|
|
There is growing evidence that the three services are opposing Defense Ministry
diktats to offer permanent commissions to women personnel unless they make
voluntary choices to combat roles and meet demanding physical standards
expected of fighting forces.
Services say that different standards of training, lack of exposure to
commanding troops, and a preference among the women cadre for peace station
postings go against the operational logic and orientation of the armed forces.
With the limited number of peace station posts available, commanders are left
with limited posts to post officers after stressful operational assignments. As
an example, an officer who has done his assignment of a minimum three months in
touch posts such as the Siachen Glacier or Kashmir Valley is generally accepted
to have earned the right to a less stressful staff posting in a peace station.
But because peace station postings may be taken by female officers, the
authorities will have a hard time finding a suitable office for battle-hardened
veteran and may have to let such a valuable asset go.
At the root of many of these issues is a public interest litigation (PIL) filed
by a civilian demanding equal treatment of women. In a response to this PIL,
the services point out important perspectives:
-
The Ethos, customs, norms, conceptual planning, training, etc. in the services
are designed to the development of combat leaders. The organizational
hierarchies, lack of mobility, coupled with insignificant career progression,
in view of limited role played by women officers in the service, do not permit
extensive assignment possibilities. The existing policy consciously excludes
women from serving in combat, whereas the core principles and training values
are directed at combat training. Therefore, unless and until a policy decision
is taken on combat role for women in service, no regular commission can be
granted.
-
The services also say that training for women “is structured in such a way that
it is less demanding physically and therefore the female officers generally
receive lower ratings than men in physical training, leadership and tactical
subjects”. Due to this inadequacy, there were “assignment constraints on
utilization of women officers to a great extent”. As a result, they are not
placed in direct command of troops and are not exposed to combat.
-
The services also emphasize that the Indian army is “command-oriented” geared
to awarding higher ranks to officers selected on the basis of their performance
in command. Therefore, the difference in physical standards, the lack of combat
training such as an infantry attachment (which is compulsory for all gentlemen
cadets), consequent lack of direct command exposure there is an inherent
discrimination subjecting them to unfair competition even if the women serve
alongside the men in staff appointments.
Currently, women are not allowed in combat roles in the army and unless there
is a policy change, their roles will have to be limited to non-combat peace
postings. Furthermore, the since most of the troops raised come from rural
areas, the services expect great resistance to accepting a woman officer
without combat skills or background. Then there are social issues where
services wonder if families are ready to accept men and women to work alongside
in confined spaces and close proximity such as bunkers, submarines, or combat
missions. They say that in such situations, it is often impossible to have
separate personal facilities. As has been seen in the Kargil War, enemies do
not respect Geneva Convention in treating prisoners of war and often hand out
inhuman treatment. Since India’s enemies treat their own women badly, services
fear that India women combatants, who may become prisoners of war, may be dealt
harshly.
One option may be to raise an all women commando or fighting force to deal with
internal strife such as the Naxal or insurgency issues, patrolling (coastal,
maritime, or border), and reconnaissance. This will at least eliminate the
threat of abuse from external forces.
|
