Let’s not pitchfork women into combat role

While successive governments have exercised a number of options to wreck the military, inducting women into the fighting arms may prove to be the proverbial last straw on the camel’s back. Both during India’s past, and more recently, during the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, women did take part in some manner of combat and acquitted themselves well. But when we call upon women to take part in a full-blooded infantry battle, it is a different ballgame.

Lt Gen Harwant Singh (Retd)

Former Deputy Chief of Army staff

With the Supreme Court clearing the way for women officers in the military to permanent commission and command appointments, there is now a clamour for their induction into combat role. Earlier views on the induction of women into combat arms of the Indian Army, expressed by the Army Chief, had come under criticism from many quarters.

It’s nothing new for women to be part of the military. They were there in large numbers during World War II, both in supporting role and in combat arms. The USSR deployed them as bomber pilots and in the allied forces, they manned anti-aircraft guns. Because of the requirement of soldiers in very large numbers, and consequently their shortage, some countries involved in World War II had to draw on women for combat role. Many desk jobs in the military, too, were manned by them.

In the Indian military, they have been holding various jobs, such as in the medical corps (doctors and nursing officers). Some time ago, they were inducted into supporting arms such as EME, ordnance, engineers, signals, artillery, education and legal branches etc, where they have performed well.

The Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and the then Defence Minister pitched for their entry into all streams of combat elements. The then Defence Minister had also wanted an all-woman combat unit. While it may be interesting to know the reaction to such proposals by the Pakistan army, here the focus need be on the implications of their induction into the combat arms — infantry and tank units.

Women in submarines and as fighter pilots may fit in some manner, but women pilots bailing out over enemy territory, particularly Pakistan, has its own implications. Perhaps, the Supreme Commander and the Defence Minister may prefer to gloss over this pertinent issue, but the Air Chief is reported to have stated that they would not have to fly over enemy territory.

While successive governments have exercised a number of options to wreck the military, inducting women into the fighting arms may prove to be the proverbial last straw on the camel’s back. Both during India’s past— to an extremely limited extent — and more recently, during the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, women did take part in some manner of combat and acquitted themselves well, but when we call upon women to take part in a full-blooded infantry battle, it is a different ballgame.

Advocates of the idea of inducting women into combat arms are working on the false premise of the need for application of ‘gender equality’ in this field too. Such notions and illusions miss out on the nature of battle combat arms are called upon to undertake and the imperatives of winning a war. Political leadership in India, unlike some other democracies, has no experience of wearing a uniform or even marginally acquainting itself with the nature of combat and what all it involves. Their children and those of bureaucrats do not opt for the military service. The military’s sole mission, when compelled to wage a war, is to win the same and vanquish the enemies of this nation. In war, there is no ‘runners-up.’ It cannot be used as a social engineering project by ill-informed politicians and self-proclaimed defence experts.

The Indian infantry, when deployed along the northern borders, has to carry out long-range patrols, some lasting as much as 14 days, where a woman will have to carry her weapons, ammunition, 21 days’ ration (14 days, plus 50 per cent reserve), bedding and tent etc to cater for rain. This adds up to 50 kg. On occasion, she may even have to share a blanket with a man. During combat, injuries suffered by a woman may require first aid by her male colleague, maybe on her private parts. What if a good number are taken prisoner?

Women, as members of a tank crew, where space is extremely limited, will be in constant intimate body contact with another crew member, who could be a young male. Combat for an infantry soldier is an extreme form of violence, carried out without pity, remorse and contrition. How many know what it takes to get up and advance through a hail of bullets and exploding shells, with comrades to the left and right being blown to bits and ending up with hand-to-hand fighting with the enemy?

Women require long maternity leave which will impact the unit functioning. The Indian infantry soldier spends half his service in field areas and when in a peace station, there is little peace for him. For such women, bringing up children will have its own implications. Such problems are being faced, though to a much lesser degree even by women in the medical corps and others. One lady lieutenant-colonel of the medical corps had gone to court against far too frequent moves on temporary duties, while she had a young child to take care of. How will it impact the growth of children staying away from their mothers for long periods? Equally, how will these mothers take separation from small children?

It is nobody’s case to deny women their right to equal opportunities. There is an all-women border police unit, because their range of duties are poles apart from that of an infantry soldier. In India, women have done exceedingly well in the civil services, police, judiciary, politics, medical services and a whole lot of other fields and it is here that they can be provided additional opportunities. More women must find place in boardrooms. We have very few women in parliament and state legislative assemblies, as ministers, both at the Centre and in states, and in the Supreme Court. So why not get them in equal numbers as there are men in these?

It is incumbent upon the military leadership to suitably advise the government and not be carried along by such outlandish proposals. The nation’s military leaders have a moral duty to inform the political executive that some of the policies they advocate are not in the best interest of the military, and consequently, that of national security. It is not to be left to the women to take a call on whether to join combat arms or not, as being advocated by some. The chiefs of defence services must have the courage to stand up and the wisdom to advise the government where its policies can have an adverse impact on national security issues.

The nation’s security scene is anything but reassuring. There is no compulsion to get women in combat arms and the same is not in the best interest of national security. There is no shortage of men; women need to be spared the ordeals of combat and instead avenues should be opened up for them across a range of other fields.