Introduction
In the Army we have a tendency to brush aside certain important and sensitive issues, by trying to sweep the same under the carpet, with a view to avoid denigrating the image of the Army. But that's not the right approach. If we have a genuine concern for the Army, such issues must be discussed objectively, so that the same get highlighted and attended to, well in time. In fact, hats off to the Corps Commander for raising this issue with the Army Commander. Afterall, why should such an important and sensitive issue remain buried in files ? Now that the issue has hit the national headlines as well as caught attention of the prime time TV debates, it would draw attention of the Supreme Court judges too. If we truly care about our health, the purpose is not served by hiding the cancer-affected limb; the answer lies in treating it. And the sooner we do it, the greater the chances of recovery, thereby preventing it spreading further.
Supreme Court Rulings
The fault in this case lies squarely with the Supreme Court, whose rulings on the subject have been based on an absolute academic interpretation of the Constitution. The Defence Forces had opposed giving command to women officers, but the Supreme Court forced it, quoting equality before law. Likewise, even the women's entry to the National Defence Academy had been opposed in the Supreme Court, but it was simply adamant. When forced by the court ruling, the Defence Services asked for an year's time to cater for their arrangements. But the Chief Justice of India (CJI) didn't agree to this request either, since he wanted to go down in the judicial history for having given such a historic judgment. The quest for popularity is a human weakness, and the judges are no exception.
The same CJI had adopted a similar attitude during the hearing of OROP case. Otherwise, does it take more than five and half years to pronounce that OROP being a policy matter, was well within the purview of the Executive, and was beyond the jurisdiction of Judiciary ? But by indirectly pressurising the government over a period of five and a half years, the CJI wanted to win some kind of popularity within the Defence Forces, but the government refused to succumb to his indirect pressure tactics, and finally won the case.
The Service Chiefs Should Have the Final Say
To begin with, my point is, why should one presume the professional advice of a Service Chief to be biased or anti-women? We all have sisters, daughters and grand-daughters, and have an equal degree of concern for them and their future. Afterall women officers are not aliens or our enemies; they are a part of us. So let us not make this debate as - "we the men, versus you the women". Let us rise above this mindset and discuss the issue with an open mind. The Army should have been given a fair chance to carry out trials on this. The Indian Army had once carried out an experiment, whether the infantry officers could be given the command of an Armoured Division. Maj Gen K Sundarji, an infantry officer, who later became COAS, was given a chance to command one. Having finished the command, he did not recommend the same. But his recommendations came under heavy criticism, even by some of the Armoured Corps officers, saying it could be a case of he wanting to go down in the history of being the only infantry officer to have commanded an Armoured Division. Why were a few others not given a chance ? The decision should have been based on a wider range of trials.
Shocking Revelations in the Feedback
It is unbelievable that a lady Commanding Officer should insist upon a Subedar Major opening the door of her vehicle, and she controlling the leave of Jawans, leading to last minute sanction with total disregard for the inconvenience of travelling without rail reservations, and misusing manpower to satisfy her ego. A Commanding Officer without a human touch ceases to be good leader. Maturity and human touch are 'sine quo non' for command of a unit. No matter how great an officer's technical qualifications, her overall competence is reduced if she lacks personal qualities of a gentlewoman. As long as armies are made of people, the human element will remain an irreplaceable consideration in command and leadership. One of the best ways to exercise leadership is simply to deserve the respect, trust and loyalty of your command, and give loyalty, consideration and respect in return. The best way to tell your soldiers that you too are a soldier is to be one - deliberately and on purpose, as a result of intelligent forethought. An officer is not worthy of the rank she holds unless she honours and respects her subordinates; without them she is an empty and futile figurehead.
Here again, the issue is simple : Why should the feedback on the performance of the women officers in command of battalions be taken as case of male chauvinism? It is a serious issue that affects the efficiency of the Indian Army, which needs to be addressed urgently. While one can understand Capt Shikha Saxena's psychological reaction to defend the case of her counterparts, but instead of accepting a single weakness with an open mind, she has gone to the extreme end of the spectrum by trying to defend every weakness highlighted, with a singular aim of justifying every wrong act, as a lawyer defends her client in the court. The Küber-Ross model, quoted by her pertains to various stages of grief, where one goes through an abrupt realization or shock, leading to five emotions of denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. It doesn't apply in this case. This is a simple case of feedback on the performance of the women officers in command, which has nothing to do with Küber-Ross model. Feedback on every new concept is a routine matter. In fact, that is how we improve the system. Hence we must appreciate, that this being a crucial matter affecting security of the nation, should not be side-tracked by complex verbiage, or buried under verbal platitudes.
