Women in Army

Yes, but not in combat roleby Lt. Gen (retd) Harwant Singh

INTENSE competition amongst the press and TV channels makes them pick up the most innocuous incidents and stories and sensationalise these to no end. Headlines appear and chat shows and surveys are organised, opinions obtained and instant reactions demanded, leaving little scope for sober, deliberate and rational examination of issues. The vice chief of the army was quoted out of context and the defence minister took the exceptionable step of making him tender a public apology. Sushma Swaraj lost no time in leaping on to the bandwagon. Gauging the public mood the defence minister went overboard and talked of inducting women into the combat arms of the army in the hope of drawing some political mileage out of the issue.


Speaking to a group of air force officers, Pranab Mukherjee forgot, or perhaps, did not know, the rank of the Chief of Air Staff or his name. Possibly, he does not know much about combat either; the extreme violence, brutality, privation, suffering; limbs being torn apart, scattering of pieces of flesh, burning alive and bayonets piercing bodies is all part of combat. It is into this hell that the Indian defence minister wants to push our women.

It was General Rodrigues who, as the Chief of Army Staff, opened the gate to women for entry into the officer cadre and to start with, only in certain wings of the army and in the WSES category. It was a wise decision and these women have done well and measured up to the expectations. In a recent order the government has done well in bringing their service conditions, pay and allowances at par with male short service commissioned officers.

There have been a few teething problems with lady officers, but nothing abnormal or alarming. One of them had preferred a false TA/DA claim and had to face the wrath of military law. The presiding officer of the General Court Marshal was a woman, of the rank of a brigadier. Yet the accused and the press tried to bring in extraneous issues, little realising that a false TA/DA claim in the defence services can send the accused to prison for a few years, while the lady in point was merely dismissed from service. There is no gender bias whatever. Quite the contrary, women are shown the highest respect and deference.

It is not to say that there have been no administrative problems in the management of lady doctors in the army. The DG Army Medical Corps once told me that he could not post lady doctors to remote areas where she would be the sole female or to units as medical officers. Thus the load of field postings and to remote areas was borne entirely by male doctors. Once married, they want to be posted along side their husbands, which, very often is not possible.

Women have done well in most fields and in some, even excelled men, such as in civil services, the corporate world and the police. However, the army is a different ball game altogether, more so the combat element of it. Then there are the stresses, strain and pressures peculiar to the defence services. In fact these start from the day one enters the academy. Some break down within days of joining.

Our company at the IMA was free of ragging of new entrants and the relations between seniors and juniors were friendly. So there was no pressure or stress, off parade hours. Yet some cadets could not take the pressure of the routine schedule of the initial few weeks and would throw up their hands and ask for release. As a senior, I tried to persuade one such cadet to hang on and to put up with the pressure for a few more days as the tempo by then would considerably ease, but his will-power had deserted him and he was totally finished. This run-away cadet from the IMA later became the defence secretary. The point is that military service is quite different from the civil services.

Not many are aware of the conditions under which those in the combat arms have to operate and live. During training and combat, physical stress apart, these women will have to share small tents, bivouacs or bunkers with the men. Sharing a blanket with a soldier may have to be accepted. Then there is the issue of isolation and loneliness for these women. Using common toilet facilities with no privacy what-so-ever is another feature during training and combat. Wounded are attended by companions and the unit medical officer. Wounds can be anywhere on the body. Remember women entrants into the IAF had refused to be subjected to medical tests by male doctors.

Then there is the other angle of working conditions, where constant body contact is unavoidable. The potential for allegation of sexual harassment is inbuilt into the situation. Take the case of a modern tank, particularly the type that the Indian army is equipped with. The space within the fighting compartment is extremely restricted. Thus in the ‘closed down’ mode, as it would be in combat and during training, the tank commander’s knees grip the arm pits of the gunner.
I do not know of a tank commander who can carry on with his onerous duties and the main job of locating the enemy and engaging him while there is a woman between his knees (as young officers these women will have to function as tank gunners too). Or a gunner who can shoot straight at the enemy tank while he sits straddled between the knees of his young lady tank commander. So this will not work, Mr Mukherjee. Combat apart, such working conditions alone make the entry of women in the armoured corps, one of the two combat arms of the army, inappropriate.

Admittedly there is a case for induction of women into the defence services in increased numbers. However, their entry into the combat arms, if at all, needs rational examination, attitudinal changes in Indian society and time.


http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060818/edit.htm#6