The Profession of Arms
The soldier is not a civilian with a different job; the former is held to higher standards than most outside the Army can ever comprehend. “An army exists to advance by force or the threat of force civil policies that cannot be advanced by civil methods”. The profession of arms is the only human endeavour wherein inflicting utmost destruction and maximum deaths are it’s raison d’etre, the means, and the end. This unique and peerless feature of the Army is contingent upon it having certain distinguishing traits and characteristics at the personnel, organisational and systemic levels.
It is incumbent for all in the profession of arms to possess and enhance those traits essential for success in war (manhood–in-action). They are: valour, vigour, boldness, fortitude, vigilance, alertness, unflinching courage in the face of enemy, generosity and lordliness as exhorted in the Bhagawat Gita: “sauryam tejo dhrtir daksyam, yuddhe capya palayanam, danam isvara-bhavas-ca, ksatram karma svabhava-jam”; XVIII-43. “A soldiers greatest weapon is aggression”.
Defence Minister of those times, Sri Krishna Menon playing ducks and drakes with Army’s top brass, packed the senior posts in the Army with “his men” leading to the then COAS submitting his resignation in protest.
It is also absolutely essential that all in the Army possess and maintain the essential standards of physical strength, fitness and stamina at all times.
The Army ‘way of life’ demands in every individual the capacity to disregard and sacrifice personal convenience and comfort(s), capability to endure extremely adverse conditions and yet uphold the spirit and will to win. “Hardships are best borne in silence and the ability to do this is a real soldierly virtue.”
The Army is sworn to perform @24x7x365, as a cohesive entity. Individual roles and capabilities and knowledge of the same amongst each other is critical to their effectiveness. Further, the capabilities and calibre of the leaders (the officers) be such that the soldier reposes absolute faith and trust on the former.
Enduring, enriching and fulfilling leader-led (officer-men) bonds are nurtured and sustained over a life-time “symbolising trust, respect, warmth, confidence and interdependence”.
Unlike any other human organisation, the work-life needs of the Army necessitate a masculine subculture which functions upholding the highest standards of discipline and strictly adhering to a formalised and inviolable ‘chain-of-command’. Further, the unique features of the Indian Army are such that not only are some of the ‘Fundamental Rights’ (constitutional provisions enjoyed by every citizen) denied to its personnel but they are also governed by a set of different laws (seemingly draconian but deemed essential) so as to regulate their conduct.
The Indian Army
All the cited attributes exist in the Indian Army, in substantial measures. Though the soldiers are considered to be of modest education and exposure, the Indian Army, with it’s deep and valuable work culture, tradition and system is able to transform a tentative villager, not only into a man-of-action with a sense of purpose and value system, but also imbibes in him commitment to willingly lay down his life for his comrades, his officers, his army, his country. Furthermore, the Army can justifiably be proud of it’s work culture, tradition and system that insulates it from the turbulences, pulls and pressures of the civil society.
Turbulent Phase. At the time of Independence, it was ironical that among the entire political fraternity, none other than the ‘Apostle of Peace’ (Mahatma Gandhi), had any military experience. Gandhiji having served in the Field Ambulance Corps (during the WW I), had the highest regards for military discipline and organisation. His mentor Sri Gokahale also had believed “… that the Indian Army would in the end do more to India’s progress than any number of Royal Commissions.” Immediately after independence, a strong anti-military lobby emerged, with Gandhiji consigned to the periphery in matters of governance. Their utter ignorance of ‘matters military’, influenced, encouraged, and facilitated the perpetration of ideas and actions inimical to the Army. This resulted in the systematic dismantling of the well established and time-tested ‘systems’ of the Indian Army.
Sri Nehru “took little interest in India’s Army, which he intended, by means of a subtle and conciliatory foreign policy, to avoid using”. These non-military mindsets/ideas/approaches, coupled with a pathological fear about the rise of a “man on horseback”, which the politicians and administrators nurtured, led to the complete degradation of the internal vitals of the Indian Army. Things came to such a pass that a Defence Minister of those times, Sri Krishna Menon (accused as an erratic and irascible personality and Mr. Nehru’s close friend) playing ducks and drakes with Army’s top brass, packed the senior posts in the Army with “his men” leading to the then COAS submitting his resignation in protest.
