From a Medal to a Mirror: Optics and Integration—Lessons from Three Decades
- Capt. Shikha Saxena( Retd)
- 25 minutes ago
- 4 min read
EDITOR'S NOTE
This article titled ' From a Medal to a Mirror ' by Capt Shikha Saxena is linked to two previous articles that were published by MVI :
1. 'Small Step ,Giant Leap - Armed Forces on Women Integration ' published on 21 Sep 2021 2. ' Denial to Acceptance- A Step Forward ' published on 27 Nov 2024.
Digital Photo of the September 21 article and link of Nov 24 article are given below . These will enable enhance readers awareness about the issues earlier covered by the author.
Do read and circulate amongst interested readers and groups.
Editor MVI
The recent grant of the Vishisht Seva Medal (VSM) to Col Sofia Qureshi on this Republic Day ( 26 Jan 2026) has once again triggered a familiar churn—particularly on social media. Sarcasm, scepticism, counter-arguments, and selective outrage have dominated the discourse. Predictably, the debate has settled into two opposing ends of an optical spectrum: merit versus optics, recognition versus tokenism.
This article does not seek to comment on whether the decision was justified or otherwise. That question depends entirely on the lens one chooses to look through. And that is precisely the problem.
What deserves deeper examination is not the medal, but the pattern it represents.
Why is it that whenever the organisation takes a decision involving women officers,the woman becomes the receiving end of scrutiny, resentment, and resistance, while the institution remains largely untouched?
And why do such decisions repeatedly appear to beoptically opposedto a section of the serving/ retired fraternity?
To answer this, one must step back—not just from the present controversy, but to the very origins of women’s induction into the Army.
1992: Induction Without a Blueprint
Women were inducted into the Indian Army in 1992 through a notification issued under Section 12 of the Army Act. The notification dated 30 January 1992 made women eligible for commission in select branches:
● Army Postal Service
● Judge Advocate General’s Department
● Army Education Corps
● Army Ordnance Corps (CADs and Material Management)
● Army Service Corps (Food Scientists and Catering Officers)
The scope was limited, clearly defined, and aligned to support functions.
However, even before the first course could get commissioned , the policy was modified. On 31 December 1992, women were permitted entry into additional support arms. This expansion occurred without any visible pilot study, feedback loop, or institutional preparedness.
The question that arises—then as now—is simple but fundamental:
Was this a rational, data-backed decision, or an optical response to evolving social and political expectations?
When Optics Shape Outcomes
The consequences of this shift became apparent almost immediately. Officers like me—non-technical graduates (Commerce, Economics, Arts)—were inducted into technically intensive corps such as the Corps of Engineers. These decisions were difficult to justify on operational or professional grounds and highlighted a deeper issue: the absence of role clarity and competency mapping.
This was not empowerment by design.
It was accommodation by optics.
The institution opened doors, but did not define pathways.
Courts, Commissions, and Repeated Patterns
The same optical–rational disconnect resurfaced repeatedly over the next decades.
● Women officers were denied permanent commission due to “policy limitations”
● Career progression pathways had never been formally articulated
● While data was collected at various touchpoints, it was never consolidated or analysed or presented in a manner that could support institutional positions in court. For instance, I completed a formal feedback form at the time of my release in March 2000, and several women officers who opted for voluntary release before completing ten years of service submitted representations detailing their reasons, particularly in the period following Operation Parakram. However, this information does not appear to have been institutionalised or used for long-term policy formulation.
As a result, when women officers approached the judiciary, the Army found itself unable to substantiate its stand. Permanent Commission was eventually granted—not because the system was ready, but because it could not logically defend exclusion.
The recent opening of NDA to women followed a similar trajectory—once again via judicial intervention.
Each time, the pattern remained unchanged:
● The decision was institutional
● The fallout was personal
●And the woman officer stood exposed, absorbing resistance meant for the system
Inorganic Integration and the Chequered Career
Because induction was never accompanied by a long-term integration plan, women officers—especially of the initial batches—grew within a system that had no defined developmental vision for them.
● No assured grooming philosophy
● No consistent course nominations
● No clarity on command eligibility
● No structured exposure profile
Integration became subjective, dependent on individual commanders—their mindset, comfort levels, and risk appetite. As a result, most early women officers experienced chequered careers, shaped more by circumstance than by design.
This is the cost of inorganic integration.
Same Event, Two Optical Ends
Recent assessments, reports, and reactions—whether about performance, command style, or recognition—must be viewed against this backdrop.
Often, the senior leadership and women officers are standing on two different ends of the same optical spectrum:
● One evaluating through a rulebook that never governed women’s careers
● The other responding from lived experience shaped by institutional ambiguity
This is not a failure of gender.
It is a failure of architecture.
Capability Is Proven. Compatibility Is Not Studied.
The Army has never lacked evidence of women officers’ capability. That debate is settled.
What remains unresolved is compatibility—not as an assumption, but as a measured, studied, data-backed reality. Compatibility cannot be declared; it must be designed, tested, and institutionalised.
Way Forward: From Optics to Ownership
Women’s induction is no longer the issue.
Integration is.
The way ahead lies in:
● Moving from symbolic decisions to structured manpower planning
● Treating women officers as a distinct cohort for lifecycle study
● Mapping roles to competencies, not narratives
● Building data before doctrine
● Ensuring future integration is organic, not court-driven
Most importantly, the institution must fully own its decisions, so that women officers are no longer left defending outcomes they never designed.
Until then, every optical decision—whether a commission, a command, or a medal—will continue to extract its cost from the same place:
the woman in uniform, standing at the receiving end of institutional ambiguity.
Comments