It's a glowing tribute isn't it? It was written by a soldier in 1931 about the men he fought with.

He knew their worth. Unfortunately the Government didn't. Well, not until now – and it was the High Court that had to open its eyes.

The Gurkhas have been serving Britain for almost 200 years. They are an integral part of the British Army and are justly proud of their achievements.

So proud, in fact, that each year about 28,000 young men from the hills of Nepal undergo the fiercest selection process in the world. To get one of only 200 coveted places they must, among other things, run uphill for 40 minutes with a wicker basket containing 70lbs of rocks on their backs.

More than 200,000 fought for us in the two world wars – and more than 43,000 sacrificed their lives to keep our country safe.

And what did we do? We told them they weren't good enough to settle here. And if they were already here, they could face deportation. Oh, and they had to live on a smaller pension than every other soldier too.

Finally, this national disgrace has been brought to an end – but only because five old warriors found the courage to fight one more battle.

They challenged immigration rules that said because they retired before 1997, they did not have an automatic right to stay here.

The date was key to the Government's argument. Before that, the Gurkhas were based in Hong Kong. When it was handed back to China, the troops headed to their new base in the UK.

It took until last year for the Government to cave in to public pressure and allow all those who retired after 1997 to stay here on a full pension. The other 2,000 surviving Gurkhas, they claimed, did not have strong enough residential ties to Britain – even though every other foreign soldier who spends long enough in the British Army apparently does.

But they reckoned without the bravery of five old men, a determined lawyer and a judge who was bright enough to realise that their bravery, loyalty and the gratitude felt by ordinary British people meant we had a moral debt of honour.

Now the Home Secretary has scuttled off to sort things out, claiming she had always "been clear" that compelling cases deserved to be considered for settlement.

Well, not many people have more compelling cases than the Gurkhas, do they?

So why am I getting so worked up about this?

Well it's partly because I'm from an Army family and remember the sheer awe in which these Nepalese warriors, who still carry their traditional knife, the kukri, into battle, were held.

But it's mostly because this should never have happened. It makes us all look bad – and it shows just how out of touch our so-called betters are with the British public.

jane.percival@halifaxcourier.co.uk