Thus the thoroughly degraded ‘organ’ (the demoralised Army) could not ‘perform’ when the need arose (the Sino-Indian border conflict of 1962). Yet, the Army gave an excellent account of itself in Ladakh. But in NEFA, the humiliating defeat of the Fourth Indian Division which had been described as “incomparable” by Field-Marshal Slim during the WW II, symbolised the destruction of visions of India’s grandeur. Though labelled as a military debacle, it was more a “political debacle” as is evident from the fact that the ‘Henderson-Brooks Report’, to this day is classified, even though a Defence Secretary in 1978 and a Raksha Mantri during the late 90’s had urged that the report be released.
When professionalism was restored and the internals were re-vitalised, the Indian Army displaying unmatched professional competence achieved a spectacular military success in 1971 by dismembering Pakistan.
When professionalism was restored and the internals were re-vitalised, the Indian Army displaying unmatched professional competence achieved a spectacular military success in 1971 by dismembering Pakistan and creating Bangladesh. By this outstanding ‘feat of arms’ the Indian Army earned a permanent niche in the annals of military history the world over.
In the early nineties of the last century, Punjab and J&K were restored to the nation by the Indian Army. This was after the corrupt and venal civil administrator(s) and the political chicanery of the ‘rulers’ had set in motion a process which nearly culminated in these two states seceding from India. Likewise, the North-Eastern states were held together and kept as a part of India during the “dangerous years”, “not by the provisions of the Constitution nor by the capabilities of the civil administration”, but solely by the Indian Army.
No wonder, tremendous goodwill for the Indian Army exists in India so much so that it tops the confidence chart among the Indian public as the most respected institution for “putting national security and (national) welfare above its own”.
Current Concerns. It should be a matter of concern to all ‘concerned’ when alleged slippages in the ‘system(s)’ of the Army are reported such as : rise of hedonism at all levels, marketing and merchandising of the Army with hyped advertisements as if it were some tourist package (solely highlighting pay, perks, privileges, adventure, excitement and the thrill factors), creation and perpetration of a hierarchy based ‘class system’ among the officers and the resultant disconnect among them, dissonance among the top brass, allegations and counter allegations regarding conduct of operations, the disquiet and the disruptive effect of women officers in the Army and so on. Are these merely “anchor-driven formulations and views” with sms, “tweets and blogs as props” for frenzied TV channel debates and opinion polls?
It is alleged that among the three services, the physical standards laid down for the women officers were lowest in the case of the Army; even lower than for the police!
Or, are these manifestations of a deeper malaise afflicting the Army, capable of dismantling the well-established cohesion, regimental spirit, morale and fighting potential of the Army; a la a throw back to the turbulent phase cited earlier. If it is, it would be a tragic irony, in that this time around it will have only itself to blame and it may take a long haul to bring things to an even keel, if at all.
Women in the Indian Army
Save the case of women officers in the Army, all the other alleged ‘slippages’ are matters which are to be addressed ‘in-house’ adopting the ‘top-down- zero-tolerance’ approach.
However, the issue of women officers in the Army being in the public domain, this article addresses the impugned issue.
A ‘Self Goal’
It is a fascinating paradox that the issue is a ‘self goal’ (due to the “skewed” decision) by a service chief of the past. An unsavoury question has to be faced. Was it a case, as Norman Dixon had suggested in his book “Treatise on the Psychology of Military Incompetence”, that senior Army officer(s) has to pander his alter ego? Or was it an error in judgement, that the era of wars and military engagements had come to an end and the role of the Army in future would only be for peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, stability and support operations; hence why not make it bisexual! Yet another uncomfortable question is:
Does the ‘I’ in India stand for Imitation? A number of western military terminologies, concepts, dressing patterns, customs – the throwing up of the head gear on commissioning of officers; an inanity- and so on have unabashedly found their place in the Indian Army; was the case of induction of women also, one more imitation?
