Archana Ramakrishana
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 6
- Likes
- 0
What do the women do in patrol duty? Do they get a chance to visit the borders or areas at risk?
Indian Woman for Combat Duties
- Thread starter A.V.
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,550
- Likes
- 1,309
post your query in right section please, and introduce yourself properly
any way some thing for refernce: http://news.oneindia.in/2009/09/11/bsfdeploys-women-guards-on-pakistan-border-inpunjab.html
any way some thing for refernce: http://news.oneindia.in/2009/09/11/bsfdeploys-women-guards-on-pakistan-border-inpunjab.html
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2009
- Messages
- 864
- Likes
- 152
ppgj
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,029
- Likes
- 168
Insurgencies in Manipur: politics & ideology
Insurgencies in Manipur: politics & ideology
M. S. Prabhakara, January 28, 2010
TROUBLED TIMES: Policeman look at the debris of a bomb at Hatta Munuthong near Commando Complex in Imphal on Monday. Three blasts took place almost simultaneously on the eve of Republic Day celebrations in Manipur. Photo: PTI
Every time one travels to Manipur, one returns humbled. This has been the case since my first visit in the late 1960s, long before becoming a journalist. Active insurgency was not even on the horizon then though some resentment against ‘India’ was evident. Between 1983 when I joined this paper and mid-1994, I visited the State at least once every year — more than once during some years. In the last eight years I have returned four times. The feeling of inadequacy to confront and understand the complex situation in Manipur, the whys and wherefores of the insurgencies (the plural is advisedly used), the resilience of the ordinary people whose amazing creative energies thrive in the midst of all the pain and violence manifest in every walk of life, has only increased.
Thirty-eight years ago, on January 21, 1972, Manipur became a full-fledged State of the Indian Union. The status was conferred belatedly and grudgingly, a most underwhelming gift. In the popular perception, this was no big deal. Manipur in its historical imagination was an “independent kingdom” since 1st century AD. Its people had ‘histories’ and ‘memories,’ longer and deeper than those of most other Indian people when India attained independence. The use of the plurals is necessary, for this historical imagination is not commonly and equally cherished by all the peoples of Manipur. While the Meiteis, the majority inhabiting the Imphal Valley, shares these histories and memories, the peoples in the outlying Hills cherish other memories, other histories.
In reality, Manipur ceased to be an “independent kingdom” in 1891 when, following the killing of some officials — who were part of the British official presence — with the connivance of the Manipur court, Britain took over the Kingdom after a brief war. The Battle of Khongjam, a major battle in the conflict, is even now officially commemorated every year on April 23. Another day connected with the war, August 13, 1891, when two leading participants, Thangal General and Tikendrajit Juvaraj, were hanged in public in the heart of Imphal, is commemorated every year as Patriots’ Day.
This is only one instance of the appropriation of one kind of historical imagination by the modern State of Manipur whose very legitimacy is challenged by persons and organisations that claim to be the true inheritors of that history and cherish another kind of historical imagination — the insurgencies in the Imphal Valley that seek to restore the sovereign status of Manipur.
The defeat at the hands of Britain came to be accepted as part of British India’s expansion to secure its eastern frontier in which the independence of Manipur became an inescapable casualty. The fact that Britain did not annex the Kingdom, as was done in the case of Assam in 1826 after defeating Burma that had invaded and ravaged Assam, also helped in the acceptance of the fiction that Manipur remained an independent kingdom, albeit under British protection. The reality was that Manipur was, for all practical purposes, just another native State with its administrative and political control limited to the Valley, with Britain administering the outlying Hill areas inhabited by tribal people. The subordinate status of the “independent kingdom” was further underlined by the presence of a British Resident.
At the time of Independence, however, some of the resentment that had remained dormant came to the fore, now that a local elite with the potential to intervene more actively was to become the successor authority in Delhi.
Two developments added to this renewed resentment, while the cherry on the top has been the virtual militarisation of the administration whose defining element is the terrifying Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). First, the circumstances under which the annexation/merger of Manipur into the Indian Union was achieved — or manipulated. These did little credit to any of the participants in that squalid drama. Following the anti-feudal struggle led by the Manipur Mahasabha, among whose leaders was the legendary communist Hijam Irabot Singh, Maharaja Bodhi Singh set up a committee to draft a Constitution in March 1947. The Constitution was adopted in July 1947. Thus when the transfer of power took place in Delhi, Manipur became an independent country under a constitutional monarchy, with a Constitution of its own that provided for universal adult franchise.
