 |
| Photo courtesy: BBC |
Should women be given a permanent commission in the army? Yes
Should they be given command of their units? Yes, if they qualify and meet the standards, like their male counterparts.
Great development for gender equality, but the devil is in the details.
For this to succeed for everyone, we have to stop treating them like women, but like officers and soldiers! They are as good, if not better than men, they only need a fair chance to prove it.
Permanent commission and command consideration are complementary - if women are given a permanent commission, they should be automatically eligible for command of their units based on selection parameters, irrespective of gender. This has certain prerequisites that are paramount from recruitment onward. Command of units is a critical role in any army, and it would require the leader to be part of the team in all respects - right from the day he or she wears a uniform.
Recruit women officers based on vacancies, but also on the same parameters as men.
They must face the same standards of mental tests and physical fitness standards as men during selection. Recruitment of women as officers on compassionate grounds, even as an exception must stop. For example, bending a few rules of commissioning because they're soldiers' widows, or selection as an officer on a sympathy vote must stop. Would a man get a commission in the army with relaxed entry rules for age on compassionate grounds, even if he meets all other criteria? Maybe not!
Training standards for men and women cadets must be the same. And that begins with integrated training companies and platoons where they live, train, compete in sports and other activities together. All standards applicable to men should be equally applicable to women cadets - the same cross country, 5km run, PT, play football and basketball as teammates with their male counterparts. After all, at the end of it all, each one of them is a potential commanding officer who must lead men and women from the front. The current practice of separate training companies, different duration, different content and standards of training must go. In the beginning, some women may not meet the physical standards, but that expectation needs to be met by them(it should be standard for all who aspire to command), and they will, as time passes. Women must also train with everyone else to understand group dynamics, develop their leadership capabilities, and be able to assume leadership positions by natural selection or nomination during this training. This also helps bust myths about capabilities of women, and helps establish them as leaders among their peers during training.
Male officers have to establish themselves as leaders in their units right from day one. This starts from the first activity of the day - physical training, where young officers who push their men to attain tougher physical fitness standards establish positive influence over their teams. It is not so much about being physically stronger, but about letting your team know that whatever they do together, you are better than them - therefore you have the moral right to lead. This applies equally to physical fitness, technical and tactical knowledge and application, administration, and knowing and taking care of your team members.
An important aspect to also consider is building camaraderie, which comes to a great extent by sharing hardships together, whether sitting out enemy shelling in a bunker, or sharing tents and toilets with your men as young officers or even doing duty officer assignments without special treatment. People who disappear when the going gets tough are not remembered 'fondly'. That is why officers who have not spent much time in the field do not have a bond with their men or their peer officers, and probably do not get accepted as true leaders by their teams if they do become commanding officers. This aspect needs to be practiced by women without exception, if they are to be leaders and commanding officers. Of course the activities and experiences that build camaraderie would depend on the arm or service they belong to. For example, in Signals, it may be Signal Centre duties round the clock, or in Air Defence it may be deployment drills at the gun position. In fact, I still remember my course mate from Signals unhappily recounting that a newly commissioned lady officer in his unit was not being assigned signal centre duties in the night, because of which he was on night duty repeatedly. This was soon after women were inducted in 1994, I'm sure that things have changed by now, and women officers do not expect such soft treatment any more!
People quote numerous anecdotes of women officers participating in and leading difficult operations as examples of their fortitude. Most activities quoted as examples of the 'extraordinary' by women are routine functions that have been done by their male counterparts for ages, like leading convoys, building bridges and roads under difficult conditions, setting up communications etc. If women expect to be at par with men, then they must also realize that 'extraordinary' in military service would not be when compared to other women outside the forces, but as compared to any other officer(whether male or female).
Lets also start referring to them as officers, not 'lady officers'. Differentiating them as ladies is patently wrong. They are as much ladies as male officers are gentlemen, and need not be reminded of it every time they are addressed!
In any case, once they start getting considered for promotion to colonel and command of units, the promotion process itself would not distinguish between men and women based on their gender(I hope so). The selection process to colonel and brigadier in the Indian Army is confidential and anonymous (I have served in the department that promotes officers, and we went extraordinary lengths to make sure that the process is fair, and the officer is not identified in any way). Therefore, women officers should be considered against the same set of benchmarks used for others in the batch being promoted, with no special favours. Definitely no quotas for command. This is especially important if the quality of commanding officers is to be maintained and they are to be competent leaders. The Supreme Court has noted in its judgement that command is to be given based on criteria established by the armed forces - these should be the same as used for their male counterparts, again, without exception!
Currently, women serve in services (EME, Ordnance Army Service Corps, JAG, Education) and some supporting arms like Air Defence, Engineers, Signals etc as officers. Not as soldiers. Women could be considered for recruitment into the armed forces as soldiers in these 'departments' as well. If they have been found fit to lead as officers, it is because they can do all those things that the soldiers can, and better - an important factor that determines their acceptance as leaders in units. If women can do it as officers, why can't they do it as soldiers too, especially in roles that do not require combat service in contact with the enemy?
Thoughts and difference of opinion are welcome.
Colonel Abraham Cherian, Retd