What-ever be the answers, it was a monumental disservice to the Army and a violation as is evident from the experiences and feedbacks on the issue. Mildly stated, it had been a case of “speech preceding action and action preceding thought”!
Women respond better to a supportive, nurturing, participatory approach that emphasises relationships whereas men respond better to military style leadership that emphasises the individuals place in the hierarchy based on ego, recognition and status.
The women officers’ presently in the Army are in no way accountable for the disruptive role to which, they unknowingly have become a party. After all they are the ‘brave-hearts’ who positively responded to the marketing and merchandising of the ‘Life in the Army’ by means of hyped advertisements (as though it were some tourism package; solely highlighting the thrills and excitement of seeing places, the scope for adventure, enjoyment of perks and privileges and handsomely being paid all the while). How could they know that advertisements are merely “the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get more money from it”. Furthermore, views expressed in this article preclude Army’s lady physicians and nursing officers.
The author is neither a chauvinist nor a misogynist, but has merely applied a commonsensical approach, with the experience of more than three and a half decades of service in the Great Indian Army which was and forever will be “A Matter of Honour”. The author is the votary of the perception that “In fact all men are a part of women. In the womb all children are a part of the mother’s body. As regards the creation of a new life, the contribution by man is minimal. For him it is a matter of a moment. However, it is the woman who is the ‘life-giver’ and enduring phenomenal discomfort, creates both the internal and external environment for that life to grow till it can be on it’s own. Woman is mother” and that “A mother surpasses a thousand fathers”.
Being Armed with Facts
Frenzied opinions will be bandied by the political society, feminists, “enlightened progressive liberals” and the media with accusations (against the Army) such as ‘gender-insensitivity’, ‘gender-bias’, “Army’s sentiments being at odds with social expectations” and so on. However, knowledge of the facts alone will facilitate policy formulation on the issue as also to navigate the legal labyrinths in which the issue will be contested.
An incomplete list of facts and perspectives as under, are evaluated to constructively intervene and argue as to why women in the Indian Army in general and as officers in particular is an inanity; will be disruptive and will in absolute terms undermine the system.
George Orwell conveyed the idea in unambiguous terms: “People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
Cultural Factors : Western vis-à-Vis Indian Perspectives
It is a bane of our country that in India with its diverse traditions and cultures, what is peddled by the suave, urban and westernised elite is passed of as the voice of the masses and becomes the aspiration of every citizen!
Our beliefs, instincts and approaches towards life are different to those western. Therefore, transplanting to India, theories, role models, work-life mores and so on, which may be ‘sauce’ for the west, “because it is the ‘rational’ thing to do by the liberal book, is pure foolishness.” In such matters, a conservative approach would be more pragmatic. The term ‘conservative’ is explained by Dhiren Bhagat: “For the conservative the organic nature of society must be studied before change is contemplated; if the proposed change violates the organism of local institutions it is not a wise change, and cannot have the desired effort.”
Citing the example of the presence of women in western armies cannot become the basis for its adoption in India. The ‘I’ in India does not stand for IMITATION. Western openness to sexual politics are radical and by those standards women may have been inducted into western Armies (even their analysts consider it as “Flirting With Disaster”). The following are illustrative of western openness to sexual politics which will be met with open hostility in India and will shock public morality.
“The US Defence Department commissioned a study-Non-Conforming Sexual Orientations and Military Suitability – which concluded that there was no evidence that homosexuals were any more likely than heterosexuals to threaten the integrity of the services.”
“… the issue of the rights of gays and lesbians… is on the agenda in the USA, as it is (with greater official support) in the Netherlands, where the Defence Ministry has funded a Foundation for Homosexuality and the Armed Forces.”
