Women defence officers are not cosmetic appendages

When the annals are compiled of how women entered the forbidding portals of the Indian armed forces, at first hesitantly, then with more confidence when they found that the judiciary was prepared to call the system's bluff, the names of a handful of courageous women will be right up there. Smartly dressed women leading parades at Rajpath, flying aircraft or serving in militancy-infested areas are seen as India's pride. They are frequently brought out on display during ceremonial occasions as evidence that women do have an equal opportunity of employment as enshrined under the Constitution.

Few, however, know of the odds they have battled to reach there. They have battled gender discrimination, patriarchy, prejudice, stereotypes and humiliation only because, as an honourable judge notes, "they were women."

The recent controversy over a leaked letter by a Corps Commander to his superior officer, the Eastern Army Commander, that contained adverse comments about the performance of eight women commanding officers under him give us a rude insight into what the Army's top brass really thinks about having women working alongside them in command and other assignments. The worthy general did not feel the need to do a similar evaluation of the 40-odd male commanding officers in his command.

Be that as it may, the women corps will probably dismiss the general's slights with a wry smile because it is just one among the many hurdles they have overcome.

The trajectory of women's participation in the armed forces has been charted in an anthology, appropriately titled 'In Her Defence'. It tells the story through essays and commentaries by jurists and academics. Edited by military lawyer Navdeep Singh and Shivani Dasmahapatra, it also busts several myths or 'urban legends', as advocates like to call the falsehoods that have grown around the issue.

Chief among the falsehoods is that women have been clamouring for entry into frontline combat arms like the infantry or the armoured corps — areas that are barred for them as a matter of policy.

They have never done so. In fact, even the Supreme Court, which has pushed for gender parity in the armed forces, has desisted from interfering in the government's decision to keep women away from combat arms because "it was "conscious of the limitations of security and policy."

So, what were the fights about? They began with something as basic as a permanent commission. A government notification of January 30, 1992 first made women eligible to become officers in some cadres, like the Army Postal Service, the Judge Advocate General's Department (JAG), the Army Education Corps (AEC) and some branches of the Army Ordnance and Army Service Corps. A year later, they began to be inducted into the Signals and Intelligence Corps as well as the Corps of Engineers, the Electrical and Mechanical Engineering and the Regiment of Artillery.

They were initially commissioned for five years and later, their service was extended to 14 years under the Women Special Entry Scheme, a Short Service Commission (SSC) scheme. There is an SSC scheme for male officers, too, and some of them get permanent commission (PC), depending on their performance.

In 2003, an advocate, Babita Puniya, through a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Delhi High Court, demanded that women appointed as SSC officers should be considered for PC, like their male colleagues. During the PIL’s pendency, the government announced PC prospectively to women officers in only the JAG and AEC. Those commissioned earlier were excluded. Two serving officers, Major Leena Gaurav and Major Sandhya Yadav, joined the battle. The landscape of gender equality within the armed forces was about to change.

In a landmark judgement, on March 12, 2010, the Delhi High Court, while upholding the women's contention, held that if women officers were deprived of PC while male officers were granted the opportunity for the same, it would be a violation of the principle of equality protected by the Constitution. The judgement was challenged before the SC by the Central government, but the SC did not stay its operation. The government dug in its heels for nine years, till February 2019, when it granted PC to SSC women officers in eight branches, with the caveat that they will be employed only in "staff appointments".

Another obstacle still lurked around the corner.

The SC found that the government's proposal to grant PC to women officers envisaged only those who had been in service for less than 14 years. Was it the women's fault that they had finished serving for 14 years and had to go home, while the government resisted implementing the Delhi High Court's 2010 order to grant them PC? The SC again cracked the whip and said that it was the Union government’s failure to comply with the high court order, which had not been stayed by the SC. This forced the reluctant government to give PC to all women who had been employed as SSC officers and also opened the doors for them to assume command assignments.

But, hold on to the slow claps.

Around the same time, 17 SSC women officers of the Navy were also fighting it out for PC. One of the objections of the government before the courts was that as officers are required to serve on ships, it could not permit women to get PC because "there is an absence of toilet facilities for women" on board Naval ships!

Now that gender parity has been achieved, the real battle for women officers is to be prepared for gender-neutral norms, where they will be called on to deliver equal performance in all aspects of military service.

For all these years, women officers have largely been seen as cosmetic appendages, handled with kid gloves and kept away from hard tasks, contributing to much angst among the male colleagues. Lt Col Anila Khatri pointed out recently how she was feted for doing 89 para jumps while male officers with more than 3,000 jumps found no mention.

If viewed objectively, beyond the prism of women's rights, Lt Gen Rajeev Puri — whose letter created the controversy — was pointing out just that. He has recommended that there should be a policy on gender neutrality that covers postings and selections. "Gender neutrality lays emphasis on equality in dealing and progression irrespective of gender," he said in his letter.

No quarrel with that. But please don't blame the women for the lapses in training due to delays by the government.