‘Women Not Worth the Money’

February 01, 2010

By Shreyasi Singh

Raju believes that as long as the dangers of service are made clear that there’s no reason why women should not be allowed to serve. ‘Why do we think women officers are more vulnerable? I think a little girl walking the streets of any of our big cities is in greater danger at most given times,’ she says. ‘Also, the argument that women need to be overly protected from the enemy is, I think, a smart way to isolate them, to go back to treating them as custodians of national morality and modesty.’

Major General (Retired) Mrinal Suman says he’s baffled by such outbursts. ‘The defence potential of a country can’t be trivialised like this. Nobody in their right mind can demand equality of opportunity at the cost of reduced efficiency of an institution like the armed forces,’ he says. ‘The defence forces are not an employment scheme. The sole criterion has to be suitability, and women should be inducted into combat roles only if they can perform at the same level.’

Defence analysts have backed the government’s decision, saying India still has relatively limited experience of having women serve in the armed forces. The first intake was in 1992, mostly in the medical and nursing corps for a Short Service Commission of 5 years, extendible for another 5 years, and then another 4, adding up to a maximum of 14 years.

However, it was only in 2008 that women officers were granted permanent commissions of up to 20 years right from the start, as is the case for their male counterparts, in some wings of the armed forces such as Legal Branch, Engineers, Signals, Army Service Corps, Ordnance, Education, Intelligence and Corps of Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. Even now, women are only eligible for the officer cadre, and the permanent commission is valid only for new recruits, not the existing cadre of women officers.

In contrast, the United States military has approximately 200,000 women serving, nearly 20 percent of its strength, on active duty. Although direct ground combat with the enemy is barred, women are permitted to join as combat aircraft pilots and can also be assigned for extended duty on combat naval ships. In the British Armed Forces, female officers occupy 11.2 percent of all jobs since a major expansion of their role in the early 1990s. Women can now serve in 71 percent of all jobs in the Royal Navy, 67 percent in the Army and 96 percent in the Air Force, although they are still excluded from direct combat with the enemy.

However, Major General Suman says these benchmarks need to be contextualised. ‘In countries which are highly technical, it’s easier to open up more positions for women. The United States of America is touching fifth-generation technology, while the Indian forces still use second-generation technology,’ he says. ‘In a high-tech army, there are a lot of technical jobs women do equally, and often better. They can fly drones for attack remotely from their bases.’

And he adds that even in the United States, the glass ceiling may have some cracks, but it has by no means been shattered. ‘American women have been participating in Iraq operations in large numbers. But, there is not one woman in the 4,137 casualties suffered in Iraq by the US/UK forces so far. Clearly, even in such advanced forces, women are doing only non-operational jobs. Not one has become a casualty. No country in the world to date has women in actual combat positions. Why are we accused of having a gender bias?’ [Editor's note: according to iCasualties, there have been 19 female US servicemen killed in hostile situations since the beginning of 2007].