Hence, there is no case for us and specially the Indian Army to blindly imitate the West nor yield to ‘modernity’ and ‘glass ceiling’ rhetoric’s. The practices and mores that we adopt need to be based on our own wisdom and genius. To further emphasise the idea would it be ok to adopt the Gun Laws of USA in India (and allow the people to defend themselves by buying, holding and carrying guns) as there are “just some 12000 plus police stations in some seven lakh towns and villages” for protecting the 1.2 billion Indians?
Arguments that women can perform support roles are untenable, in that it would be much more economical to civilianise the peacetime support roles”
Physical and Training Related Issues
Due to the unique requirements of the Army, it is elective: it has age limits, height/weight limits, health standards, intelligence standards, performance standards and so on and tests in this regard are conducted prior to intake. Women in general fall woefully short of most of the required standards stipulated.
It is established that physiological differences between men and women abound. Clinical symptoms of ailments vary between men and women. Men and women process medicines differently. Certain drugs that treat men aggravate the ailment in women. In some cases higher dosages are required for women as rising levels of hormones, due to monthly periods, speed up drug clearance rates.
Differences in build, heart size, elasticity in the musculature of the heart, bone-mass/density, lower body bone structure, stride length, time taken for food to pass through the body (which is more for women), monthly blood loss and so on cause women to suffer disproportionately from Achilles tendon problems, knee, back and leg pain, fractures of the tibia, foot, and hip, lower abdominal pain, exhaustion and acute mood swings. They fall woefully short of the physical strength and stamina requirements for normal Army activities such as running, jumping, climbing, digging, marching and so on with weights ranging 40-70 lbs in varied geographical areas and under extreme climatic conditions.
It is alleged that among the three services, the physical standards laid down for the women officers were lowest in the case of the Army; even lower than for the police! Why this compromise, when soldierly image, bearing and manner of an officer and so on are the hallmark of the Army.
Allegedly an “ambiguous selection process” with “compromised standards” was adopted for intake of women as officers. When it requires minimum three years training even for a National Cadet Corps (NCC) cadet to obtain a ‘C’ Certificate, the seemingly illogical process adopted for the induction of women as officers into the Army was: applications were supposedly short listed at the Army HQ without any tests whatsoever, thereafter a SSB interview for the short-listed, six months training and voila commission as a women officer in the Indian Army ! Was it another case of “too much in India has depended on the discretionary powers of too few…the biggest beneficiaries have been the women from the class of the benefactors”.
…women officers find a place in the Army merely due to politeness and courtesy and not by merit (merit alone grants a right for permanent commission).
Compare this with the non-dilution of standards when women were inducted into the IPS. The initial screening and selection process remained with the UPSC – with their written examinations maintaining highest levels of rigour, and uncompromising training standards.
Double Standards. The current state of double/relaxed standards in physical fitness parameters for women obscure the reality as to how unsuitable and inappropriate the Army is for women. In jest, it could be compared to the game of tennis with three sets for women and five for men and yet demands for the same prize money for both!
To emphasise as to how the physical standards impact on training let us refer to the monumental military classic ‘The Officer as a Leader’: “It can be said again and again: The highest form of physical training that an officer can undergo is the physical conditioning of his own men.” Furthermore, training in the Army is based on the dictum “Treat Jawan’s like race horses: while in the stable look after them well; out on the course ride them like hell”. How will it ever be possible for women!
Women with their innate ‘Tamasic’ (un-activity based) nature and men with their innate ‘Rajaisic’ (activity based) nature are the yin yang of life (Taoist philosophical concept which explains interconnection and interdependence of seemingly opposite’s for balance).
Women respond better to a supportive, nurturing, participatory approach that emphasises relationships whereas men respond better to military style leadership that emphasises the individuals place in the hierarchy based on ego, recognition and status.
The Profession of Arms cannot be trivialised with “glass ceiling arguments. The Army can neither be made the laboratory to experiment social issues nor the battle field for the “battle of the sexes”.
Men respond in the desired manner to military style of command and control (anger, reproof, admonition and even yelling) whereas it frightens women and sends them into depression.
Men prefer a formal atmosphere while at work. Women are better off being informal, relaxed.
