Denial to Acceptance – A Step Forward

Change, whether in societal norms or institutional policies, often follows a predictable trajectory—from Denial and anger to bargaining and depression, before finally reaching Acceptance. The journey of women’s induction into the armed forces, particularly the Army, is no exception to this rule.

A recent DO by a Corps Commander on the topic of “Command by Women Officers” has sparked widespread debate, as highlighted by an article in The Times of India on November 26. This DO represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing journey of integrating women into the armed forces. It brings to the forefront critical discussions about striking a balance between the evolving role of women in the military and the imperatives of national security. To me, this stage reflects the bargaining and not depression but  introspection phase of this journey—an essential precursor to broader acceptance and integration.

As one of the initial 100 plus women officers to be inducted  in the Army, I view this development with a sense of pride and optimism. The DO has, quite literally, set the ball rolling for a more structured and serious discourse on the subject. This discussion is not merely symbolic but is deeply rooted in operational and strategic concerns, making it a matter of national importance.

The induction and integration of women into commanding roles in the Army is not just about achieving gender parity or say Gender neutrality but  it is  also about tapping into a broader talent pool to strengthen the forces. While debates will undoubtedly persist, the very fact that these discussions are now occurring at the highest levels reflects a significant milestone: the Institute has reached a point where women’s integration is widely accepted and implemented. However, the focus has now shifted to the “roles” and performance of women.

The recently surfaced DO on "Command by Women Officers" has generated significant debate, particularly for its  content  and presentation style. For majority of us  (women officers), the content of this report is far from palatable due to following reasons:

1.      An analysis is always a mix of strength and weaknesses, this is only about weaknesses which makes us question the intent of this analysis.

2.      It appears to rely on a skewed sample base ( 8 out of 108)

3.      Observations are very subjective and not objective.( No data quoted except one instance)

4.      Observations  lack the necessary contextual and empirical backing.(Exaggerated sense of Entitlement, Preferential task allotment and resultant  lack of compassion, lack of empathy etc)

5.      The tone of the DO comes across as accusatory, highlighting a lack of genuine acceptance of these Women COs by the GOC as part of his core team. One of the primary concerns with the  DO lies in its omission of the operational backdrop (grant of permanent commission through court order )against which women officers were tasked with command responsibilities. Without acknowledging these critical contextual factors, the conclusions drawn appear one-dimensional and fail to provide a holistic view of their performance.

Discussions on such critical topics, which directly influence the structure and efficiency of the armed forces, must be grounded in comprehensive, data-driven insights that consider all factors affecting performance. Neglecting this approach undermines the conversation and threatens the progress made toward inclusivity and equal opportunities within the forces.

While constructive criticism is vital for institutional growth, it must be fair, transparent, and fact-based. The report highlights an urgent need for deeper, evidence-based evaluations to ensure decisions impacting national security are both objective and inclusive.

With this perspective in mind, I would like to present the experiences and insights of women officers, particularly those currently serving in command positions.

MISSING CONTEXT – THE BACKDROP OF THESE COMMANDING OFFICERS

The current group of 108 women officers leading various units comes from the era of 1993–2000. During this time, corps assignments for women officers were largely based on their academic qualifications, with recruitment decisions driven by the limited vision of the recruitment branch. Unfortunately, this vision did not account for the practical realities of officers commanding on the ground.

For example, in our batch, three officers with degrees in economics, law, and arts were commissioned into the Corps of Engineers. This decision raised questions among the officers commanding us, who wondered why individuals with such qualifications were inducted into the Corps. This highlighted a disconnect between recruitment policies and the operational needs of the field.

The lack of clarity in recruitment and assignment processes meant that the induction, grooming, and acceptance of women officers depended entirely on the vision and perception of their commanding officers. This approach placed undue reliance on individual perspectives instead of following a structured and well-defined system.

So even if we do not question the content of the DO, the point of discussion is

If the current reflections in their command are a result of the system they were shaped by, why is the blame being placed on GENDER rather than the system itself?

These officers' command and leadership styles have been influenced by the environment and leaders they grew up under. This clearly demonstrates that leadership is shaped by individuals and their experiences and not by their gender.

