Wednesday, February 1, 2023
HomeOpinionWomen won the case in Supreme Court, but Army and MoD have...

Women won the case in Supreme Court, but Army and MoD have not entered 2020 yet

When the Army says ‘male soldiers not ready to accept orders from female officers’, it ignores the basic tenet of military functioning – an order is an order.

Text Size:

Almost a decade after losing its arguments in Delhi High Court, the Army has been made to read the writing on the wall by a Supreme Court order clearing women officers for permanent commissions and possibly command of units.

It was inevitable that the petitioning women officers would win one day – change is inexorable. What is worrisome is that the Army and Ministry of Defence continued to argue the inexcusable despite losing the case on 12 March 2010. Navy and the Air Force read the writing on the wall and quietly allowed permanent commission for women officers after that verdict in 2010. But the Army stalled, and continued digging its heels for another decade.

What is more worrisome is the language the Army used in its arguments before the Supreme Court to deny women officers permanent commissions. It reflects odious generalisations and socially regressive thought processes. But even more worryingly, it is evidence of how little the Ministry of Defence, and as an adjunct Army HQs, understand the changing sociology of the Army rank and file.

So, it is ironical that Defence Minister Rajnath Singh welcomed the Supreme Court judgment in which his ministry had lost its case, just as it had a decade ago. He obviously wasn’t aware of the language his ministry had used during its failed arguments, which compelled Justice D.Y. Chandrachud to observe, “Such a line of thinking is disturbing….”


Also read: 10 things you need to know about the Supreme Court judgment on women officers in Army


No mutinous troops

For starters, the Narendra Modi government had argued that “male soldiers were not ready to accept orders from female officers”. This is a very serious submission to make in a court of law for it undermines the basic tenet of military functioning – the inviolability of command. An order is an order, whether it is passed by a male or a female officer. And any reluctance to implement such an order is an offence under the Army Act that can lead to a court martial. For the Army and the Ministry of Defence to take such a line in court is indeed shocking. Experience of command comes from early days of service as officers, male or female, are placed as leaders of troops. The numbers increase as the officer goes up in rank. Even before getting a permanent commission, women officers have been in command of male troops.

And, more importantly, in nearly 30 years of Army giving women a commission, there hasn’t been any publicly reported cases of mutinous troops, which is what ‘not accepting orders’ really means. It is, therefore, an insult to the Indian Army’s jawan when the Army/MoD counsel presents such arguments.


Also read: SSC women Army officers don’t want ‘freebies’, say fight is for parity not pension


Prejudiced reasons

There are many more such unacceptable and embarrassing nuggets of pop socio-psychology that the counsel employed. There are of course the predictable remarks on pregnancy, motherhood, children and family obligations. Then there is a practical observation of ‘minimal facilities for habitat and hygiene’ in field areas for women officers. Fair enough, but this is hardly intractable when military infrastructure is a much-touted area of progress. There are observations about physiology as well, as is wont to be, but the one that takes the cake has a thing about behavioural sciences. “This results in a unique, all male environment in a unit where presence of WOs [women officers] requires moderated behaviour in their presence. Posting of WOs in all-male units thus has its own peculiar dynamics.’

From the first course of women officers in 1992, they have been serving in all-male units, from 2nd Lieutenant days to now as Lt Colonels. Anyone who has seen them in service hasn’t noticed anything peculiar in the dynamics of the units, so from where the MoD/Army HQs found such deep insights will remain a mystery until data is shared. In the absence of empirical data to back such a claim, it is just what it is – prejudice.

But there is no male officer in the Army who would not want ‘moderated’ behaviour in his unit. Military discipline rests on moderation, which doesn’t require the presence of women officers to enforce but is ingrained in the Army. Therefore, any unit with immoderate behaviour is clearly unfit for duty, and thankfully there are none in the Army.


Also read: Women in combat roles: India can romanticise it but here’s why we are not ready yet


On permanent commissions

Lastly, much is being made out about permanent commission and Command. Just because a woman officer has been given permanent commission doesn’t mean she’ll get command of her unit. For that various boxes have to be ticked, from the academic, performance evaluations to the medical. Just as it applies to all male officers. But without permanent commission, she wouldn’t have been able to command, because the required duration of service would simply not be there for her. The Supreme Court has now ensured she can command provided she fulfils the criteria.