Indeed, the developments between the adoption of that Constitution and the annexation/integration of Manipur into the Indian Union on October 15, 1949 — as part of the process of ‘Integration of Indian States’ — even now rankle in the historical imagination of the people, in particular the Meiteis. The resentment has been a crucial element in the ideology and politics that have animated the insurgencies in the State, though quite different perspectives of sovereignty linked to the Naga national imagination, whose first eloquent articulator was A.Z. Phizo, lie at the root of the Naga insurgency in the Naga-inhabited areas in the Hills.
There is a sub-text to this anti-feudal struggle that has contributed to the resentment as articulated by the more ‘radical’ of the insurgents. In parts of India, especially in those States where feudalism was most oppressive, the CPI was engaged before and after the transfer of power in militant anti-feudal struggles which in some instances, as in Telangana in Hyderabad state, became armed struggles. The participation of Irabot Singh in the anti-feudal struggle in Manipur which never became an explicit armed struggle, though the authorities were apprehensive over such a possibility, has to be seen against the larger background in which the CPI was a leading player.
When the CPI-led armed struggle persisted in Telangana even after the transfer of power, it was ruthlessly crushed. Eventually, the CPI abandoned the line and approach adopted by it, followed by significant changes in its leadership to indicate that the party had forsworn its earlier view.
In Irabot’s case it was never clear if he saw the struggle against feudalism in Manipur as part of a larger ‘armed struggle’ to secure ‘independence’ for Manipur. According to Noorul Huda, veteran communist leader of Assam who was closely involved in the political developments of those days in Manipur, “there was no evidence of Irabot opposing the merger agreement of 15 October 1949.” However, in a strange reconstruction of historical imagination, Irabot is being appropriated as an icon of the separatist armed struggles for Manipur’s independence.
Two, the formalisation of the ceding of the Kabaw Valley, always viewed as an integral part of Manipur, to Burma, though Burma had been in de facto control of the territory as part of the truce negotiated after the Anglo-Burmese war of 1826. The final humiliation was the ‘gifting away’ of the territory to Burma by Jawaharlal Nehru in 1953, during Prime Minister U Nu’s visit to India.
The resentment over the formalisation of an arrangement that had been in existence since 1834 — when the territory of the Kabaw Valley was leased to Burma — 120 years later, may seem strange. However, it was natural when viewed in the context of anxieties over the ‘territorial integrity’ of the State, most dramatically demonstrated by the “ June 18, 2001 uprising” in the Valley to protest against the extension of the ceasefire agreement with the NSCN (I-M) to Manipur. This again is an issue that evokes quite different responses among the majority and the minority population of tribal people inhabiting the five ‘outlying’ districts – Chandel, Churachandpur, Senapati, Tamenglong and Ukhrul.
While the historical imagination as evoked by the Valley-based insurgencies sees Manipur as an independent state, with its present territory intact, and with the Kabaw Valley at some point in the future incorporated into the motherland, the historical imagination and the territorial imperative of the Naga insurgency necessarily involves the disintegration of the present territory of Manipur.
The totality of these perspectives, involving conflicting constructions of the historical imagination covering the last 60 years, animates the ideology and politics of the Valley-based insurgencies in Manipur, that its people have been “at war with India” since 1949.
http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article95770.ece
Insurgencies in Manipur: politics & ideology
M. S. Prabhakara, January 28, 2010
TROUBLED TIMES: Policeman look at the debris of a bomb at Hatta Munuthong near Commando Complex in Imphal on Monday. Three blasts took place almost simultaneously on the eve of Republic Day celebrations in Manipur. Photo: PTI
Every time one travels to Manipur, one returns humbled. This has been the case since my first visit in the late 1960s, long before becoming a journalist. Active insurgency was not even on the horizon then though some resentment against ‘India’ was evident. Between 1983 when I joined this paper and mid-1994, I visited the State at least once every year — more than once during some years. In the last eight years I have returned four times. The feeling of inadequacy to confront and understand the complex situation in Manipur, the whys and wherefores of the insurgencies (the plural is advisedly used), the resilience of the ordinary people whose amazing creative energies thrive in the midst of all the pain and violence manifest in every walk of life, has only increased.
