In Defence of a Fair Chance

Brig. B.L. Poonia (retd)

In the Indian Army we have a tendency to brush aside certain important and sensitive issues by trying to sweep the same under the carpet, with a view to avoid denigrating the image of the army. But that’s not the right approach. If we have a genuine concern for the army, such issues must be discussed objectively, so that the same get highlighted and attended to, well in time.

In fact, hats off to the corps commander for raising the issue of women commanding officers with the army commander. In a five-page letter that Lt Gen. Rajeev Puri wrote to Eastern Army Commander Lt Gen. Ram Chander Tiwari, the former pointed out an increase in the number of management issues in units commanded by women officers. After all, why should such an important and sensitive issue remain buried in files? Now that the issue has hit the national headlines as well as caught attention of primetime TV debates, it would draw attention of the Supreme Court judges too. If we truly care about our health, the purpose is not served by hiding the cancer-affected limb; the answer lies in treating it. And the sooner we do it, the greater the chances of recovery, thereby preventing it from spreading further.

Supreme Court Rulings

The fault in this case lies squarely with the Supreme Court, whose rulings on the subject have been based on an absolute academic interpretation of the Constitution. The defence forces had opposed giving command to women officers, but the Supreme Court forced it, quoting equality before law. Likewise, even women’s entry to the National Defence Academy (NDA) had been opposed in the Supreme Court, but it was simply adamant. When forced by the court ruling, the defence services asked for a year’s time to cater for their arrangements. But the Chief Justice of India (CJI) didn’t agree to this request. Incidentally, the same CJI had adopted a similar attitude during the hearing of One Rank One Pension (OROP) case. Otherwise, does it take more than five and half years to pronounce that OROP being a policy matter, was well within the purview of the Executive, and was beyond the jurisdiction of judiciary? But by indirectly pressurising the government over a period of five and a half years, the CJI wanted to win some kind of popularity within the defence forces, but the government refused to succumb to his indirect pressure tactics, and finally won the case.

The Final Say

To begin with, why should one presume the professional advice of a service chief to be biased or anti-women? After all, women officers are not aliens or our enemies; they are a part of us. So, this should not be a ‘men versus women’ debate. The army should have been given a fair chance to carry out trials on this. In 1974, the army had carried out a trial on whether the infantry officers could be given the command of an armoured division. Maj. Gen. K. Sundarji, an infantry officer, who later became Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), was given a chance to command one. Having finished the command, he did not recommend the same. But his recommendations came under heavy criticism, even by some of the armoured corps officers, saying it could be a case of him wanting to go down in the history of being the only infantry officer to have commanded an armoured division. Why were a few others not given a chance? The decision should have been based on a wider range of trials.

Shocking Revelations in the Feedback

It is unbelievable that a lady commanding officer (CO) should insist upon a subedar major opening the door of her vehicle, and her controlling the leave of jawans, leading to last minute sanction of leave, with total disregard for the inconvenience of travelling without rail reservations, and misusing manpower.

A CO without a human touch ceases to be good leader. Maturity and human touch are ‘sine quo non’ for command of a unit. No matter how great an officer’s technical qua