Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn
    Monday, June 16
    Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn RSS
    Nalin Mehta
    • Home
    • The New BJP
    • Books
    • Columns
      • Politics & Current Affairs
      • Sports
      • Public Policy
    • Videos
    • Research Articles
    • In The Media
    • About
    Nalin Mehta
    You are at:Home » Blog » IF GI JANE CAN, WHY NOT MAJOR SEEMA?
    Public Policy

    IF GI JANE CAN, WHY NOT MAJOR SEEMA?

    Nalin MehtaBy Nalin MehtaMarch 7, 2011Updated:April 1, 2015No Comments5 Mins Read
    Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email

    At a time when the Army is being accused of a gender bias in denying permanent commissions to women officers, two stories have symbolised the debate this week: Major Mitali Madhusmita becoming the first Indian woman soldier awarded a gallantry award (Sena Medal) for saving lives after the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul and, on the other hand, the Army’s continuing resistance to a Delhi High Court order not to retire women after 14 years of service.

    The only reason the Army is not in contempt of court is because it asked the Supreme Court for time to review the issue but it has since continued to forcibly retire women officers in the interim, forcing the Supreme Court to step in and stay such discharges.

    Militaries all over the world are generally conservative in their outlook and there is an interesting parallel to the Army’s obduracy here with the US military.
    The US Army had enlisted women since World War II but until the 1970s, they were made to serve in a separate Corps, were never put in combat roles and immediately discharged if they got pregnant, became a parent or assumed custody of a minor.

    From the late-1960s though, the US Army came under increasing pressure from the rising tide of the feminist movement which gained support from politicians hoping to cash in on the women’s vote.

    Under fire from equal rights groups, the US military too resisted change on the grounds of national security and the special rigours of military service.

    This was best exemplified by an internal memo in 1975 by the Secretary of the Army, Howard Callaway:

    “I am concerned that we are overreacting to special interest social pressures and are failing to recognize Army defense requirements,” he railed. “Military service requires a service member (male or female) to be able to move without notice, to be prepared to work long and irregular hours without relief in order to meet unit mission requirements, and to live under adverse conditions.

    These work conditions are not suited for advanced stages of pregnancy nor for the care of minor dependents.”

    The basic tone of this sentiment is not too dissimilar from the widely publicised comment in 2006 by the then Army Vice Chief that comfort level with the women officers was low and the Indian Army could well do without them.

    Lt Gen Pattabhiraman later apologised for his ill-considered remarks but at its heart, this is the key issue: a basic resistance to change by an officer cadre steeped in a conservative mindset.

    Despite the winds of change in recent years, at some level, the Army’s organisational culture still has at its core an older colonial value system where men and women are assigned very distinct roles within a strict social hierarchy.

    Even up to the late-1990s, officers with wives who worked in other cities were looked down upon in many regiments since the proper place of wives was to assist their husbands in regimental welfare activities.

    That has now changed of course but the memsahib culture still remains an inherent part of Army society. Little wonder then that equality for women officers threatens to break down long-held beliefs.

    Look at what has happened. Women have always served in the medical and nursing services but since 1992, they have been allowed to enlist as Short Service Commission officers in other arms for up to a maximum of 14 years.

    Then in 2008 the Ministry of Defence agreed to provide permanent commissions to those serving with the Judge Advocate General and the Education Corps in the Army; to those in the Accounts Branch in the Air Force and the Naval Constructor in the Navy.

    This was both a forward and a regressive move. Forward, because it recognised the claim for women’s equality but regressive because it only recognised it for women in these specific categories.

    Women serving in other arms were left in the lurch. The Air Force, for instance, has women helicopter pilots and the Army has women serving in Air Defence Artillery, the Supply Corps, Ordnance and others arms as well. Why couldn’t they be given the option of a permanent job as well?

    The only argument against women serving in the defence forces is an old misogynist one that wrongly sees women as basically unfit for this kind of work and a smaller more practical one that foresees practical problems in gender-mixing (such as the lack of gender-appropriate amenities and facilities).

    But that argument was resolved in 1992 when women were first brought in, against huge opposition.

    Now, if the 2000 or so women officers currently in the defence forces can serve successfully for 14 years in some parts of the war machine, there is absolutely no reason why they cannot in others as well and for longer than 14 years.

    The current policy smacks of gender bias, as Major Seema Singh has recently argued in the Supreme Court.

    After the High Court order last year, the Air Force agreed to provide permanent commissions but the Army is still dithering and waiting for a high-level committee’s report.

    For an Army suffering from an officer shortage, this is a sheer waste of time and there is no excuse but to embrace the wider social changes engulfing India.

    The US Army reluctantly did it in the 1970s and realised that women made it a better force. The sooner our generals realise it, the better.

    Army defence military women
    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
    Previous ArticleTHE COMIC MAKER OF INDIA
    Next Article CONFLICTS IN THE PARTY WITH A DIFFERENCE
    Nalin Mehta
    • Website
    • Twitter

    Professor Nalin Mehta is Dean, School of Modern Media, UPES; Advisor, Global University Systems and Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University Singapore. He is an award-winning social scientist, journalist and author who has held senior leadership positions in major Indian media companies; international financing institutions like the Global Fund in Geneva, Switzerland; taught and held research positions at universities and institutions in Australia (ANU, La Trobe University), Singapore (NUS), Switzerland (International Olympic Museum) and India (IIM Bangalore, Shiv Nadar University).

    Related Posts

    India has legitimate bragging rights for public-sector led UPI success

    September 6, 2023

    How Muslims Fare in BJP’s Welfare Schemes

    January 14, 2022

    Why More Women Vote BJP

    January 7, 2022

    Comments are closed.

    Tags
    2002 riots Army Asian Games BJP BSP China Commonwealth Games communal violence Congress corruption Cricket defence Delhi diplomacy education Gujarat hockey Indian Army internal security international relations IPL Kashmir Mayawati media and politics military Modi Nalin Mehta Narendra Modi Nehru Olympics OROP Pakistan Parliament politics of sports Punjab Rahul Gandhi RBI Rio 2016 television terrorism The New BJP United States UP Uttar Pradesh West Bengal
    Archives
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Instagram
    • LinkedIn
    Don't Miss

    BJP juggernaut and national politics: Seven takeaways for 2024 elections

    Exit polls: Five takeaways for national politics on road to 2024

    Notes and Appendices: The New BJP

    Emergence of a powerful PM was a turning point in India’s digital revolution

    About

    Professor Nalin Mehta is Dean, School of Modern Media, UPES; Advisor, Global University Systems an Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University Singapore. He is an award-winning social scientist, journalist and author who has held senior leadership positions in major Indian digital, print and TV news companies; been a communications expert with international financing institutions and the UN in Geneva, Switzerland; taught and held research positions at universities and institutions in Australia, Singapore, Switzerland and India.

    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn RSS
    Recent Posts

    BJP juggernaut and national politics: Seven takeaways for 2024 elections

    December 3, 2023

    Exit polls: Five takeaways for national politics on road to 2024

    November 30, 2023

    Notes and Appendices: The New BJP

    November 6, 2023
    Tweets by ‎@nalinmehta

    Tweets by nalinmehta

    Copyright © 2025
    • Home
    • The New BJP
    • Books
    • Columns
      • Politics & Current Affairs
      • Sports
      • Public Policy
    • Videos
    • Research Articles
    • In The Media
    • About

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.