Though I generally agree with Navdeep and his thought process, especially regarding military related legalese, I think that Navdeep has been a bit hasty in his appreciation of the problem highlighted by the General Officer and has overeached himself in the argument 'for and against'.
The bottom line being that neither the General officer concerned nor anyone in the military heirarchy has ever stated that the 'female gender has no place in the Indian military'.
The media and a few respondents have unfortunately hyped the issue and twisted the crux of the letter to make it look like some sort of a 'gender bias' existing in the military heirarchy or atleast in some of the Brass.
No, it is not about saying that women cannot join the armed forces;
for that would be silly, counter-productive, pernicious and detrimental to the very ethos of a progressive and developed society.
Actually it is the discussion on the role and employment of women soldiers that generates emotional responses in the environment-- it is here that we stand divided in our views.
That the military can have female soldiers is agreed to by all.
But does there exist a problem--
yes, there is a problem, no denying.
No sane person will ever say that 'there is no place for female soldiers' in our military.
For that would be like 'throwing the baby out with the bath water' in trying to solve a problem and in finding a solution.
But to go all guns blazing against an officer who has the courage and conviction to say
'we need to talk' is being like an Ostrich and
putting your head under the sand and saying "there is no problem and all is hunky-dory!"
Domain experience shows that at the junior level, women officers are very good and very dependable in carrying out out orders to the last letter and cheerfully so; as captains and majors.
Now on reaching higher ranks and being given command of a few hundred men, a hundred plus vehicles, so much of equipment and stores, weapons, ammunition, a fair amount of financial powers coupled with administrative duties, inspections and training for war -- running a cohesive team which will always have a few awkward and rebellious officers and soldiers would require tact, experience and ability to absorb.
Not to forget the higher HQ and superiors breathing down your neck !
In such high pressure appointments even many male officers lose the larger picture of running an effective team and earning the trust; and more importantly 'acceptance' as a leader by 'your' command.
And this happens more often in units where either the commanding officer has not really 'worked' with his/her men or has decided to sacrifice all in order to rise 'one rank higher'.
Herein lies one of the problems- that of finding the right man (or woman) for the right job.
Should we have female pilots in fighter squadrons going across, and then
meeting a fate worse than Nachiketa?
Can female soldiers join the SF and operate 'behind enemy lines?'
Or as rightly said -"pick up a rifle or carbine and climb up and assault the rock face?"
Or go with the leading company as the FOO or get ambushed, captured, tortured and finally killed like Saurab Kalia whilst on a patrol?
My dear Sirs, the debate is here -
Employment and Appointments !
In the context of the letter which has fired up a storm, perhaps command failure (male/female officers irrespective), can be attributed to lack of flexibility in the decision making process and in interpretation of instructions from higher authorities (lakir ka faqir).
Coupled with a desire to ensure that no mistakes are made and inability to feel the 'pulse' of your command.
Apparently this is more evident in female officers.
Then again, the ability to forge camaraderie with troops and officers is difficult for female officers-- understandably so.
Lack of 'barrack room' humour in day to day functioning with enlisted men is not possible.
Whereas it is possible for a good commanding officer to give a proverbial 'kick' to an officer or an enlisted man; and then laugh with him with a friendly slap on the back, it cannot really be done by a female commanding officer.
Again, understandably so.
Male officers till the rank of CO swear with the men, sweat it out with them, games/ PT/ sports, get to know the 'langar gup', share stories with them -- and as junior officers have actually 'stayed' with them and eaten with them!
Even the 'sahayak' is a friend of sorts. And a CO and his SM going for an informal evening walk in the unit area is not unheard off.
Close proximity in field conditions; in exercises and camps- all help in inculcating a bond.
Still, it is too early to judge whether having females in combat roles or giving command to female officers, specially in arms and services where physical contact with the enemy is likely, will succeed or not, given our social system and the instinctive animalistic behaviour of humans in hand to hand combat.
That said, as a progressive military, we should give more time for the induction of female officers as commanding officers, atleast in the non-fighting services, before we trash the very concept.
But agreed - challenges are there and will be there. Sweeping them under the carpet is not the solution.
And such honest feedbacks are essential to address a problem most of us field commanders are aware of.
Comments