By Shravya Basgula Devaraj
The armed forces have often existed in a vacuum separately from civil society. As the world grapples with increasing discrimination and embracing the changing social structures, the armed forces have transformed as an institution while inculcating these social changes to become more inclusive. In this post, first, I will argue that the military has been subjected to the patriarchal structure of role allocation, most of which is a social construct rather than a true reflection of merit. However, over time, this view has undergone significant changes, on a path of ensuring occupational equality to members of the military.
Secondly, I will argue that the armed forces has excluded civilians and is viewed as a guardian of civilians rather than a fair and employable institution. Lastly, I will discuss the implications of the recent Supreme Court judgment as a watershed moment, for women in the armed forces.
Military and the Social Construct of Gender Roles
The military has been a gendered institution upholding patriarchal norms of social structure. In the armed forces, physical prowess and the role of male bastion in combat has been a result of historical social conditioning.[1]Societies have regarded the profession of a soldier in the army, a pilot in the air force, or a sailor in the navy as alluring career options only to males. Military leaders are a punctilio of decisiveness, strength and assertiveness, often conflated with their gender as males. This position of leaders is closely related to the social construct of roles and occupations driven by these roles. Society has been conditioned into accepting that functions are segregated for genders based on their optimum suitability.[2] This segregation is mostly based on power and status in society. [3]Thus, functions requiring strength and power are classified as masculine functions, quintessential to members of the armed forces. Women in the armed forces have been limited to positions in administration, health care and managerial departments, mostly for reasons unrelated to their qualifications and interests but driven by the social construct of gender roles. The entrenched patriarchy in recruiting for roles in the armed forces has been unchallenged by most societies. However, over time, society has evolved into being more progressive and receptive to the socio-cultural changes.
Military, as an institution, has undergone changes in its form and structure. One of the crucial developments in the institution is the evolving definitions of military roles. Unlike a few years ago, many countries have started using an integrated approach of role allocation instead of the traditional method of dividing men and women based on combat and non-combat roles. Though women were not directly integrated into combat roles, their involvement in the armed forces extended beyond just nursing and administration. Today, they fly combat aircrafts[4], serve in artillery units and even serve as support roles on the front line.[5] Sweden was one of the first countries to introduce women in military combat roles of the army. [6]They used military as an integrative tool to bridge the gap between men and women. The military has often been disenchanted from mainstream professions. They have existed as separate entities often existing independently off other civilian professions. As a response to counter the social isolation experienced by the military, besides inducting and encouraging women into the armed forces, volunteer forces have increased accessibility to the military and increased civilian reception to considering the military as an employment alternative. The transition from being a national security mandate to an equal opportunity employability option has broadened the scope of its outreach. Thus, countries are adopting mechanisms that tear down the walls built by a society that views the armed forces to be superior and unreachable instead of merely indispensable and essential. To capitalize over its indispensability and counter the entrenched sexism, countries like Israel and the United States have approached military functioning as a collaborative organisation of small group processes rather than a single large national exercise.[7] The objective is to assess missions individually and recruit members based on the skill requirements, making the armed forces an almost equal opportunity organisation.
The transformation of the Armed Forces in India
The Armed forces is subjected to the Army Act and its provisions which initially prohibited women into the army.[8] Subsequent notifications, specifically in 1992 extended the ambit of recruiting women into ten other branches.[9] This amendment allowed recruitment of women under the Short Service Commission into the different cadres. While India still slowly crawls behind, taking one step at a time, the incumbent Judiciary has taken cognizance of this underlying issue of promotion of beating socially constructed gender roles by permitting permanent roles to women in the armed forces.