Men tend to adopt the ‘get-on with-and get over with-the-job’ attitude and are indifferent to what is thought of them once the job is done whereas women adopt a ‘please-all’ approach and expect to be appreciated all along the course.
According to the Indian civilisational experience, feminine nature (Stritvam) is characterised by “deep affections and binding attachments.” Not so for men.
Behavioural characteristics of women, comes in the way of imparting of meaningful training to them as also their military ‘grooming”. Grooming is a must for shedding the baggage from past careers and experiences, inculcating attitudinal changes and adopting a new set of values so as to integrate with the professional needs and ethos of the Indian Army. Over and above other factors, fear of accusations of ‘Sexual harassment’ also significantly inhibit grooming; ‘play safe’ approach is adopted and the end result is laissez-faire. The perception that women in the Indian Army have not been subjected to the “bite of boots and bonds of discipline” is more or less correct.
Work-Life Conditions in the Army
Masculinity vs Femininity. The “Army is about physical tenacity, violence, physical rigor, and many other such characteristics that go with being men”, as it is men who are expected to deal with and eliminate the violence unleashed by other men. Since only masculine subculture exists among the ‘band of brothers’ and the ‘‘brother officers’ in the Army, induction of women whereby men perceiving themselves as ‘followers of women’ bedevil the latter (men) with inanity.
Relation among the Sexes. Sexual energy is being exchanged between the sexes, at all times, even without any form of physical contact. However, it is like the emperor’s nakedness – obvious but unmentionable. “Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relations with men, in their relations with women, all men are rapists, and that’s all they are (sic)”. Though this is an extremely prejudiced view, it may have some validity as human actions take place by thought, word and deed (‘manasa’, ‘vaacha’, ‘karmana’).The work-life conditions of the Army make it a “one-sexed society” with attendant implications. Moreover, soldiering is a nocturnal activity with minimal activities planned during daytime. George Orwell conveyed the idea in unambiguous terms: “People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” Taking into consideration the validity of Murphy’s law it requires no further elaboration to infer that a ‘threat in being’ to women exists at all places and at all times; Hence, do we need to subject our women to such a state of affairs?
Young Officers (YOs) and the Officers Mess. The entire burden of operations fall on the “ubiquitous Young Officer”. John Masters provides an insight regarding the systemic approach with the YO’s. “War is a dirty business and young officers (have to bear the brunt and hence) are trained for war; a wild young man can learn wisdom as he grows older; a spiritless young man cannot (have the fire in the belly that) win(s) wars. They do things to expend the fiendish energy of youth and in the process also learn the intangibles which hold men together in times of severe stress. The code (for the YO) has very little to do with written rules, regulations and laws.”
Will not the presence of women in their midst necessitate ‘edited’ conversations and conduct, shattering the morale, traditions, and standards of the male YO’s?
And what about the customs, traditions and conduct in Officers Messes’? Since hard liquor on the same scale as for men is authorised to women also, would not any restriction in this regard amount to gender based discrimination? Since ‘class based’ ALFA Mess and BRAVO Mess exist, maybe CHARLIE Mess for women officers with ‘Men’s Room(s)’ for the husbands is the way out!
No Flexi Timings. Since Army is sworn to serve @24x7x365 basis, there is no scope for “flexi-timings”. The implications on both women (aggravated due to their child bearing/rearing needs) and the organisation (responsible for mitigation of problems) are significant; either rules have to be bend or separate rules for women be made. Creation of separate “women’s spaces’ and the attendant logistical problems need no elaboration.
Leadership Related Issues
Army has historically been the organisation most cognisant of leadership. The importance of having the right kind of leadership is explicit in the saying by Mark Twain: “An army of stags led by a lion is far superior to an army of lions led by a stag.” Unless there is “acceptance” of the leader by the led, the outward expression of courtesy shown by the ‘led’ to the badges of rank of any (purporting) ‘leader’ means nothing. It is this “acceptance” of the officer by the Jawans’ which makes the former a member of the family, of the blood. “You do not wear leadership on your sleeves, on your shoulders, on your caps or on your calling cards. Be you Lieutenants or Generals, we’re the guys you’ve got to convince and we will meet you more than halfway”. The social ethos of the Jawans’ being what it is (“…across the length and breadth of the nation…now across the mountains, now across rivers, plains. The lines … crisscross the entire nation”) “acceptance” of women in the leadership role in the Army requires a serious reality check.
