maintenance to the live-in partner, has challenged the decision. The man has claimed that since they were not married, he was under no obligation under law to provide maintenance.

Of the latest Supreme Court judgment in the case of Chunmuniya Vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, the court has held that support should be given if woman is deserted by long-term partner, married or no, women maintenance a must. In a landmark judgment and first of its kind in the history of Supreme Court, Justice A.K. Ganguly, sitting with senior judge G.S. Singhvi, ruled that it is immaterial whether the woman was legally married to the man or not, what matters is whether she was completely dependent on him for sustenance or not. Woman can’t be left vagrant. Right to life (guaranteed under the constitution) includes the right to live with dignity. It is not possible to live with dignity when a woman has no food and leads the life of a destitute. Justice Singhvi added that “Someone has to take care of her if she is not able to, just to prevent vagrancy. Leaving women to vagrancy threatens social stability and public order; women are after all the source of all power.

The two judges were hearing the petition of a woman, Chunmuniya, who claimed that after her husband Ram Sharan died his younger brother Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, as was the practice in her caste. Among some communities in northern India, the widow of an older brother is forced to live with any surviving brother. The marriage was performed simply by doing a Katha. Virendra who was 10 years younger than Ram Sharan, deserted her in 1996. She moved an application for maintenance on March 26, 1997, but he married another woman in 1998 while it was pending. A family court upheld Chunmuniya’s plea for maintenance. But Virendra went to the High Court denying that he had been married to her. He claimed she had fraudulently inserted her name as his wife in the family register with the panchayat to get a share of the property.

The High Court ruled in his favour on November 11, 2007, saying Chunmuniya had not been able to prove marriage. Innovation before a sacred fire and Saptapadi were the two ceremonies essential to the validity of a marriage, setting aside the family court order. Chunmuniya then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decided that the issue needed consideration and appointed Altaf Ahmad and P.S. Patwalia as the amicus curiae to assist the Judges in deciding the issue. Both contended that the law could be interpreted to include all such women in the definition of “wife” to enable them to get maintenance.

Ahmed said that if a woman marries under personal laws, she immediately gets several rights and obligations. Those who do not, do not get any rights. “If such dependent women are provided for this trend (of living-in) will also be discouraged, he contended. The bench agreed that the status of a wife need not be a pre-requisite for getting maintenance before reserving orders in the case. A prolonged domestic relationship resembling marriage is enough to entitle a deserted woman to maintenance, it observed.

Patwalia said that living-in was a fast catching “urban phenomenon” which the law must address. “Here the man has no obligations or responsibilities of any kind. Let the law reach out to them”, he said.

The Bench also expressed anguish over the use of such words as “illegitimate Children” and “Other Woman” in various laws and blamed the “patriarchal” mindset of lawmakers for this. “The use of the word illegitimate stigmatizes these children the day they are born”, Justice Singhvi said.

At another point, the court criticized lawmakers for enshrining Rs.500/- as the maximum maintenance per month in a 1973 law. “Whoever fixed the amount was miserly”, the judges observed. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, enshrines this as the maiximum maintenance for all dependants – wife and children.

In 1976 California court had developed the concept of paying Palimony for deserted Live-in Pal dumped by the other Partner in the Marvin Versus Marvin case, involving American actor Lee Marvin and his partner. His partner of several years took him to court seeking “rehabilitation payments” after the relationship was over. Although she sought half of the property earned during the relationship, she was awarded only a fixed amount that was later set aside by an appellate court. The California court ruled that a woman in a non –marital relationship was not entitled to any benefits under family law but she was entitled to palimony. While provisions of the Family Law Act do not govern distribution of property acquired during a non-marital relationship, the court should enforce express contracts between cohabitants except when it was explicitly founded on the consideration of “meretricious sexual services”, the California court had quoted.

With upcoming generation our Indian Judiciary today is strongly advocating the need to develop such a concept in India. Hearing a case involving a couple from Tamil Nadu, a bench of Justice Markandey Katju and T.S. Thakur asked: “Why should we not develop such a concept in our country?”

In the Tamil Nadu case, one D. Patchaiamal claimed that D. Velusamy had married her on September 19, 1986 and dumped her soon after. She then approached the family court, seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.  The family court awarded her Rs.500/- per month but the man challenged the order in the High Court and then in the Supreme Court. He claimed he had a legally wedded first wife who was still living. He had married in 1981 and had a daughter from the marriage, his counsel said. Therefore, he could not have validly married another woman in 1986. Since the second marriage was invalid, she had no maintenance rights, he argued. But the court said : “You have taken youth and then deserted her. Why shouldn’t you pay palimony?” “Why shouldn’t we presume an oral contract?” Justice Katju wondered. In such cases, the woman need not have statutory rights under the law, but she could have contractual rights, he emphasized. A contract could be presumed from either an oral agreement or by conduct of parties (prolonged cohabitation), he said. Since the lady was not present in court, the bench directed senior counsel Jayant Bhushan to represent her interests and explore whether she could be granted “palimony”. Such a right under American Law is called a Marvin right.