On 20th February 2020, the Supreme Court carved out a pathway for women to meaningfully integrate themselves into the Indian Army. In The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors, the court ruled in favour of permitting Permanent Commission appointments to women in ten fields of the army which were previously reserved exclusively for men.[10]
The contention posed by the respondents was that both men and women are inducted through Short Service Commission. Nevertheless, the opportunity of Permanent Commission is denied only to women. Despite serving in the Army in positions similar to men, retired male officers are called back into service over competent women officers. The arguments of the Ministry of Defence in opposing Permanent Commission for women are reflective of the deep rooted patriarchy that continues to exist.[11] Ministry argued on upholding socially constructed gender roles where women association of their domestic obligations like motherhood, marriage and pregnancy are incapable of dedicating themselves to the armed profession and are physically inferior to men. Terming the petitioner’s arguments ‘disturbing and unacceptable’, the court accepted the respondent’s submissions without reservation, and ordered the Army to elevate Short Service Commissioned women of 14 years of service to Permanent Commission. Women with more than 14 years of service would be permitted to serve up to 20 years without consideration for permanent commission and then released subject to pensionary benefits. Besides this, women above 20 years of service would be released with pensionary benefits immediately upon the completion of the case.[12] Thus, the Permanent Commission would not be limited to merely staff appointments but include command positions as well. Granting Permanent Commission is also an opportunity for women to establish permanent careers in the army by increasing their tenure of service and providing long term benefits of health care and pension.
The court also dismissed the contention raised regarding admissibility of women to be in contravention to Article 33 of the Fundamental Rights. Article 33 is an exception which empowers the Parliament to restrict the Fundamental Rights of the Armed forces.[13] The court held that the restriction of rights was permitted only if it was necessary to ensure proper discharge of duties of the members. Since, the Army Act itself has evolved, from mandatorily prohibiting recruitment of women to inducting women into various branches of the military, restricting women to temporary positions is not necessary per se.[14]
Thus, the judgment aimed at deconstructing and dispelling the existing gender roles entrenched in the army’s functioning. Additionally, it opened doors to including the armed forces as feasible employment avenues. The trajectory of inclusion of women in the armed forces is integral in perceiving the evolution of the armed forces and the societal construct of gender roles. India is still struggling with accepting women in permanent positions, let alone ascribing combat roles for them. As a country that prefers re recruiting retired servicemen over capable women into office, the fight for gender neutrality has only just begun.
We witnessed that the armed forces remain recalcitrant of accepting women into combat operation areas. However, the first step is viewing the court’s judgement as not merely a principle of anti-stereotyping but a guiding force for institutions to redefine their vision as an integrative operation rather than a torchbearer of force and power.
The author, Shravya Basgula Devaraj, is currently a law student at the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), Kolkata.
[1] Marina Nuciari, Women in the Military Sociological Arguments for Integration
[2] Hilary Kathryn Aydt, The Social construction of Gender in the Military and Resistance to the Integration of Women, OPENSIUC 5(1998).
[3] Orna Sasson-Levy, Feminism and Military Gender Practices: Israeli Women Soldiers in “Masculine” Roles , , Sociology Enquiry._
[4] Economic Times, Meet India’s first three women fighter pilot trainees who will shatter the combat-exclusion policy, July 11, 2018 available at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/meet-indias-first-three-women-fighter-pilot-trainees-who-will-shatter-the-combat-exclusion-policy/articleshow/51322570.cms?from=mdr (Last visited on 12th May, 2020).
[5] Oxford University Press, Women on the front lines: Military service, combat and gender, January 10th, 2020 https://blog.oup.com/2020/01/women-front-lines-military-service-combat-gender/ (Last visited on 12th May, 2020).
[6] Alma Perssona and Fia Sundevallb, Conscripting women: gender, soldiering, and military service in Sweden 1965–2018, Women’s History Review 28(2019).
[7] ld.
[8] The Amry Act, 1950, §12.
[9] The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors 2020 SCC OnLine SC 326 ¶3.
[10] The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors 2020 SCC OnLine SC 326
[11] The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors 2020 SCC OnLine SC 326
[12] The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors 2020 SCC OnLine SC 326.
[13] The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 33.
[14] The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors 2020 SCC OnLine SC 326.
The Journal of Indian Law and Society 