Performance Appraisal. Progression in the hierarchy of the Indian Army is presumed as the “cream rising to the top”, based on a performance evaluation system which relies on objective assessment of the “actual stuff” of the officers. The system is considered as the very best in the country (do the ‘cream’ having risen become “corks” merely floating and flowing with the current; but then that is a separate topic by itself). However, incongruity in the dynamics of the evaluation system is evident in the case of women officers as the criterion of ‘objective’ and “actual stuff’ are seemingly intangible in their case.
Leadership Training. Indian Army’s exhaustive publication, dealing with the doctrines and concepts on the subject of leadership postulates that “leadership and management are different”. The second edition of this publication of 2004 (12 years since women were inducted as officers), makes no reference to the ‘women-leading-led-issues’ in the context of the paternalistic and masculine environs of the Indian Army. Is it because the women officers are merely involved in managerial duties only and hence, neither are ‘leading’ nor are being ‘led’ (and are only ‘managing’ and are being ‘managed’)!
Weak Links. Individual capabilities of all the team/ group members and knowledge of the same amongst each other is critical to success of operations. Presence of women with unproven capabilities will adversely impinge on the self confidence of the group. Since a chain is only as strong as weakest link, there is no scope for the Army to have any links with ‘weaknesses’.
Interrogation and Torture of Women. In the current age of mass media, images are extensively used for creating and influencing opinions. It requires no imagination to foresee the effect of threats about harsh treatment and interrogation of captured women officers. This hazard can severely impact on the will to resist and fight (both at the individual and collective levels).
Women Performing Support Roles in the Army (?). Arguments that women can perform support roles are untenable, in that it would be much more economical to civilianise the peacetime support roles and reduce levels of military staffing and thereby achieve “value for money”, “cost-effectiveness of manpower”, “trimming the size of the tail” and so on.
A Reality Check
A reality check as to how women officers are actually employed on ground (as opposed to what is on paper) may be revealing. More often than not, women officers posted (on paper) to perform duties (outdoors only) are assigned mundane, ‘safe’, directly supervised, indoor-only duties. It suits every one: women due to their perceived fears tend to become “work-safe” and male officers’ tend become “daddy- figures” to ensure ‘safe’ conditions to prevent ‘troubles’.
Hence, regrettably, women officers are spoken about in pejorative terms such as ‘merely existing and not soldiering’ and as “passive recipients (of undue favours) or objects of state largesse or protection.”
Issues Concerning “Equality Jurisprudence”
In matters of “sex”, “what was the position of the state and state enacted laws in India …? The king or the state in India had refrained from handling most issues which the society or families could handle. It is the colonial state, with its laws and courts, that began to intrude the sovereign domain of the family and society. The Indian discipline was always built around un-enforced social and family norms; not state laws.”
Though Art 15 of the Constitution forbids discrimination based on sex, differences between men and women based on functions and mentality ought to be the deciding factor while considering the eligibility of women in Army and not resorting to litigations for enforcement of equality based on sex. There is a considered need to invoke Art 15(3) (discrimination in favour of women) in conjunction with Art 33 of the Constitution for precluding women in the Indian Army. The following judicial rulings seemingly justify, the Army’s case for precluding women from its fold from a legal perspective.
Linking masculine strength of men with their capability to perform “arduous” work and the inability of women to match men in this regard the Hon’able Supreme Court ruled “Men do work like … which women cannot do. In such cases there cannot be any discrimination on the ground of sex.” [M/s Mackinnon Mackenzie and Company Limited vs Audrey D’Costa and Another].
