Rahul M wrote:Rajesh ji, pardon me for saying so but I am in turn appalled by the sheer naivete in your post.
Rahul M ji,
On Military Forum, every time I write people will see naivete for I do not have a military background and am not well-versed in all things military! It will take me some time to outgrow it.
Rahul M wrote:# military service is still very labour intensive and dilution of physical standards to make it accessible to certain sections of society goes against the very grain of soldiering. why not dilute standards in every merit based appointment to make them accessible to larger sections of society?
It is the service that chooses which standards the servicemen have to fulfill. Would the service say that all servicemen need to be as strong as the Olympic Weight Lifting Champions, our armed forces would probably be a very tiny force indeed. There is a long, broad and bright record of servicewomen around the world, including in combat-risk duty as Maj Gen Mrinal Suman himself has elaborated.
I am all for having tough training and merit, but I am not for simply using exaggerated physical strength requirements as a criteria and excuse to disqualify women.
Rahul M wrote:# sexual harrassment is dealt with sternly, IA does not need your pontification on this issue.
My "pontification" did not come out of the blue sky, but rather in response to the following assessment by Maj Gen Mrinal Suman
Maj Gen Mrinal Suman wrote:Sexual Harassment
This is one single concern that has defied solution so far – how to ensure safety and protect dignity of women in the forces. Almost all women view this as their major fear. The American and the British societies are highly emancipated and liberal with women having equal status in all fields. Yet, the level of sexual harassment of women in their forces is startling.
What hurts women most is the attitude of military officials who dismiss complaints as frivolous and due to over-sensitivities of women involved. Even serious accusations of sexual assault are many times treated in a perfunctory manner. Moreover, many officers tend to adopt an attitude of acquiescence by resorting to ‘boys will be boys’ apology. In the US, only two to three percent perpetrators are court-martialled and they are also let off with minimal punishment
Perhaps you may like to suggest some reaction to the piece, which would sound less pontificating!
Rahul M wrote:# I am not questioning the commitment or motivation of female soldiers but are we as a society ready to accept that women soldiers may be tortured in enemy hands ?
Once one joins the service one is not simply a man or a woman, one becomes a warrior, a protector. That is why I said we should look at servicemen and servicewomen in a gender-neutral way. I don't know about society, but if any one of our warriors falls into the hands of the enemy, then we should simply consider it as a warrior having been captured, regardless of the gender. I also made a proposal as to how that can be better accepted - using mandatory reversible tubal ligation for all those women, who would wish to serve in a "combat-risk" capacity.
Yes it will be a bitter poison should a woman soldier fall into the hands of the enemy, but we should drink it, because it would further our nation's evolution as a society of warriors, which prides itself for the bravery of our women soldiers. It is exactly for the reason that currently the plight of our woman soldier in the hands of the enemy still does not allow us to take the next step, that we should push ourselves across the line and allow it. That is evolution.
Rahul M wrote:a much less brutal hostage crisis in IC-814 saw everyone from 'national media' to 'civil society' bring enormous pressure on govt to give in to each and every terrorist demands, what would be the reaction if say a couple of female soldiers are kidnapped and terrorists make demands in return for their life ?
everyone from NCW to bark da hutt would be barking at the doorstep of the govt to surrender 'cashmere' and dissolve the army. there is no need for the military to go through that circus for questionable gains.
It is when we dodge that the circus would follow us, because it thinks we are vulnerable and uneasy with the situation and its implications on our principles. We should face it head on, and tell the circus what our principles (new ones) are and we need not be shy about them.
We can't run from the media. We should mould it.
Rahul M wrote:there are literally millions of jobs which can be filled with women from the well known medical branches to signals and flying. (women pilots did fly choppers in kargil, google gunjan saxena)
Yes all those jobs can filled with women, and many more, including the top job, including all those kick ass jobs.
To be frank, in a democratic country with a universal suffrage, one person one vote, regardless of man or woman, I am not even sure the men have a right to tell the women till where they may go and no further!
Rahul M wrote:
RajeshA wrote:If women are restricted to medical, dental and nursing services and legal and education departments, they would not really be rising in the hierarchy.
Combat role is vital for them to be accepted as equals and to rise up in the hierarchy. What they are getting right now is secondary and supporting jobs.
are ranks like air marshal and lt gen low in hierarchy ? http://www.thecolorsofindia.com/interes ... force.html
the point of the defence forces is to defend the country, not practice affirmative action for any branch of society.
Equality is not affirmative action.