On October 21st, 2010, the Supreme Court pruned the scope of live-in relationships under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, thus preventing many women who have been dumped by their partners from claiming maintenance.

 

The SC hinged its judgment on the fact that Parliament, while enacting the Domestic Violence Act, had mentioned "relationships in the nature of marriage" and not "live-in relationships" and said both were quite different from each other.

A Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and T S Thakur culled out four important grounds from the definition of `common law marriage' and said that arrangements commonly understood as live-in relationship must satisfy these conditions to be recognised as a "relationship in the nature of marriage" under the DV Act.

When a live-in partners satisfied these four conditions in addition to living together under one roof, only then could a deserted woman move an application before the concerned area magistrate seeking maintenance from the man who deserted her, said the court. The four conditions are:

 

* The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses;

 
* They must be of legal age to marry;

 
* They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried;

* They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time;

 

The SC was aware that laying down these conditions would exclude a lot of live-in partners from claiming maintenance from their male partners in case of desertion.

 

"No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a live-in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act, but then it is not for this court to legislate or amend the law," said Justice Katju, who wrote the judgment for the Bench.

The SC also stated that "merely spending weekends together or a one-night stand would not make it a domestic relationship" under the DV Act. Moreover, "if a man has a `keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant, it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage" under the Act.
This judgment came in a case where a woman, D Patchaiammal, had a two-year relationship with an already married man D Velusamy, who later deserted her to be with his wife Lakshmi and family. Twelve years after the alleged desertion, Patchaiammal moved a Coimbatore family court seeking maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code.

The family court held that Velusamy was married to Patchaiammal and not to Lakshmi and ordered payment of alimony. The Madras HC upheld the family court's order. Velusamy appealed against it.

The Supreme Court set aside the trial court and HC orders saying without giving notice to Lakshmi, the courts could not have come to a finding that Velusamy was married to Patchaiammal because if he was married to Lakshmi before, he could not have married Patchaiammal without divorcing Lakshmi.

 

It said that Patchaiammal would also have to explain why she filed the maintenance plea under Section 125 of CrPC after a lapse of 12 years. The SC remanded the matter back to the family court asking it to determine all these issues afresh.

 

CONCLUSION :

Lastly, as times passes, marriage as an institution will get less important. It has already lost ground. A lot of people in urban settings are living together. In this quest for the right of the woman in a live-in relationship, are we not viewing marriage as a purely simple contract?

(Abstract from My Article on “Right to Maintenance Revisited”  submitted in College Final Year Practical)

I am Alive

There are many people who have forgotten to live, in everyday schedule they have lost the realization of this wonderful life. They have lost the appreciation for life, for love for oneself.

I mean We have the same routine, same route, same vision;

Take a wrong turn Today, see less observe More, like less Love more, just don’t rush Today Live more.

Walk bare feet, feel the World, close the eyes and imagine this World, the World I want to live, Forgive the most hated enemy, lighten the Head a little bit, loosen the body feel the calmness.

Breath in to be Happy and Breath out that small portion of Darkness from the back of the Head, take a sip of water don’t swallow it, let it wash the loneliness down the throat.

So the realization of this life comes, life that is so short and vulnerable, its not gonna be there forever. That walk in a Rain, jamming with my frens, that hug from my galfren, mom’s food, dad’s pride . . . .

I know its been years, don’t see so many faces around, I know they are gone and gone forever . . . .

Its too short to grief, to hate, to plan . . . . Do it now . . . . Live it now . . . .

I laid down in a Green grass, smelt the moist earth, looked up to Blue sky and there were white puffy clouds just like when I was a kid, when I used to run inside home and hug my Mom’s leg with smile and she use to bend down to kiss my forehead . . . .

With the realization how short life is, I was Alive!!!!

Alive to appreciate Life more, to understand that Life is much more beautiful to Grief for something else, to forgive not for sake of it but to end the hatred inside self and most importantly to Love that someone who is Alive for YOU . . . . .

You have a Life; a short time though, go take a wrong turn, don’t keep it for tomorrow, show Love as much as you can; feel for your Life today, get Alive Today . . . .

“When I’ll be Dead, Your tears may Flow; but I won’t know, Cry for Me now instead.

When I’ll be Dead,  You’ll send Flowers; but I won’t see, Send them now instead.

When I’ll be Dead, You’ll say words of Praise; but I won’t hear, Praise me now instead.

When I’ll be Dead, You’ll forget my Faults; but I won’t know, Forget them now instead.

When I’ll be Dead, You’ll miss Me then; but I won’t feel, so miss Me now instead.

When I’ll be Dead, You would wish that You could have Spent some more Time with Me; Spend it with Me now instead”  . . . .