Should Women be part of the Indian army

The top brass of Indian army is dead against the Delhi High Court judgement on Friday granting permanent commission (PC) to women officers across the board due to what they call 'operational, practical and cultural problems'.

The court, however, turned down the plea for allowing women in combat operations. In its 32-page order, the HC directed the government to grant within two months' time all benefits of PC to all eligible women officers.

There are operational problems, with the overwhelming chunk of the Army deployed along the borders or in counter-insurgency operations, but women officers can certainly be considered for PC in wings like engineering, ordnance, intelligence, signals, logistics, air traffic control and the like, which will not take them directly to the battlefront, it was argued.

"In many fields, like engineering, signals or even flying, women have done better than their male counterparts. So, what is the problem if they are given PC? It's tough to get a second career at 35-40,'' countered a woman officer.

The government in 2008 did issue orders for PC for women officers but, in what many saw as mere lip-service to gender equality, it was restricted to just the legal and education wings of the three Services, as also IAF's accounts branch and Navy's 'naval constructor' department.

The reason was simple. These wings do not involve command of men or battalions. "Women officers have neither been trained for command nor given the responsibility so far,'' a senior officer pointed out.

Women are being inducted into armed forces as officers since the early-1990s, and many of them have served with distinction. But they can only don their uniforms for a maximum of 14 years even now as short-service commission (SSC) officers. At the most, they can become Lt-Colonels and their equivalents in IAF and Navy in these 14 years.

Many women officers, serving and retired, do not agree with the 'double standards' practised in armed forces. Though there is a shortage of officers, the authorities are willing to let go of well-trained women, it has been pointed out.

The 2009 batch of SSC women cadets currently undergoing training in the Officers' Training Academy at Chennai or IAF Academy at Dundigal, for instance, will be given the option to choose PC in the legal or education branches just a year or two before they complete 10 years in service. As per existing policy, no serving women officer can get PC.

It may be pointed out that Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh deploy women on sea-faring warships. The US has even allowed them on submarines. Even Pakistan has seven women fighter pilots. The question naturally arises why does India remain extremely reluctant to allow women to jump into fighter cockpits or serve on warships?

But why not allow women to fly fighters or serve on board warships? The reason given is that Indian warships do not have separate facilities for women in terms of cabins or bathrooms. IAF, on its part, feels that with it taking as much as Rs 11.66 crore to train a fighter pilot, inducting women in this arena will cause disruption in its tight fighter flying schedules.

"It takes 13-14 years of active flying by fighter pilots for the government to recover the huge investments made on them. If we have women fighter pilots, this will take a major hit since they will get married and have children,'' according to an officer.

Several countries like US, Israel, UK, Germany and Sweden have woman fighter pilots. If Indian women can fly helicopters and transport aircraft, in IAF, why not fighters, it is being asked. All male and female IAF trainee pilots, undergo the same basic Stage-I training at the IAF Academy at Dundigal. It's only in Stage-II that male pilots are 'trifurcated' into fighter, transport and helicopter streams, while women are 'bifurcated' into only the latter two.

Considering the socio-family factors influencing women in India, permanent commission is not desirable for serving women in Indian Army to be specific. At most, S.S.C. is acceptable in army.

[quote]There is some logic in not allowing women in direct ground combat roles. "Our society is simply not ready to face the prospect of our women in the hands of an enemy or terrorists?'' says a senior Army office[/quote]

I find this strange, we do have female spy for us.
Alternatively other countries have used female spy on us
like Madhuri Gupta (recently)
of course old examples like Mata Hari & Belle Boyd

^^ There is a difference between a spy and a full fledged commisioned defence officer. A spy is working as an indvidual but an officer leads the jawans and a unit representing the nation with President of India as the supreme commander.

Madhuri Gupta acted as an individual against India and not for India.

If they pass the entrance exam why not but beware if those tests are as tough as they were it ain't easy, getting scores GRE/GMAT is a cakewalk and that's just the writen portion. The fitness part is far tougher than they show in movies😆

The topic title reminds me of a quote from the Mahabharata. I think it was Krishna who said it regarding females entering the battlefield. Ah wish I could remember it!

Anyway, in response to the topic-yeah sure, why not?

Yes. Broadly speaking women should be allowed in the army as long as they pass all the minimum tests and requirements (physical, technical etc) that men are required to pass. There is no reason why sacrifice and service to the nation should be realm of men only.

However, there is a social caveat to women serving in direct combat units. Jesse Ventura who is a navy veteran once explained on radio why women on direct combat units especially ones like the marines can be detrimental. It is not because women are incapable. He himself trained and worked with women who were fit and capable serving in the army. The problem is that men are socially conditioned to be protective of women. Moreover, many rogue armies and groups are trained to treat women as soft targets and use tactics like rape/abuse/torture. In major operations men are unable to shake of the social conditioning of protection which can cause them to make mistakes they would not make if serving with men only. In crisis units are observed to try and protect the women suffering more casualties than if it were men only. Also if women are taken POW, the units get more demoralized and traumatized fearing the worst than if men are taken POW. Until the social conditioning to be gentle men and protect women is stopped – it is too risky to have women and men fighting side by side in direct combat.

There is more to the army than direct combat. There are several engineering, medical, research, logistics units, non direct combat like air strikes, missile programming etc which women can be a part of and in fact should be encouraged to be a part of.

One thing I like about Israel is that every citizen has to fulfill their minimum service in the army. It would be wonderful to see all citizens serve their country through the army and really fulfill a duty to their nation. As I said army is not all about combat. Armies also engage in disaster relief, rural development, snow removal and maintenance of remote highways, medical service etc that even people averse to violence can engage in and serve their nation.

^^ You are wrong!

The topic talks of INDIA ARMY and I say that women are not fit for it. At most IAF and/or Indian Navy.

Indian Army is covered under several commands and is spread across the country whereas Navy and Air Force has limited number of stations postings.

As a woman, upto a certain age, it is OK and convinient for them to serve in Army but when it comes to bearing and raising children, the service gets affected. More over, after then rank of Major, they are supposed to lead a unit/battalion which comprises mostly men. Its not easy for a woman to lead soldiers from front.

only if they wear this

http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/pictures/t/tylenebuck/04.jpg


good old wcw :D I miss it, now that wwe took over x(

Ofcourse, wo to ankhiyon se hi goli maar deti hain ! 😆