The Defence Forces Need the Best Material
The Defence Forces need the best available material across the nation, and should not be viewed as just another employment avenue. The nation has an obligation to select the best, and ensure the strongest possible form of defence, without taking advantage of the 'right to equality', enshrined in the Constitution. If we go purely by an academic interpretation of the Constitution, as regards equality before law, then why should the LGBTQ community not get enrolled/commissioned in the Defence Forces ? Afterall Article 14 of the Constitution provides equality before law and equal protection of the laws. It protects people from discrimination based on caste, race, religion, place of birth or sex. And if they get enrolled, why should they be denied command of battalions thereafter ? Why should an LGBTQ community person not be eligible to become a Service Chief ? The Supreme Court, instead of adopting an academic approach on matters pertaining to recruitment and functioning of the Defence Services, should respect the professional advice of the Service Chiefs. Afterall, they are far more experienced, and in a far better position to understand the implications of such issues, than a bench of the Supreme Court judges.
If we go by the constitutional interpretation of 'right to equality', why should we have height, weight and chest measurement criteria? Can anyone prove that the people with lesser measurements in the above fields are less efficient or not brave enough? And yet such criteria too varies as per different regions of the country. All this has been worked out keeping in view the availability factor in mind, the aim being, to select the best from the available lot. Have we ever given a thought that the officers of the Army Medical Corps do not have to go through the SSB selection. Why? I remember, 20 years ago, we had 40% shortage of medical officers. If SSB is introduced for them, we may end up having more than 90% shortage, which we cannot afford. And yet some of them, including lady medical officers have performed outstandingly well, even during war and counter-insurgency operations. But does that imply that we do away with the SSB selection for the entire lot of non-medical Defence Services officers too ? Exceptions do not make a rule.
Shortage of Officers
Interestingly, we have an overall shortage of officers in the three Services, in spite of giving them grace marks in the SSB. However, even for that, there is a laid down limit, and the three Service Chiefs have unanimously agreed, not to dilute the standard of selection system beyond an acceptable limit, even if the three Services have to manage with shortage of officers. Here, the women officer cadre does help to reduce the shortage to quite some extent, since the base for selection has been widened. However, their employment should be left to the discretion of the Service Chiefs and not dictated by the Supreme Court judges, just because the women officers approach them quoting denial of equality before law. Biologically, the nature has made a contrasting difference between men and women, hence the women officers cannot be on a par with male officers in each and every field. For example, they cannot be employed in Infantry, Mechanised Infantry and Armoured Corps, for obvious reasons, not that they are inferior to their male counterparts; they have other strengths where they can prove superior. So making statements, just to please the women officers cadre, to gain popularity among their lot, is akin to bribing one's soul. The safety, honour and welfare of the nation comes first, always and every time.
Freedom of the Service Chiefs Should Not be Curtailed
Notwithstanding the above, Army cannot be treated as a welfare organization for employment. It needs the best possible material. If the Service Chiefs find it appropriate to give command to women officers in various branches identified by them for their suitability, they should have the freedom to do so, without any interference from the Supreme Court. However, during a war, the Defence Services cannot show Article 14 of the Constitution to the enemy. The Supreme Court needs to be explained this, till the point sinks in deep enough to realize the consequences of their academic rulings. When it comes to the matters pertaining to the defence of the nation, listening to the professional advice of the Service Chiefs is of utmost importance, and the most prudent course of action. To begin with, the women officers can be given command of 'services units' and not that of 'arms or supporting arms', with the exception of Signal Regiments.
One may argue, don't the male officers fail to perform poorly while in command ? Of course they do, but as and when found incompetent beyond an acceptable limit, they have invariably been removed from command, and so should the women officers be removed without delay or discrimination, instead of getting into such complex debates. Debates can follow. However, now removing them enmass may lead to an embarrassment in the Supreme Court, which may question the Army for its failure to train them well. This is where the problem lies.
The Way Ahead Now
So what is the way ahead ? Now the only way out is to carry out a detailed study, across the Indian Army, by a high level committee headed by a Lt Gen, with some women officers as members, to maintain transparency and take remedial actions. The Committee should carry out a detailed study regarding the reasons that led to such a situation :
● Weren't the women officers imparted the same kind of training, or were they given a preferential treatment and sheltered appointments ?
● If they were not fit to command units, where, why and how did the system fail to identify?
● Why were they recommended for command?
● What are the remedial measures to be adopted now?
● Which are the suitable command appointments for them?
Conclusion
Howevever, some special man-management cadres could be conducted at various levels, or a few periods on man-management could be added in various courses of instruction, for women officers, without getting into the debate on why should the nomenclature of these cadres be not made gender-neutral. But we must remember that courses cannot make one a leader; they are meant to enhance one's professional competence. While quite a few qualities are trainable in varying degrees, all qualities are not. Qualities like empathy and maturity have to be developed by an individual through a conscious effort based on pride and self respect.
Leadership qualities have to be developed by each officer during the period of on-the-job training. It is a continuous process throughout the service. The more keen, motivated and dedicated one is, the better the leader he/she will make. The higher the self-pride for dignity and decorum, the higher would be one's level of honesty and integrity. The command of troops is an art, a free creative activity, based on character, ability, and power of intellect. If one has failed to aquire these qualities before assuming the command of troops, one is not fit to command. Let's not blame the system.
תגובות