Thirty-eight years ago, on January 21, 1972, Manipur became a full-fledged State of the Indian Union. The status was conferred belatedly and grudgingly, a most underwhelming gift. In the popular perception, this was no big deal. Manipur in its historical imagination was an “independent kingdom” since 1st century AD. Its people had ‘histories’ and ‘memories,’ longer and deeper than those of most other Indian people when India attained independence. The use of the plurals is necessary, for this historical imagination is not commonly and equally cherished by all the peoples of Manipur. While the Meiteis, the majority inhabiting the Imphal Valley, shares these histories and memories, the peoples in the outlying Hills cherish other memories, other histories.
In reality, Manipur ceased to be an “independent kingdom” in 1891 when, following the killing of some officials — who were part of the British official presence — with the connivance of the Manipur court, Britain took over the Kingdom after a brief war. The Battle of Khongjam, a major battle in the conflict, is even now officially commemorated every year on April 23. Another day connected with the war, August 13, 1891, when two leading participants, Thangal General and Tikendrajit Juvaraj, were hanged in public in the heart of Imphal, is commemorated every year as Patriots’ Day.
This is only one instance of the appropriation of one kind of historical imagination by the modern State of Manipur whose very legitimacy is challenged by persons and organisations that claim to be the true inheritors of that history and cherish another kind of historical imagination — the insurgencies in the Imphal Valley that seek to restore the sovereign status of Manipur.
The defeat at the hands of Britain came to be accepted as part of British India’s expansion to secure its eastern frontier in which the independence of Manipur became an inescapable casualty. The fact that Britain did not annex the Kingdom, as was done in the case of Assam in 1826 after defeating Burma that had invaded and ravaged Assam, also helped in the acceptance of the fiction that Manipur remained an independent kingdom, albeit under British protection. The reality was that Manipur was, for all practical purposes, just another native State with its administrative and political control limited to the Valley, with Britain administering the outlying Hill areas inhabited by tribal people. The subordinate status of the “independent kingdom” was further underlined by the presence of a British Resident.
At the time of Independence, however, some of the resentment that had remained dormant came to the fore, now that a local elite with the potential to intervene more actively was to become the successor authority in Delhi.
Two developments added to this renewed resentment, while the cherry on the top has been the virtual militarisation of the administration whose defining element is the terrifying Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). First, the circumstances under which the annexation/merger of Manipur into the Indian Union was achieved — or manipulated. These did little credit to any of the participants in that squalid drama. Following the anti-feudal struggle led by the Manipur Mahasabha, among whose leaders was the legendary communist Hijam Irabot Singh, Maharaja Bodhi Singh set up a committee to draft a Constitution in March 1947. The Constitution was adopted in July 1947. Thus when the transfer of power took place in Delhi, Manipur became an independent country under a constitutional monarchy, with a Constitution of its own that provided for universal adult franchise.
Indeed, the developments between the adoption of that Constitution and the annexation/integration of Manipur into the Indian Union on October 15, 1949 — as part of the process of ‘Integration of Indian States’ — even now rankle in the historical imagination of the people, in particular the Meiteis. The resentment has been a crucial element in the ideology and politics that have animated the insurgencies in the State, though quite different perspectives of sovereignty linked to the Naga national imagination, whose first eloquent articulator was A.Z. Phizo, lie at the root of the Naga insurgency in the Naga-inhabited areas in the Hills.
There is a sub-text to this anti-feudal struggle that has contributed to the resentment as articulated by the more ‘radical’ of the insurgents. In parts of India, especially in those States where feudalism was most oppressive, the CPI was engaged before and after the transfer of power in militant anti-feudal struggles which in some instances, as in Telangana in Hyderabad state, became armed struggles. The participation of Irabot Singh in the anti-feudal struggle in Manipur which never became an explicit armed struggle, though the authorities were apprehensive over such a possibility, has to be seen against the larger background in which the CPI was a leading player.
