Ever wonder what history would read like if Queen Boadicea, Joan of Arc, the Trung sisters of Vietam, and our own Rani Durgavati, Lakshmibai, and Chennamma (both of them), amongst others, had sat home washing babies bottoms and let their men fight their battles for them?
From time immemorial men have been insisting that women are not meant to be in the battlefront – that hasn’t ever stopped women from going to war, and winning it too. In fact, one of the first ever mentions of a woman in combat is in the Rig-Veda (written between 3500 and 1800 BC) which tells of a warrior, Queen Vishpla, who lost her leg in battle, was fitted with an iron prosthesis, and went back to fight.
Should women be a part of our armies? Should they be in active combat? Can women take the stress of the harsh conditions army life imposes on them?These are some questions that have been thrown up recently, all triggered by the suicide of one young woman officer, and the words of an army senior.
I am one of the ‘uninformed folk’ who dare comment on the suitability of women in combat. Ask me if women should be in active combat, and I’ll say no. But I’ll also say that men shouldn’t be in active combat either. Let politicians (a different breed of animal) who create war actually fight it. Unfortunately reality is harsh and very very different.
My reasons for saying women shouldn’t be in combat have nothing to do with any belief that the Indian woman is a ‘devi’ or mother or sister or daughter, and so has no place in war.
If you so revere her, treat her with respect in civilian conditions.
Give her equal pay for equal work. Give her respect for the work she does and doesn’t get paid for. Bring down female foeticide by not putting a premium on male children, and break down the laws that seek to curb womens’ rights.
Stop ‘eve-teasing’ her. Stop dowry harrassment, stop domestic violence and rape, and stop taking away her rights in your mistaken urge to protect her from the big bad world, don’t seek to tell her what work she can and cannot do, and please, don’t insult her bravery and courage by saying she can’t do a job as well as a man can, because she needs the cushion of comfort! Please, please, don’t!
Yes, army life is tough, and it’s not for everybody – there’s no disputing that fact. There is unimaginable stress and there are few personal comforts. But it’s not as if women who choose the armed forces as a career/life, wake up one morning, put their rose coloured spectacles on and and sign up thinking, “I going to put on a uniform, carry a gun and get me a shiny gold medal, and maybe I’ll get through all this without shredding my manicure!” Give them credit for a tad more intelligence than that, please.
The idealistic arguments against women in the army often are
- the battlefront is a tough place to be. Yes, it is, and the women in the army know it. They know they may have to fight in jungles and deserts, braving stifling humidity, pouring rain and cold in degrees that make no sense to you and me. And they may have to do this without the luxury of proper rations, letters from home, or even clean underwear. But so do men. It’s tough for them too. Don’t they cope? Or is it that the women whine and ask for feather beds, running water and temperature controlled sleeping accommodation, while the men grit their teeth and march right on?
Instances of the lady officer who committed suicide because she was not able to cope with the stress of army life in general, and having very few options as to how her career shaped up, in particular, have been widely quoted in the media. The implication is that only women can’t cope. It is common knowledge, though it is easy to forget in the face of hush-ups by the army and sensationalistic media reporting, that unable to cope with stress, men in the army too have gone berserk, and have done all sorts of crazy things including shooting their fellow soldiers, their commanding officers, and even killing themselves. Then does anybody debate the suitablity of men in the army?
Yes, the army and the battlefront is a tough place to be, but if a soldier, whether male or female, can’t cope, that particular soldier has no business there.
- a woman soldier/officer has to work in close contact with very fit, virile, highly stressed men . Yes, she does. So is this about sex, and discipline issues because men cannot control their urges? Everybody has ‘urges’ and not everybody is mature enough to handle them sensibly, but this is not a phenomenon exclusive to the army. Whereever there are men and women working together in close proximity, not just in the army, there are discipline issues. Does that mean mixed gender workplaces should be banned? Is it really fair to kick all women out because a few women or men can’t handle it?
- women soldiers are treated terribly if they fall in enemy hands. Yes, very often they are. There’s no denying this truly appalling fact. The Geneva Convention is observed more in its violation than anything else (for more information about war crimes and the Geneva convention, check this out - https://bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/war/warcrimes.shtml ) Torture and sexual abuse happens, and it happens to male soldiers too. Should we feel more for the women and less for the men? Murder, rape, torture, biological experiments and other horrors of war are sickening regardless of whether they are perpetrated against men or women.
- do we want our women to be in this (all of the above) situation? If you can’t handle a woman being in a tough job, when she can take it, it’s your problem, not hers.
and
- do we want the nation to lose its mothers/daughters? This argument implies that female life is somehow more precious than male life. While that in itself is a specious argument, we all know how true it really is in the Indian context.
It’s alright to accept that men and women are different. It’s not a question of equality here, it one of difference. Their physiology is different. Men have roughly 40 – 50 % greater upper body, and 25 – 30 % greater lower body strength than women. Men also have more practical plumbing than women.
Let the deciding factors regarding women in the army be ones of logic and practicality rather than ideals and emotions.
If certain physical and mental aptitudes are required for a person to be in the army, they should be met. If a female soldier has to carry a wounded colleague to the nearest help station, can she do it? If she were required to live in a dugout for three months, in the biting cold, or desert heat, can she do it? Does she understand (and is she prepared) that if captured by the enemy, death would probably be better than the alternative? Can she take strategic decisions quickly? Can she cope with the daily stresses of army life without buckling?
If she can’t handle all of this and more, let her find another job that she is more suited to. The same thing applies to men.
Denying a woman the right to choose her job on the basis of cultural considerations or emotional issues, or quoting one incident to prove all women are not fit for the army is an insult to all the others who have done till now, and are still doing, a mind-blowingly tough job, bloodied but unbowed.
