Editor's Note
This short piece by Col Shivaji Ranjan Ghosh was triggered by the ToI Rajat Pandit news story ,dt 26 Nov 24, and the MVI article dt 27 Nov by Capt Shikha Saxena . Eversince the ToI news story was published and the contents of a DO letter (that should normally have been classified as confidential in the Army) were revealed to the Indian readers , a spontaneous debate has erupted ,especially in Army circles. This article is just the beginning of this debate, which should last for quite some time.
The now famous, or infamous depending on your point of view, DO letter written by the GOC of a Corps to the Army Commander has let loose a volley of impassioned letters, WhatsApp messages, social media posts, debates and discussions on the subject of women in the Armed Forces in general,and on women Commanding Officers in specific. This is a clear indicator of the sensitivity of this subject and should not be simply brushed aside. This article is an attempt at viewing the subject holistically, without personal or any other kind of bias, difficult though that may be. Let us start the discussion by first identifying the key element that foxed many of us in the Tac B paper of the DSSC entrance exam, that is to say, the Terms of Reference. In this case, there is just one single Term of Reference. Simply put this is: Women in the Armed Forces are here to stay. That train has left the station, and there is no going back.
So, having accepted this fait accompli, what next? You can love them (platonically!), hate them but you can’t ignore them. And that is not as bad as some may think. What is really required is to put aside prestige issues, accept the fact that no matter how loudly one may shout from the rooftops, there are physiological differences between the genders that cannot be simply ignored or wished away. Once this very basic fact is gracefully accepted, it should not be so difficult to chart out the path ahead in a manner that every individual is employed in a manner that eventually is the best for the organization and eventually for the security and integrity of the nation.
Under the current circumstances, the best place to start this process would be to examine two major documents that represent the opposing sides of the fence. In doing so, it will be my sincere effort to remain as fair and unbiased as possible. These two documents are:
1. DO letter written by Lt Gen Rajeev Puri, the trigger (or maybe ‘detonator’ would be a more appropriate word!) that started it all.
2. Article written by Capt Shikha Saxena as a rejoinder to the General’s letter.
To start off, let us accept the unstated truth that Gen Puri’s letter is not something that he shot off on the spur of the moment with any ulterior motive. We are talking here of a Corps Commander who obviously has not reached this position without building up enough awareness of the organization. In all likelihood, this letter would have been preceded by discussions with his subordinate formation commanders and also his Army Commander. To put it bluntly, he has put in words what many have felt all along, but who did not express their views publicly. It is not, therefore, something to be taken lightly.
Let us also accept the fact that Capt Saxena’s rejoinder is not the ranting of a new-age radical feminist but it is a well thought-out, sincere and honest opinion.
The fact is, both these documents have been written by human-beings and would therefore be susceptible to some extent of biases creeping in. The need of the hour is, therefore, to downplay these biases and focus on those issues that really matter.
Capt Saxena is obviously well-read and she has used the analogy of the route of “denial-anger-bargaining-depression acceptance” to explain where we stand. This analogy however applies to grief (the five stages of grief) and not to change. If management jargon is to be used, then it would probably have been more appropriate if she had used the term “change management”, because this is exactly what the whole issue is about. The concept of change management has never been a part of the military culture since we are groomed in an environment of unquestioning acceptance and adjustment. Therefore, when a change of this magnitude occurs, we are not mentally or physically prepared for it. Today we have a major issue facing us, and it needs to be managed with maturity, fairness and pragmatism.
The fact that we were not prepared for such a huge change in our age-old system is quite clear from Capt Saxena’s own case that she has herself highlighted. With a graduation degree in Commerce and a Masters in Economics, the Army, working in its own mysterious ways, commissioned her into the Corps of Engineers! Then, probably because they could not nominate her for the Engineering degree course and not knowing what else to do with her, they posted her as Instructor Class C to IMA with, I presume, some 3 years of service. Mismanagement at its best, and definitely not something where the blame could be passed on to the ladies.
In my humble opinion, where Capt Saxena has gone wrong in her rejoinder is that she has chosen the other extreme and made it out to be a purely man versus woman issue, albeit in very diplomatic language. Sadly, many of her arguments are based on gender and not on professionalism, thereby weakening the basic contention of equality and neutrality. For example, her contention that women are inherently empathetic and therefore have to be firm and uncompromising is simply not true.
Empathy comes from having the ability of putting oneself in the other’s shoes, and until the time that our soldiers are male, a woman simply cannot have the same level of empathy that a male officer would, because simply put, he has been there, done that. And I can say with all humility that I, like a multitude of other Commanding Officers, have been empathetic but also firm, and have never, ever lost the human touch, the basic glue that holds an infantry unit together.
Let us take another example, that of the sense of entitlement exemplified by the officer’s insistence on the Subedar Major opening her car door. Capt Saxena has tried to justify this by saying that this is a manifestation of “the systemic struggles and unique challenges women officers face within an environment shaped by deep-seated social norms and hierarchical traditions.” So, does this mean that in order to discard these norms and traditions the solution would lie in humiliating the Subedar Major, a most venerated figure in unit? On the other hand, lest we make the mistake of blaming the lady officer without knowing all the facts, it would be worthwhile to know if this was already an existing tradition in the unit, in which case the whole issue would take a different turn.
More than once, mention has been made of “judicial intervention” dictating the way the military has to function with regard to female officers.
The Supreme Court rejected the request for more time to commence induction of girls into NDA. The courts decided on all issues ranging from extension of service, grant of permanent commission and the command of units. All this is fine if the courts also come to the rescue of male SSC officers who have been denied all benefits of ex-servicemen, or to come to intervene in the horrific Agnipath scheme. The constant tendency to approach the judiciary will definitely have an undermining effect on the authority of the military hierarchy with unfortunate consequences.
The special promotion board for approving lady officers to command appointments in the rank of Colonel saw 108 out of 244 officers being approved. I may be wrong, but I think the approval percentage (44%) was far higher than similar boards for male officers. The playing field is definitely not quite level!
The most telling statement made by Capt Saxena comes in the end of her article where she states “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.” This is definitely the goal one must aspire for. But herein lies the problem. She has said the compatibility and inclusivity must go hand in hand, but can they really do so? In many cases, these are mutually exclusive. The courts, the feminists, the media and anyone else may scream from the rooftops, but men and women as a whole can never be equal in terms of physical capabilities.
One Mary Kom or one Rani Lakshmibai do not define all of womanhood. If one understands and accepts this simple fact, the path ahead becomes so much easier. There is adequate space for both men and women in the Armed Forces, as long as there is no attempt to put square pegs in round holes.
The clamour to induct women into the fighting Arms must be firmly nipped in the bud. A couple of women clamouring for “equality” should not be allowed to derail the whole system. There are many supporting services where women would make excellent commanding officers. It would be an insult to think that these Services are inferior in any way, and that there is a need to prove equality by having a woman commanding an Infantry battalion.
Time to make peace!!
コメント