When the CPI-led armed struggle persisted in Telangana even after the transfer of power, it was ruthlessly crushed. Eventually, the CPI abandoned the line and approach adopted by it, followed by significant changes in its leadership to indicate that the party had forsworn its earlier view.
In Irabot’s case it was never clear if he saw the struggle against feudalism in Manipur as part of a larger ‘armed struggle’ to secure ‘independence’ for Manipur. According to Noorul Huda, veteran communist leader of Assam who was closely involved in the political developments of those days in Manipur, “there was no evidence of Irabot opposing the merger agreement of 15 October 1949.” However, in a strange reconstruction of historical imagination, Irabot is being appropriated as an icon of the separatist armed struggles for Manipur’s independence.
Two, the formalisation of the ceding of the Kabaw Valley, always viewed as an integral part of Manipur, to Burma, though Burma had been in de facto control of the territory as part of the truce negotiated after the Anglo-Burmese war of 1826. The final humiliation was the ‘gifting away’ of the territory to Burma by Jawaharlal Nehru in 1953, during Prime Minister U Nu’s visit to India.
The resentment over the formalisation of an arrangement that had been in existence since 1834 — when the territory of the Kabaw Valley was leased to Burma — 120 years later, may seem strange. However, it was natural when viewed in the context of anxieties over the ‘territorial integrity’ of the State, most dramatically demonstrated by the “ June 18, 2001 uprising” in the Valley to protest against the extension of the ceasefire agreement with the NSCN (I-M) to Manipur. This again is an issue that evokes quite different responses among the majority and the minority population of tribal people inhabiting the five ‘outlying’ districts – Chandel, Churachandpur, Senapati, Tamenglong and Ukhrul.
While the historical imagination as evoked by the Valley-based insurgencies sees Manipur as an independent state, with its present territory intact, and with the Kabaw Valley at some point in the future incorporated into the motherland, the historical imagination and the territorial imperative of the Naga insurgency necessarily involves the disintegration of the present territory of Manipur.
The totality of these perspectives, involving conflicting constructions of the historical imagination covering the last 60 years, animates the ideology and politics of the Valley-based insurgencies in Manipur, that its people have been “at war with India” since 1949.
http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article95770.ece
gogbot
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 937
- Likes
- 120
Women officers score big victory in court
In a landmark judgement the Delhi high court has directed the Indian Air Force and the Indian Army to grant permanent commissions to all serving women officers. This is after a group of women officers approached the court to seek permanent commission on completion of their fixed tenure of 15 years.
But while women in the armed forces may now be eligible to rise to the top most ranks in the force they serve in, they are still not allowed to join the combat arms.
Fifty seven officers fought a court battle for 4 years. Finally a land mark verdict. A small step towards equality, a huge victory for women in the forces.
The Delhi High Court on Friday ruled that all women officers in the Army and Air Force should get permanent commission.
The order will benefit hundreds of women currently serving. In September last year, the government did revise the rules to give women the same tenure as men, but this applied only to new recruits and not to women already in service. Also the permanent commissions to new recruits were given in 2 units - JAG and the education corps. So what will this mean?
Women in the Army and Air Force will now get the same benefits as men. They will be compensated retrospectively.
Till now women were forced to retire after 14 years in service, irrespective of their record. Male officers were allowed a full tenure after just five years in service. This will now stop. Women officers will be eligible for pension and other financial benefits, the same as men.
In its order the High Court said, "With the expanding horizon of women participation, the government would be encouraged to have larger participation of women in more areas of operation."
But the battle for same treatment is far from over. Women are still not allowed in combat roles in the forces.
http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/women-air-force-officers-score-big-victory-in-court-17605.php
In a landmark judgement the Delhi high court has directed the Indian Air Force and the Indian Army to grant permanent commissions to all serving women officers. This is after a group of women officers approached the court to seek permanent commission on completion of their fixed tenure of 15 years.
But while women in the armed forces may now be eligible to rise to the top most ranks in the force they serve in, they are still not allowed to join the combat arms.
Fifty seven officers fought a court battle for 4 years. Finally a land mark verdict. A small step towards equality, a huge victory for women in the forces.
The Delhi High Court on Friday ruled that all women officers in the Army and Air Force should get permanent commission.
