Women and the Army
It seems India’s military brass believes that the equality conferred by the Constitution of India on all Indian citizens doesn’t apply to the Armed Forces. The Ministry of Defence has moved the Supreme Court seeking a review of a Delhi High Court order that asked the Indian Army and Air Force to grant a permanent commission to its woman officers.
At present, women are recruited into the military only on Short Service Commission (SSC), for a maximum of 14 years. Men are also recruited on SSC, but they can qualify for permanent commission on completing their assignment. Women can’t.
A petition was filed by 52 women officers of the Army and Air Force before the Delhi High Court, asking that they be treated on par with the male SSC officers. The Court asked the government to “offer permanent commission… on par with the male… officers with all the consequential benefits… within two months”. The Air Force began implementing the order, but the Army has refused to grant permanent commissions to the women officers, saying it would cause “problems of acceptance in its culture”.
Four of the Army women officers are scheduled to retire on 23 August. They filed a contempt petition in the High Court, asking that the Defence Ministry and Army top brass be punished for “wilfully disobeying the judgment and order dated 12 March. When the High Court issued notice to the relevant authorities, they moved the Supreme Court in appeal.
The issue is simple. If male SSC officers can be allowed to continue beyond 14 years, why can’t their women counterparts get the same opportunity? They are not asking for fighting duties. In fact, the High Court specifically directed that women should be granted non-combat roles. There are 784 women officers in the Air Force, 4,101 women officers in the Army and 252 women officers in the Navy. Just a few of them want permanent commissions. Is that too much to ask?
Defence Minister A K Antony has said that in principle, he favours the grant of permanent commission to women officers. Yet, the Ministry has sought a review of the high court’s directions. Why the dichotomy between words and action?
In the US, 36,000 women served in World War I (1914-18), of which 200 died and 80 were taken as Prisoners of War (PoWs). In World War II, 400,000 women served. Since 1993, they have been allowed to serve in combat positions too. Today, women constitute nearly 20 per cent of the strength of the US Armed Forces.
Israel makes military service compulsory for young women. Many of them serve directly in the line of enemy fire. Only one-third of female soldiers are exempted, for religious reasons and owing to pregnancy.
In the British Armed Forces, 71 per cent of all jobs in the Navy, 67 per cent in the Army and 96 per cent in the Air Force are open to women. They are excluded only from duties that require battling the enemy at close quarters. Nearly 10 per cent of British Armed Forces personnel are women. In Canada, they are nearly 13 per cent. In tiny Bulgaria and Slovenia, they comprise 7 per cent and 18 per cent, respectively.
In India, that number languishes in the low single digits. Still, for a country that is even now very feudal and conservative, that is a considerable achievement. The Army contends that the war-potential of a nation’s armed forces cannot be compromised, and regardless of what the rest of the world does, women officers are unsuitable for the Indian Army, except for the medical corps and other technical branches. Concern for equality of sexes, it feels, should not influence defence policies. All that is fine. But why can’t officers who have already served with distinction for 14 years continue till retirement? Merely because they are women…?
