Ayi Giri Nandini: Women, PC & The Army
The Mauryan Empire in India followed a practice of recruitment of women as the King's personal guard, since they were considered as more loyal than their male counterparts. These women were fierce warriors, proficient in hand-to-hand & CQC (Close Quarter Combat). They played a significant role in battlefield logistics, & when necessity demanded, served beyond their call of duty.
As we transition to medieval & then the modern age, the examples of such valiant women kept budding out from time to time, from region to region, although muliebrity was now perceived as a sign of fragility. A stereotypical conception of femininity as an irreparable weakness prone to exploitation. A conception, inconspicuous yet prevalent which The Supreme Court of India tackled in its 2020 landmark judgement pertaining to, case designation: The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 469
Context
 |
| Women Auxiliary Corps (India), 1947 |
In 1992, for the first time, women became eligible to enroll in the Indian Army under the Women Special Entry Scheme, abbreviated WSES. But why weren’t they eligible before? Because the Army Act, 1950 mandated that women shall not permitted to enroll unless the Union Gov. decides otherwise & formulates a policy to facilitate the same. Anyways, the tenure was a period of 5 years only, and only 5 branches were opened to sign up for, namely:
1. Army Postal Service2. Judge Advocate General’s Department (JAG)
3. Army Education Corps (AEC)
4. Army Ordinance Corps (Central Ammunition Depots & Metal Management)
2. Intelligence Corps
3. Corps of Engineers
4. Corps of Electrical & Mechanical Engineering
But in 2005, the Govt.
decided to do away with WSES completely, and declared that women shall be
enrolled in the army, at par with men, as per the norms of SSC, standing for
Short Service Commission. Tenure was extended by further 4 years, (5+5+4)
making it a total sum of 14 years. However, the option of Permanent Commission,
henceforth referred as PC, was only available to men & not women, even if
the induction procedures were the same.
Delhi High Court
The Supreme Court stayed
the contempt proceedings, The SC in its conclusion made it unequivocal that the
Govt. misunderstood its discretion, as a stay, on the operation of judgement
itself, which we shall discuss later on.
{The Hon'ble Supreme Court hears the plea}
Arguments ‘AGAINST’
Meanwhile, The SC heard
the civil appeal in this regard. Where the learned counsel on behalf of Union
of India articulated arguments which the SC found “Baseless”. A point-by-point
summary of those arguments is as follows:
- Inherent physiological differences between the genders.
- Moderation of behavior among Male officers, shall women officers be inducted.
- Household obligations of women officers
- Executive’s discretionary prerogative to form policies on matters like this.
- Lack of infrastructure to facilitate health & hygiene for women.
- Threat for women officers as POW
Arguments ‘FOR’
The learned counsels from the side of respondents
refuted these defences with the highest degree of critique. Their submission is
as follows:
- Sceptic about the discriminatory conduct of army to women officers after the expiration of the regular tenure under SSC.
- Institutions must consider women as equal colleagues.
- Women have been posted in sensitive areas across the country before & even as the proceedings are ongoing.
- Claim of threat to the dignity of women officers as biased, since Army doesn’t discriminate in assigning responsibilities.
- Art. 33 allows parliament to restrict or abrogate Fundamental Rights only to maintain law & order, not as a tool to promote prejudicial inequality.
The Supreme Court
· Necessary steps to be taken in order to provide same terms for PC to both men & women.
Furthermore, the Court, slashed the remarks of Union
Govt., calling them “Stereotypical & Baseless”. Opining that such
discrimination isn’t constitutionally valid & therefore must be struck down
with immediate effect. A duration of 3 Months was given to the Govt. to carry
out the said directions, following which, shall the Govt. fail to comply,
contempt proceedings will resume.
Opinion
The decision of The Hon’ble Supreme Court was
progressive & commendable. It is a move towards promotion of equal
opportunity & free will in general. A move that shakes the empty foundation
of conventional patriarchal mindsets. The arguments opined by the Union Govt.
not only disrespect all the achievements of former & serving officers, but
also demean & vilify the sanctity of womanhood.
Pertaining to this context, quite often one might hear
the argument of proclivity of atrocities against women. But the elephant under
the rug is, aren’t their crimes against women already? Not to negate the evil
that they entail, but to raise skepticism as to how malevolence, when executed
on the part of perpetrator happens to be the obstacle for the victim even
though the present qualifications necessary for requirement tell otherwise.
Furthermore, such a defence is not any different to
victim blaming. Shifting the burden of war crimes on the heads of the victims
instead of the diabolical offender. A soldier is mindful of the risks, dangers
& sacrifices requisite of his/her job. Who are we, to tell them otherwise?
Another logic that is regurgitated is of women
underperforming men. And truth be told, that seems fair considering that there
are inherent physiological & temperamental distinctions between men &
women. While men score higher on physiological aspects, women score higher on
temperamental aspects when compared. But the test of capability consists of
both physical & cognitive abilities, therefore such a reasoning raises the
doubts on the deftness of the armed forces fraternity & nullifies the
process by which Army inducts its recruits, consequently nullifying the
institution itself.
Conclusion
Comments
Post a Comment