The order will benefit hundreds of women currently serving. In September last year, the government did revise the rules to give women the same tenure as men, but this applied only to new recruits and not to women already in service. Also the permanent commissions to new recruits were given in 2 units - JAG and the education corps. So what will this mean?
Women in the Army and Air Force will now get the same benefits as men. They will be compensated retrospectively.
Till now women were forced to retire after 14 years in service, irrespective of their record. Male officers were allowed a full tenure after just five years in service. This will now stop. Women officers will be eligible for pension and other financial benefits, the same as men.
In its order the High Court said, "With the expanding horizon of women participation, the government would be encouraged to have larger participation of women in more areas of operation."
But the battle for same treatment is far from over. Women are still not allowed in combat roles in the forces.
http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/women-air-force-officers-score-big-victory-in-court-17605.php
http://beta.epw.in/newsItem/comment/189495/
A parliamentary committee makes some important recommendations on women in the paramilitary forces.
Women may have gained entry into the army and paramilitary forces but the impression they are given in no uncertain terms by a majority of their male colleagues and superiors is that they are only "tolerated" there. While expediency and the need for political correctness ensure their presence in the forces, a deeply ingrained sociocultural prejudice about their capacity for the job remains in these institutions. Women are inducted into the central paramilitary forces (CPMF) with much fanfare, but it is overwhelmingly into the lower ranks. The report of the Parliamentary Committee on Empowerment of Women (2010-11) on "Women in Paramilitary Forces" becomes significant in this context.
The report observes that there is an urgent need to provide due representation to women in the paramilitary forces, that women are not given employment on compassionate grounds in these forces "on one or the other pretext" and that the Supreme Court's guidelines on a special cell to prevent sexual harassment are not being scrupulously followed. It has "strongly" recommended that gender sensitisation programmes be made a mandatory part of the basic training syllabus.
The debate over the fitness of women to join defence and paramilitary forces has been a bitter one. These areas have been and continue to be seen as male domains where a woman's presence upsets the well-ordered patriarchal apple cart. Besides, by wanting to be in the war/combat arena which is naturally male, she is not adhering to her traditional feminine role. In a survey-interview of women in the paramilitary forces, published in Manushi (2003), Santosh Singh detailed the contempt with which they are treated (especially by their male seniors) and the resentment that their presence fosters among their male colleagues.
The parliamentary committee has expressed its "surprise" that instead of an effective mechanism to punish those guilty of sexual harassment as recommended by the apex court, wives of officers judge the complaints of the women members of the paramilitary forces. This, it says, is particularly true of the Border Security Force (bsf) and recommends that this practice cease immediately, noting that wives of officers can hardly be impartial in such cases. It has also said that inquiries into such complaints must be completed within six months, including the action to be taken, if any, against the erring officers.
Beginning with the mid-1980s, state governments as well as the centre found that they needed women to handle female participants in demonstrations and agitations. Thus it was that the first Mahila Battalion was raised in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in 1986 followed by another in 1995. The government's stated policy is to "gradually" move towards 10% representation of women in the CPMF by identifying more jobs that they can be assigned in the "given circumstances". This refers to the fact that the border-guarding forces are deployed in difficult terrains, mostly in isolated outposts that have skeletal basic amenities. This is also the reason most cited for the negligible percentage of women in the CPMF. The committee found that it is just 0.55% in the BSF, 1.40% in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), 2.04% in the *Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) and 0.80% in the Assam Rifles. Only in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) is it 4.7% since this force practises "static deployment" to guard industrial units and installations. It is also only in the CRPF and the CISF that women are recruited to the posts of assistant commandants and sub-inspectors.
The Union Public Service Commission's (upsc) notification that women officers will not be inducted into the SSB, ITBP and BSF came barely a year after a "historic" event was praised by both Union Home Minister P Chidambaram and BSF Director General M L Kumawat. In July 2009 the first batch of 178 women constables was inducted into the BSF to guard the international borders. Chidambaram called upon them to appreciate the "important role" they had to play.
The official argument for the low percentage of women in the CPmF and for assigning them only "soft" duties is that rough terrains and combat roles are an inconvenience to the women themselves. The more likely reason is that their deployment in those fields would require a deep-rooted change in the mindsets and attitudes of their male colleagues, juniors and seniors. This is a change that can come about only if the government gives importance to gender sensitisation programmes. So far, going by the notification issued by the upsc, the government itself is in need of such a programme.