This calls for reflection, introspection, and decisive actions to shape how we groom the next generation of officers who will take up command roles. It is essential to ensure that they are prepared within a framework of robust systems and processes, minimizing individual biases and fostering leadership that aligns with organizational values and objectives.

Efforts must be directed toward addressing these issues, as both perspectives—that of the women officers and the GOC—highlight systemic deficiencies that require discussion and correction. This is especially important in light of the evolving organizational structure and the changes in manpower recruitment.

Taking this a step further, it is essential to reflect on the fact that future leaders, regardless of gender, will emerge from Gen Z and Alpha generations. These generations are distinctly shaped by their upbringing—immersed in technology, influenced by a more dynamic social fabric, and equipped with unprecedented access to information. Their unique behavioural patterns and expectations require a forward-thinking approach to leadership development. Adapting systems to align with their needs is vital to ensure they are effectively prepared to take on command roles in a rapidly transforming environment.

MISPLACED SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT

A specific incident has been cited to argue that women officers suffer from a "misplaced sense of entitlement." The example involves a woman officer, serving as a Commanding Officer, asking a Subedar Major (SM) to open the car door for her each time she arrives—a practice in contradiction to the orders issued in the formation. The question arises: Why would the officer behave in such a strange manner knowing fully well that it is in contradiction to issued orders and may invite disciplinary action against her conduct?

Labelling this behavior as a "misplaced sense of entitlement" is a superficial and unfair characterization. Such judgments fail to consider the systemic struggles and unique challenges women officers face within an environment shaped by deep-seated social norms and hierarchical traditions. This incident, rather than being dismissed in isolation, should prompt a deeper examination of the broader attitudes and perceptions of Junior Commissioned Officers (JCOs) and other ranks towards accepting women in leadership roles.

Women officers often encounter subtle and overt resistance that male officers do not face. For instance, when I joined MEG centre, I was observed and followed the style of all officers, to address jawans as "Thambi." However, I was later politely cautioned by the SM not to use this term, as the jawans felt uncomfortable being addressed this way by a woman officer, even though they were entirely fine with male officers using it.

This interaction revealed the complex cultural and social dynamics at play, where the acceptance of women in authority roles comes with unspoken conditions and biases. Left to navigate such barriers alone, I had to devise my own approach to establish rapport and create acceptance.

Similarly, in the reported incident, what the officer may have felt or experienced is conspicuously absent from the discussion. Her actions are being dismissed as entitlement without addressing the larger narrative of systemic challenges and persistent struggles for respect and recognition. Women officers have had to fight legal battles for basic rights such as permanent commissions and extending their service beyond the arbitrary 14-year limit. These struggles form the backdrop of their journey to commanding positions—an achievement earned through perseverance, not privilege.

Instead of viewing the officer’s behavior as entitlement, it should be recognized as part of the ongoing fight for fairness and equality within a system where acceptance is not a given. Judging them without context ignores the complexity of their journey and the price they pay to challenge an unjust system.

Understanding the systemic barriers, they face and the context behind their actions is crucial. What appears as stubbornness is, in reality, a reflection of their continuous effort to assert their rightful place and create a legacy of inclusion for those yet to arrive. Their struggle is not a demand for undue privilege but a path-making effort that often requires navigating uncharted waters and confronting resistance head-on.

The way forward lies in proactively addressing these behaviours by identifying specific instances involving officers, JCOs, and jawans. These incidents should be analysed as case studies to gain deeper insights into the underlying dynamics and challenges. Such an approach would enable the development of targeted sensitization workshops tailored to address the unique needs and attitudes present across different hierarchies.

By addressing these issues through structured and inclusive programs, the organization can foster a culture of respect and collaboration, ultimately paving the way for greater gender equity and operational harmony.

LACK OF EMPATHY

The claim that women Commanding Officers (COs) exhibit a "lack of empathy" seems to stem from the GOC's personal experiences rather  than concrete evidence.

 While I do not wish to openly question the basis of this observation, I find it difficult to accept it as a negative trait or a defining characteristic of women CO’s because by nature, women are inherently empathetic, and this trait often shapes their leadership styles in positive and impactful ways.

