Women and the Armed Forces

Women and the Armed Forces

Rajeev Dhavan and Bipin Aspatwar

The “Mad Woman in the Attic”, the “Slave in the Kitchen”, the “Mother of many Sons (and daughters)”, the well behaved and much abused house wife have joined the market of opportunities and want ‘access’ to jobs, politics and power. The huge catalyst was ‘women’s entry into the work force of factories and offices was in the First World War, whilst the men were at war. A century later women in the armed forces want parity with men. Equally, arguments rest on a legal proposition that classification denying certain jobs, roles, tasks and opportunities is rational on the basis that unequals cannot be treated equally. This raises the question: are men and women unequal? But are they?

Apply this to the army; 20% (i.e. 200,00) of the US army consist of women. Before 1975, the American women had the choice to terminate their pregnancy or their jobs. President Clinton enabled women to go on combat duty (if they volunteer) except direct combat with the enemy. That they can prove as exactingly cruel as shown by Lynndie Rana England – humiliating Iraqi soldiers. Britain has 17,800 women in the services (including 3670 officers). But they are excluded from 96% of Air force, 67% of Army and 71% of Navy jobs. By contrast, there are only 13% women in Canada’s armed forces – being encouraged more for nursing, communication and logistic support, which is also true of Russia’s 95,600 women in armed forces. Australia does not permit its limited army women battle field duty. Women are conscripted in Israel but not given active battle field days.

Comparable to India, Pakistan generally has no woman in the armed forces, but it is said has 7 women fighter pilots. Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh employ (but not deploy) women in the armed forces. India has a small number of women in the armed forces. In all countries the area of controversy is whether women should be on direct combat duty.

Puerile excuses are the logistics of not being able make available separate toilets, sleep and rest spaces. More exacting is the argument is that the question for equal rights for women should not defeat the efficacy and purpose for which the army is created: warfare.

The Delhi High Court judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Garg JJ has nudged the cause of ‘Women’ out of yet another area of policy reluctance. At present, women in the Indian army are denied a Permanent Commission (PC). On Short Term Commission women can stay in service for 14 years as opposed to men who retire at the age of the 60. This is what the Delhi High Court finds discriminatory of the equality provision and women’s rights to an occupation of their choice.

Since, the Delhi High Court was concerned with permanent commissions for men and women, it did not go into other issues concerning the role assigned to women. It may well be a long time before we see a Rani Jhansi or Queen Boadicea heading our armies into battle. Needless, modern wars are not designed for hand-to-hand combat. But some strenuous, low intensity operations can be deadly. Should they be in combat duty, if they want to? Perhaps, at this stage, voluntary opting for both combat and combat training may be permissible. But is there a cap on this? Is it to keep the fairer sex out of warfare itself? Is it to protect ‘them’ (i.e. women) or that ‘front line’ women would make the army weaker. The latter is the only public interest reason. But is such a supposition valid? Or should this only be subject to a training and fitness test? That, too, for all.

Dulce est decorum est pro patria mori (it is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country). Is it? No one should be placed in this position. The killing fields of war do no one credit.