A parliamentary committee makes some important recommendations on women in the paramilitary forces.
Women may have gained entry into the army and paramilitary forces but the impression they are given in no uncertain terms by a majority of their male colleagues and superiors is that they are only "tolerated" there. While expediency and the need for political correctness ensure their presence in the forces, a deeply ingrained sociocultural prejudice about their capacity for the job remains in these institutions. Women are inducted into the central paramilitary forces (CPMF) with much fanfare, but it is overwhelmingly into the lower ranks. The report of the Parliamentary Committee on Empowerment of Women (2010-11) on "Women in Paramilitary Forces" becomes significant in this context.
The report observes that there is an urgent need to provide due representation to women in the paramilitary forces, that women are not given employment on compassionate grounds in these forces "on one or the other pretext" and that the Supreme Court's guidelines on a special cell to prevent sexual harassment are not being scrupulously followed. It has "strongly" recommended that gender sensitisation programmes be made a mandatory part of the basic training syllabus.
The debate over the fitness of women to join defence and paramilitary forces has been a bitter one. These areas have been and continue to be seen as male domains where a woman's presence upsets the well-ordered patriarchal apple cart. Besides, by wanting to be in the war/combat arena which is naturally male, she is not adhering to her traditional feminine role. In a survey-interview of women in the paramilitary forces, published in Manushi (2003), Santosh Singh detailed the contempt with which they are treated (especially by their male seniors) and the resentment that their presence fosters among their male colleagues.
The parliamentary committee has expressed its "surprise" that instead of an effective mechanism to punish those guilty of sexual harassment as recommended by the apex court, wives of officers judge the complaints of the women members of the paramilitary forces. This, it says, is particularly true of the Border Security Force (bsf) and recommends that this practice cease immediately, noting that wives of officers can hardly be impartial in such cases. It has also said that inquiries into such complaints must be completed within six months, including the action to be taken, if any, against the erring officers.
Beginning with the mid-1980s, state governments as well as the centre found that they needed women to handle female participants in demonstrations and agitations. Thus it was that the first Mahila Battalion was raised in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in 1986 followed by another in 1995. The government's stated policy is to "gradually" move towards 10% representation of women in the CPMF by identifying more jobs that they can be assigned in the "given circumstances". This refers to the fact that the border-guarding forces are deployed in difficult terrains, mostly in isolated outposts that have skeletal basic amenities. This is also the reason most cited for the negligible percentage of women in the CPMF. The committee found that it is just 0.55% in the BSF, 1.40% in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), 2.04% in the *Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) and 0.80% in the Assam Rifles. Only in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) is it 4.7% since this force practises "static deployment" to guard industrial units and installations. It is also only in the CRPF and the CISF that women are recruited to the posts of assistant commandants and sub-inspectors.
The Union Public Service Commission's (upsc) notification that women officers will not be inducted into the SSB, ITBP and BSF came barely a year after a "historic" event was praised by both Union Home Minister P Chidambaram and BSF Director General M L Kumawat. In July 2009 the first batch of 178 women constables was inducted into the BSF to guard the international borders. Chidambaram called upon them to appreciate the "important role" they had to play.
The official argument for the low percentage of women in the CPmF and for assigning them only "soft" duties is that rough terrains and combat roles are an inconvenience to the women themselves. The more likely reason is that their deployment in those fields would require a deep-rooted change in the mindsets and attitudes of their male colleagues, juniors and seniors. This is a change that can come about only if the government gives importance to gender sensitisation programmes. So far, going by the notification issued by the upsc, the government itself is in need of such a programme.
The government Monday made it clear that it has no proposal to induct women in combat roles in the defence forces, including as fighter pilots in the Indian Air Force. Parliament was also informed that there has been a 67 percent increase in the recruitment of women officers into the army, navy and air force in the last three years.
"There is no proposal to induct women into combat duties in the defence forces including as fighter pilots in the Indian Air Force," Defence Minister A.K. Antony said in a written reply during question hour.
"Induction of women in combat duties has not been recommended by the studies carried out by the headquarters Integrated Defence Staff (HQ IDS) in 2006 and high level tri-services committee in 2011"³ he added.