However, it is important to consider the context in which women CO’s operate. In a hierarchical system where their authority is frequently tested and their actions are scrutinized more than those of their male counterparts, women leaders may deliberately adopt a firm or uncompromising approach. This behaviour is not indicative of a lack of empathy but rather a strategic adjustment to prevent their natural empathy from being misused or misinterpreted as weakness.

Instances where women COs are perceived as harsh or unsympathetic might stem from their effort to uphold discipline and maintain professional boundaries in an environment where any leniency could undermine their authority. This deliberate firmness should be understood as a calculated response to the systemic challenges they face, not as a character flaw.

Rather than framing such behaviours as a "lack of empathy," it would be more constructive to acknowledge the unique pressures women leaders navigate. Their ability to balance empathy with assertiveness is a testament to their adaptability and resilience. This perspective underscores the need to approach such observations with nuance and to avoid labelling strategic leadership choices as negative traits.

Over-Exerting Command and Centralized Decision Making

The critique of women Commanding Officers (COs) for "over-exerting command" and adopting "centralized decision-making" ignores the unique challenges they face in leadership roles. When the organizational culture is shaped by leadership with biases, such as the views reflected in the DO, it becomes evident that women officers lack the necessary institutional support in moments of distress. This systemic gap in support forces women COs to rely heavily on their own judgment, which can result in centralized decision-making.

It is important to recognize that the journey of women officers to command positions has been drastically different from that of their male counterparts. In most cases, these officers were not given the structured career path that prepares leaders for command. They were often excluded from mandatory courses and denied postings that would have provided essential experience, being instead relegated to roles that served the immediate organizational convenience rather than their professional development.

The system, having failed to invest in their growth or envision their progression to permanent roles, left them unprepared for the complexities of commanding a unit. Now that they have reached these positions, largely through judicial interventions rather than structured organizational planning, it is unfair to  only critique their leadership approach rather they should be provided with supporting hands to gain confidence to navigate through these situations..

When viewed through this lens, their tendency to centralize decision-making and assert control can be understood as a necessary response to fill gaps left by inadequate institutional preparation. This approach is not about a lack of consultative leadership but rather an attempt to assert authority in an environment where they are navigating uncharted territory, often without the mentorship, exposure, or support afforded to their male counterparts.

Such DO and observations reflect not just the systemic biases they face but also highlight the stepmotherly treatment they are likely to encounter if they falter. Under these circumstances, centralized decision-making and an assertive approach are their tools for survival and success, ensuring that their authority is neither undermined nor dismissed.

Instead of criticizing these behaviours, the focus should shift to examining the structural inadequacies that have led to this situation. The organization must invest in providing adequate training, mentorship, and structured career pathways for women officers to ensure they are as prepared and supported as their male counterparts in commanding roles. This perspective is essential to fostering what is being referred to as Gender Neutrality.

EXAGGERATED TENDENCY TO COMPLAIN

The so-called "exaggerated tendency to complain" among women Commanding Officers (COs) should not be dismissed as a negative trait. Instead, it should be viewed as an opportunity to identify the unique challenges they face—challenges for which the organization must prepare and adapt. These complaints are not mere grievances but reflections of the systemic gaps and barriers that women COs encounter in their roles.

Instead of labelling their concerns as a weakness, efforts should focus on enhancing the empathy of the officers commanding these COs to better address and navigate such situations.  

However, the current approach of  judging  women COs, which is often reactive and unplanned, risks fostering an environment of distrust and disrespect which will have a negative impact on women organic integration into the system. If this trend continues, it may overshadow the real issues on the ground and undermine the progress being made.

To prevent this, the organization must actively work towards creating an inclusive culture that values these experiences as learning opportunities and ensures that future leaders—regardless of gender—are equipped to lead with confidence and fairness.

"PERCEIVED GENDER BIAS" AND "OVER-CELEBRATION OF MINOR ACHIEVEMENTS”

Gender bias is so deeply entrenched in our systems that it often becomes normalized and is perceived as the status quo. For example, in the initial phase, How often were lady officers deployed as Liaison Officers (LOs), even when they were not the junior-most officers in their units? How frequently were they compelled to attend ladies' meets, and how were they treated if they refused to comply?

