WHILE A MAJORITY OF JOBS IN THE ARMED FORCES ARE OPEN EQUALLY TO MEN AND WOMEN, THERE ARE SOME TO WHICH WOMEN ARE JUST NOT PHYSICALLY SUITED. THE IDEA OF WOMEN IN COMBAT IS FRAUGHT WITH FRIGHTFUL CONSEQUENCES ON NATIONAL SECURITY
Women have been in the military in various jobs, such as medical corps (doctors and nursing officers) for long. Some time ago, they were inducted into supporting arms, such as EME, ordinance, engineers, signals, artillery and legal branch etc.
More recently, both the supreme commander of the armed forces and the defence minister want women in all streams of combat elements, supposedly in the special operations units as well. The defence minister has moved a step further and wants an all-women combat unit. While it may be interesting to know the reaction to this move by the Pakistan Army, here the focus needs be on the implications of their induction into combat arms: Infantry and tank units.
DON’T COMPROMISE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
Women in submarines and as fighter pilots may fit in some manner, but women fighter pilot bailing out over enemy territory has its own implications. Perhaps the supreme commander and the defence minister may prefer gloss over this pertinent issue, but surely the air chief should look into this aspect of their role as fighter pilots.
While the Union government has exercised a number of options to wreck the military, inducting women into fighting arms may prove the proverbial last straw. Both during India’s past and more recently during the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, women did take part in combat exercises, but when we call upon women to take part in the full spectrum of combat arms fighting, it’s a different ball game. Women in combat arms and taking part in operations are fraught with frightful consequences on the national security.
ABILITY VS GENDER
Advocates of the idea of inducting women into combat arms are working on a false premise of gender equality. Such notions and illusions miss on the nature of actions combat arms are called upon to undertake and the imperatives of winning a war. Political leadership in India, unlike some other democracies, has no experience of wearing a military uniform or even marginally acquainting itself with the nature of combat and what all it involves. Military’s sole mission, when compelled to wage a war, is to win the same and vanquish the enemies on land, sea and air. It cannot be used as a social engineering project by naïve and uninformed politicians.
Even if one is to gloss over problems, such as being on long patrols where women may have to share a blanket with a man, or during combat, when injuries sustained by women on private parts require immediate first aid, the ultimate fighting prowess of women needs to be taken into account. A woman to be part of a tank crew where space is limited and constant body contact with others unavoidable has its own implications.
STANDARDS OF PHYSICAL FITNESS
Combat for an infantry soldier is the extreme form of violence carried out without pity, remorse and contrition. How many of our policymakers know what it takes to get up and advance through a hail of bullets and exploding shells with comrades being blown to bits and ending up with hand to hand fighting with the enemy. Then, there is the question of physical strength of women, especially of the upper body part, which will impact hand-tohand fighting and some other soldierly undertakings.
It is no body’s case to deny women their right to equal opportunities. Denial of entry into fighting arms of the army can be compensated in a range of other areas of employment. There could be and is an all-women border police unit, but their range of duties and functions are poles apart from that of a soldier in a full-blooded battle. At the first signs of a war, the border police will be pulled back into rear areas. In India, women have done exceeding well in civil services, police, medical services and other fields and it’s here they can be provided additional opportunities.
It’s for the military leadership to advice the government and not allow themselves to be carried along in such outlandish proposals. Nation’s military leaders have a moral duty to inform the political executive that such policies are not in the best interest of the military and national security. It’s not to be left to the women to take a call whether to join combat arms or not, as being advocated by the army chief. Chiefs of defence services must have the courage to stand up and the wisdom to advise the government where its policies can have adverse impact on their service and consequently on national security issue.