“one of the paramount considerations for the public service must be efficiency of its employees. The state must select and appoint persons most suitable to discharge the duties of a particular job which they are to hold… It is evident that where disparities of either sex, patently add or detract them from the capacity or suitability to hold a particular post or posts, then the state would be entitled to take this factor into consideration with others.” [In Mrs RS Singh vs State of Punjab and Others the ruling by the Hon’able Punjab and Haryana High Court].
However, only legal luminaries (and not the Govt. Counsels) will be able to navigate through the legal labyrinths to obtain judicial pronouncements favouring the Army (for precluding women from its fold) on the on issues concerning “Equality Jurisprudence”.
Issue of Immediate Relevance to Policy
Media Reports on Grant of Permanent Commission to Short Service Commission (SSC) Women Officers. Those Short Service Commission (SSC) Women Officers (presently serving) who were inducted through an “ambiguous selection processes” with “compromised standards”, based on decisions which are alleged as “cavalier, slapdash and hasty” are apparently ineligible for grant of permanent commission. Army’s attitude of sangfroid should not obscure the reality that the SSC women officers find a place in the Army merely due to politeness and courtesy and not by merit (merit alone grants a right for permanent commission). More-over a past precedent exists regarding non-grant of regular commission to those inducted as officers with lower standards. In 1946, of the 10,000 Emergency Commissioned Officers screened, barely 500 were found fit for grant of permanent commission.
Silence of the Sensible. The issue of women in the Army should not be treated as an “extraordinary area of policy where sensible men know they must not ask intelligent questions”. This recourse is pardonable when the stakes are low which is not so in this case. Furthermore, by this approach the malady is permitted to fester and gnaw at the vitals.
Men are not superior to women. However, men alone can discharge the functions in some spheres and women alone in some others. Equating the two as suitable for all spheres is as illogical as attempting to equate an airplane and a ship. Neither survive in the other’s medium but both perform extremely well in their own mediums.
Similarly it is illogical to expect women and men to be equally represented in all spheres; men cannot conceive, deliver or lactate and the attendant respect for ‘motherhood’, vis-a-vis the fathers’. This biological given is not considered as an inequality.
The soldier is not a civilian with a different job and the Army is not an employment generating enterprise to fall back to mitigate the un-employment crisis, a la “a provider of three ‘hots’ and a cot”.
The Profession of Arms cannot be trivialised with “glass ceiling’ arguments. The Army can neither be made the laboratory to experiment social issues nor the battle field for the “battle of the sexes”.
The experience so far is that the current arrangements are highly disruptive. Utmost respect for women is an article of faith in the Indian Army and will continue to be so. However, the issue of women officers, regrettably is viewed in pejorative terms. Standards have been lowered and rules have been bend for women. Facts concerning their efficiency are obscured. The inanity of only ‘soft’ and ‘sheltered’ duties for women, has created a feeling among the rank and file that it does not take much to be an officer, since even women (with the pejorative connotation as the imagined ‘weaker sex’) are able to perform the duties.
Efforts for achieving a “balance” between the two contradictory requirements of having women as officers and yet the Army required to maintain its effectiveness, deserves to be dismissed as wishful thinking.
Policy making on the Army cannot succumb to the pressures of frenzied packs comprising of “enlightened progressive liberals”, the political society, feminists and the media.
The Indian Army is spoken of as the one which the country does not deserve. But if the tweeting and fiddling as of now, goes on without any let or hinder, and it concerns none, the day may not be far off when it becomes one, when the officers and men will be soldiering merely for enjoyment and a lively-hood. Be that as it may, it will be an unforgivable breech of trust with the martyrs who exhort those serving: “We are the dead to you, from failing hands we… (threw) the torch to be yours, to hold it high. If you break faith in us who died. We shall not sleep.”
- “Women in the Armed Forces : Misconceptions and Facts” by Maj Gen (Retd) Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM, INDIAN DEFENCE REVIEW, Vol 25.1; Jan-Mar 2010 (Reproduced in USI Journal of India, Vol CXL, Jan- Mar 2010).
- ‘Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military’ by Brian Mitchell.
- ‘Women in the Military: Flirting With Disaster’ by Brian Mitchell.