Why do we deny women their place in combat forces?
The induction of Avani Chaturvedi, Mohana Singh and Bhawana Kanth into the Indian Air Force as combat pilots garnered much media and public glare. When Flying Officer Chaturvedi operated a fighter aircraft solo, everyone went gushing about it. Last year, the Chief of Army Staff came on record, stating that soon women will be recruited for positions in military police. The navy has been deliberating on having women onboard on ships. What do these events hold for us? Combat operations, traditionally a male haven, are being made accessible to women. As a consequence, women can opt for roles beyond legal, medical, logistical and educational.
In the ‘life’ of Indian armed forces, the inclusion of women in combat roles should be welcomed with a ‘rite of passage’. Only a few countries around the world have been able to shatter the gender barrier in this domain. Traditionally, people serving in combat have been male. Women are excluded on the grounds that they cannot match men in physical strength. They lack the longevity required on the war field. War wounds and attrition post retirement are some of the other concerns used frequently by the male-only votaries. History is rife with evidences that it was not uncommon for women to serve combat roles. Women like Joan of Arc and Queen of Jhansi showed exceptional leadership on the war front.
During the world wars, thousands of women were recruited in the combat units. In the recent past, American women have led the forces in the unfavourable terrains of Iraq and Afghanistan. (Though, until lately, women were banned from taking up combat duties in the US.) Evidence suggests that many women who apply for combat roles are in better shape than many men sent into combat.
Another concern cited by the ‘traditionalists’ points towards the hoary aspects of patriarchy and associated beliefs: the notion that women run the risk of getting captured and sexually assaulted or raped. This is not seen as a form of gendered violence that requires remedy, rather as a matter of maintaining the sexual sanctity of women. According to B Anandavalli, both the West and the East idealized the ‘wifely’ and ‘motherly’ qualities within women. The condescending patriarchy view is that women needed protection, along with children and aged population. The onus of protection fell on the male members.
By allocating combat duties to women, the delicately crafted model of defined gender roles would collapse and the existing state of affairs would be in shambles.
Young Richa Bhatt was selected for the Army through the University Entry Scheme in the year 2010, but did not join the forces. A civil engineer from IIT-R, she had her share of reservations for declining the offer even though she had once wished to serve the Indian Army.
“Although I got entry in the Army as a civil engineer, it was highly probable that I would have been given a desk posting rather than a field one where my technical skills could have been better utilized. Also, women are recruited for a commissioned period of 14 years, which raised issues about job security. Forces still need to become a fair place gender-wise.”
Even if one assumes that women would not be able to conduct ‘all’ combat operations due to physical or physiological constraints, doesn’t that arise a more pertinent question as to why these armed struggles are required in the first place? The traditionalists within the field of international relations prioritize male involvement in decision-making institutions. Men dominate power and associated structures. Women’s ‘private’ position is considered outside the realm of global politics, thus making their experiences and contributions irrelevant.
Belligerence and war are glorified as masculine behaviour; peacemaking, peace-building and cooperation are viewed as lesser aspects by virtue of their being feminine behaviour. Women should handle soft issues, men should manage hard matters. In an attempt to match up to their male counterparts, many women try to change in order to be more masculine. But does it happen vice versa too? Do men try to imitate women as much? NO.
Conflict and war as concepts in the realist school of international relations are problematic. They glorify assault and aggression. To be in combat, women need to be as bellicose as men. Women need to change. Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady poses a relevant question.
“Why can’t a woman be more like man? Well, the answer is, no doubt, that she can. But the real question is do we really want her to be?”
Feminist approach is simple. Collaboration is important. Disarming combatants, facilitating peace deals, promoting rule of law are also important. Soldiers are actually meant to end conflict. The aim of rulers at the helm should be determination of valued goals towards which humanity must move, and not just power expansion. Women and femininity can help a long way in achieving that.