These challenges, which were once routine, have gradually subsided because the initial set of women officers had the courage to raise their voices and bear the consequences of refusal. At that  time, they were labelled as stubborn and privileged for resisting these biases. However, their persistence and willingness to challenge the norm brought about systemic changes, slowly but steadily reducing the prevalence of such inequities.

To deny the existence of gender bias is to impede the natural progression of evolution within the system. Sensitivity to biases and the willingness to initiate dialogue about them are crucial steps in fostering a culture of fairness and inclusion. If women officers are perceived to be leveraging their gender, it is important to address such perceptions through open discussions, not by dismissing their concerns as mere complaints or by creating an environment of distrust. Constructive dialogue paves the way for mutual understanding and systemic improvement.

Regarding the "over-celebration of minor achievements," using the example of Lt Col Anila Khatri's achievements as a criticism is not appropriate. The race for recognition between men and women officers began at different starting points, with vastly different levels of systemic support and opportunities. As such, milestones for women officers will naturally differ. Celebrating these achievements is not about overcompensation but about recognizing the unique challenges they have overcome. Striking a balance between encouragement and over-celebration should be a conscious effort, not something to dismiss or critique.

It is vital to appreciate accomplishments in the context of the journey rather than dismiss them as "minor" in comparison to others. Such encouragement is essential for fostering confidence and inclusion while paving the way for a more balanced and equitable system.

The Way Forward:

The initiative taken by the GOC to submit an in-house review is indeed a commendable step, despite the fact that the observations in the report appear to lack neutrality, logic, and balance. As discussed earlier, the journey from denial to acceptance often involves phases of anger and depression before finally arriving at a state of acknowledgment and understanding. This letter, in many ways, reflects the stage of anger and introspection—a step beyond denial and an essential milestone toward eventual acceptance. It signifies progress in bringing long-overlooked issues to the forefront.

One key aspect that must be recognized is that the primary challenge lies in the "COMPATIBILITY" of women officers within the existing system, NOT in their "CAPABILITY."

Women officers have consistently demonstrated their capability, but compatibility with entrenched systems and processes remains an area of concern. Acknowledging this distinction is crucial for bridging differing perspectives and addressing biases. Had this aspect been acknowledged earlier, then even if the content of the letter was same, yet its presentation, and the reactions of all stakeholders would have been different and more constructive. Early recognition could have fostered a more collaborative approach, enabling meaningful dialogue and solutions rather than polarized reactions.

The focus now must shift towards compatibility and fostering constructive dialogue among all stakeholders. The GOC’s DO, while limited in scope, should serve as a foundation for broader discussions. It is imperative to expand this effort by gathering insights from all General Officers Commanding (GOCs) who have women officers under their command, as well as the 108 women officers currently in command positions. Such an approach would provide a 360-degree perspective, capturing both leadership insights and the lived experiences of women officers, which are critical for a nuanced understanding of the challenges. Collecting and analysing this data will help move beyond anecdotal observations to identify systemic gaps and real challenges.

A structured approach could involve forming “controlled groups” to study the entire lifecycle of women officers within the organization. This would result in a comprehensive compatibility report that highlights areas for improvement and provides actionable roadmaps for the way forward.

The ultimate goal must be to create an environment where officers are placed in roles based on merit, not gender. Compatibility and inclusivity must go hand in hand to ensure a cohesive, high-performing leadership structure. By addressing biases, fostering collaboration, and creating opportunities for open dialogue, the organization can work towards a culture that values equity and excellence.

Such deliberate and systematic efforts will not only bridge gaps and reduce biases but also pave the way for a more inclusive, harmonious, and equitable organizational culture. It is through these collective efforts that the organization can ensure growth, fairness, and long-term success for all its members.

---

About the Author :- Capt Shikha Saxena was commissioned in Corps of Engineers in March 1995, she served in Indian Army for 5 years including a tenure as Instructor Class C at IMA.

Besides Army training, she is an accomplished mountaineer, rafter and skier.