He also gave figures to buttress the point that there has been an increase in the women officers recruited since 2009.
In 2009, the three services had recruited 219 women, of whom 70 were for the army, 24 for the navy and 125 for the air force.
In 2010, the services recruited a total of 277 women officers. Of these, 93 were for the army, 39 for the navy and 145 for the air force.
In 2011, the figures showed a 67 per cent increase since 2009. The defence forces had recruited 366 women that year, of whom 164 were for the army, 68 for the navy and 134 for the air force.
In 2011, the total number of women officers in the three services stood at 1055 for the army, 288 for the navy and 936 for the air force.
The number of women officers the previous year (2010) was 999 for army, 191 for navy and 889 for air force. In 2009, there were 1030 women officers in the army, 176 in the navy and 915 in the air force.
Antony noted that there is no separate fixed sanctioned strength for recruitment of women officers in the armed forces and they are recruited within the overall sanctioned strength of the respective service.
Also, there is no proposal to launch any special drive for recruiting rural women into the armed forces, he added
No combat role for women in armed forces: Antony | idrw.org
"There is no proposal to induct women into combat duties in the defence forces including as fighter pilots in the Indian Air Force," Defence Minister A.K. Antony said in a written reply during question hour.
"Induction of women in combat duties has not been recommended by the studies carried out by the headquarters Integrated Defence Staff (HQ IDS) in 2006 and high level tri-services committee in 2011"³ he added.
He also gave figures to buttress the point that there has been an increase in the women officers recruited since 2009.
In 2009, the three services had recruited 219 women, of whom 70 were for the army, 24 for the navy and 125 for the air force.
In 2010, the services recruited a total of 277 women officers. Of these, 93 were for the army, 39 for the navy and 145 for the air force.
In 2011, the figures showed a 67 per cent increase since 2009. The defence forces had recruited 366 women that year, of whom 164 were for the army, 68 for the navy and 134 for the air force.
In 2011, the total number of women officers in the three services stood at 1055 for the army, 288 for the navy and 936 for the air force.
The number of women officers the previous year (2010) was 999 for army, 191 for navy and 889 for air force. In 2009, there were 1030 women officers in the army, 176 in the navy and 915 in the air force.
Antony noted that there is no separate fixed sanctioned strength for recruitment of women officers in the armed forces and they are recruited within the overall sanctioned strength of the respective service.
Also, there is no proposal to launch any special drive for recruiting rural women into the armed forces, he added
No combat role for women in armed forces: Antony | idrw.org
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,841
In the forward posts, the bunkers are sited and constructed as per the Threat on that approach and the sections are deployed so.
Now, it would be a man management issue of having women and men in the same bunker since they are but cubbyholes and there is hardly any space to move around, let alone rest.
There are places where the bunker is not only for fighting, but living too!
The Deep Trench latrines are nothing more that holes with gunny sack around three sides the front being open.
This is the rear of a fancier bunker. Such fancy stuff is rare.
Now, it would be a man management issue of having women and men in the same bunker since they are but cubbyholes and there is hardly any space to move around, let alone rest.
There are places where the bunker is not only for fighting, but living too!
The Deep Trench latrines are nothing more that holes with gunny sack around three sides the front being open.
This is the rear of a fancier bunker. Such fancy stuff is rare.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,041
I totally oppose this, It is not the first time in History Woman and Men fought together and live in same area..
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,841
So that is all for women in combat arms.
We already are being harassed for human rights abuses.
Add to it sexual harassment in confined work places!
It could not have been better for Pakistan with the IA in court rather than in the front defending the country and the sanctity and independence of the very courts who will declare the army as predators and redundant!!
We already are being harassed for human rights abuses.
Add to it sexual harassment in confined work places!
It could not have been better for Pakistan with the IA in court rather than in the front defending the country and the sanctity and independence of the very courts who will declare the army as predators and redundant!!
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,041
Sir, Sexual harassment is not uncommon in any force, Be it the Lady in Arms or in others, There are laws in army to take on action on such offence, Besides its not very uncommon of Ladies and men together working under the same place be it USMC, IDF or JSDF..
Rani of Jhansi Regiment is very popular..
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,041
- Status