So, the 25 February 2019 order of the MoD that gave permanent commission to women officers was double discrimination. Firstly, it was only for officers with less than 14 years of service, thus keeping out those who have served longer, and have been petitioners. And then, it would only keep them in the staff appointments rather than command position, a fundamental violation of a President’s commission, which applies equally to all who have been privileged to earn one.

Army HQs and Ministry of Defence clearly have yet to enter 2020.

The author is a Congress leader and Editor-in-Chief of Defence & Security Alert. Views are personal.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

7 COMMENTS

  1. Indian women are second to no body. They must get to command or even participate in the combat roles. But the selection criteria must have no relaxation on basis of gender. Both men and women must go through equal grind, without any discounts. If gentlemen need to run 5 km in 18 min. for qualification, so must the lady. Basically every one must earn each other’s respect and there should be no place for a weaker individual in the army.

  2. Indians love to live on legacy of women fighters. However, when coming to making women to a legend they flattered.

    Male Chauvinism is at its best or worst? Particularly, when we had a woman PM, Prez and even Defense Minister !!!

  3. India’s meddlesome Supreme Court interferes with matters military with the same arrogance as with native worship, with no conception whatsoever beyond its familiarity with US and European laws. India is not starved for manpower to have to rely on woman power, which is why India’s Neta-Babus believe that soldiers, sailors and airmen are pawns “paid to die”.
    The Judiciary should stay out of matters that they know nothing about and attend to the one thing they seem to be too bored to deal with. Matters of law, evidence, fact and upholding the rule of law. Instead, they are acting like parachuted politicians and enforcing “Social Engineering”..

    Here are comments from comrades that I fully endorse:

    “Each country should use its strengths to full use and it should shelter and protect its drawbacks from being exploited.
    No western country would have been able to build such an efficient fighting capability that is built up on a “sect” such as our Sikh Regiments. No country would be able to build a fearless group of fighting men based on their regional mythology as our Rajputana or Maratha fighting forces, as we did.
    You won’t see a Texas regiment in US or an Arizona infantry being such effective and efficient fighting machines. In fact US removed such regiments/ battle formations after the civil wars.
    Each country has its strengths that they build upon as effcient war-fighting groupings. In India, women are not that, yet. We may have had a Laxmibai of Jhansi, but we must not forget she also came from a kings family. Indian troop/ battle formations are not prepared for this because of our society and our traditions. The same traditions that make a Sikh regiment or a Maratha regiment unbeatable in war.
    India should not fall for the trap of being Woke and politically correct in following feminism to overtake and undermine its incredible fighting forces.
    I am all for equal rights for women, but will still get up and give a seat to a women in public transport”
    (Kane)

    “Practically under Indian Conditions of warfare, women aren’t to be employed in battle fronts on land, at sea and in the air till such time we are capable of conducting non- contact warfare! Can we for a moment imagine a lady fighter pilot in the hands of Paki Mil in the place of Wg.Cdr.Abhinandan?
    US Mil employs women in combat duties. I had seen them in action during Desert Storm-1 manning AWACs, Transports & Refuellers and on ground in ATC, Radar, Fire, Meteorology, Logistics – certainly not as fighter pilots on combat duties. This should have been the case with the other two arms of US Mil as well.
    Judicial Restraint in matters concerning Military should be the golden mean!”
    (Rajamanickam)

  4. Very well written, with masterly satire. And the closing point, a very important one, highlights the injustice in the Army’s order which has again excluded women who have served longer. This sort of bureaucratic cunningness will not last for long. Hope the petitioners appeal this discrimination again and teach the fellows responsible for it, a good lesson.

    • Correct a woman must be considered second to none. And so should be her training and selection criteria which must be as stringent as her male counterparts. Army is a tribe in itself and, it is all about earning respect from his/ her tribesmen and women. If Joan of Arc or The Rani of Jhansi can do it then I don’t find a reason why we are so sceptical about women. Simple logic for every one, clear the test and earn the badge. No reservations, no discounts or no favouritism.

Comments are closed.