Indian Woman for Combat Duties

[Agnostic_Indian]

Same equal equal BS in every thread.

The only time women will be equal when robots fight instead of humans. Btw, good luck recruiting women!

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

What? I have made a reasonable observation.
Tell me Which point do you disagre with ?

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/gI...l-combat-roles-to-women-Pranab-Mukherjee.html

Women will finally be allowed to serve in fighter streams of all armed forces in the country.

Four months after the government approved the induction of women into the combat stream of the Indian Air Force (IAF), President Pranab Mukherjee said, “In the future, my government will induct women in all fighter streams of our armed forces.” The announcement was made on Tuesday during his address to the joint sitting of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.

While the IAF is already preparing its women to soon fly fighter jets, the decision to induct women in both the navy and the army will provide an opportunity for women to break the glass ceiling, analysts say.

“We have already expressed our commitment towards bringing in women into the combat streams of IAF and it is going to happen very soon. From providing proper toilet facilities to moderating male chauvinism, IAF has come a long way and we are ready now,” said air vice marshal Kapil Kak (retired). The first woman fighter pilot will be in the cockpit in June 2017. Women pilots of the IAF currently fly transport aircraft and helicopters. Women fighter pilots have been serving in the air forces of Pakistan, Israel, the UAE, the US and the UK among others. IAF has about 100 women pilots serving as transport and helicopter pilots.

The decision to induct women in combat roles in army, however, came as a surprise.

“While this may be a good start for air force and navy, it isn’t practical for army—given the kind of conditioning in which we operate, and also the cultural and social milieu of our country,” said retired Indian army Major General Ashok Mehta. The major concern is that unlike other forces, in army, a combat role involves physical contact with the enemy. “In army combat roles, there is a close quarter battle with the enemy. Including women in combat support, certainly not in infantry, might be a good start,” Major Mehta said.

A retired brigadier of army, requesting anonymity said, “Having women along just increases our workload. We need to keep a close eye on them—we have to protect them,” he said.

Colonel D.S. Randhawa undertook a research project titled ‘Women Officers and Work Environment: Indian Perspective’ for which he spoke to 600 seniors, juniors, peers, subordinates, women officers and parents.

According to this 2005 study which was published in the issue of the United Services Institution, “To majority of troops, the presence of women in the forces, meant lowering of physical standards, adjustments of work culture norms suitable to women, restrictions on a soldier’s ego and freedom, tensions, courtships, jealousies, favouritism, disintegration of hierarchies, unenforceable codes of conduct leading to resentment and sex scandals.”

Sandhya Suri, who worked as a Short Service Commissioned officer in the Indian Navy till 2001 said even though the decision is a step forward, what is important is that men need to accept women being around. “As long as anyone is physically capable of doing a role, the person should be allowed to do it. The restrictions were not put because we did not want to work in fighter streams, it was because the decisions were taken by men who wanted to protect the women,” says Suri.

Indian forces opened up to women only in 1992, though they had been appointed to the Military Nursing Service and the Medical Officers cadre since 1927 and 1943, respectively.

The “gender bias” in attitudes of the services towards its women officers has been a matter of discussion over these years. It was in 2006 when a serving officer, Lt Sushmita Chakraborty committed suicide because of “extreme dissatisfaction” with her profile. It was alleged that she was repeatedly assigned the task of arranging official parties at the Officers Mess. There was another case of Anjali Gupta, the first woman officer to be court-martialled, committed suicide for personal reasons.

“These concerns will be there wherever you go. Aren’t there cases where a woman is harassed by her own relatives, or by her father inside the home? But that doesn’t mean we will stop women from taking up jobs they want to take,” said Lieutenant General Puneet Arora.

##################################################

What is wrong with top brass of the army and government?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

India is to allow women to take up combat roles in all sections of its armed forces, the president, Pranab Mukherjee, has said, signalling a radical move towards gender parity in one of the world’s most male-dominated professions.

Most countries employ women in various roles in their military but only a few, including New Zealand, Germany, Israel and the US, have allowed them to take on combat roles.

India, which has one of the largest armies in the world, has until recently resisted following suit, citing concern over women’s vulnerability if captured and over their physical and mental ability to cope with the stress of frontline deployments.

Addressing both houses of parliament on the eve of the budget session, the president – who is also supreme commander of the armed forces – said the government would in future recruit women for combat roles across the military.

“My government has approved the induction of women as short-service commission officers and as fighter pilots in the Indian Air Force. In the future, my government will induct women in all the fighter streams of our armed forces,” Mukherjee said on Tuesday.

“In our country ’shakti’, which means power, is the manifestation of female energy. This shakti defines our strength,” he added.

India began recruiting women to non-medical positions in the armed forces in 1992, yet only 2.5% of its military’s million-plus personnel are women – most of them administrators, intelligence officers, doctors, nurses or dentists.

In October, the government took the first steps towards bringing women into fighting roles and approved air force plans for female pilots to fly warplanes from June 2017 on a three-year experimental basis.

Women’s rights activists welcomed the president’s remarks but said that bringing real gender parity into the armed forces would be a slow process.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/24/indian-armed-forces-to-allow-women-combat-roles

 

[Razor]

Sakal, I thought you would be happy about this considering your western-type neo-liberal agenda. No???
@spikey360
Another brainless move. Women are given lower requirements for qualification.
Also studies have proven that presence of women among male soldiers lowers the camaraderie among soldiers which is important in battle. Studies have also shown that presence of female soldiers triggers protectiveness among male soldiers during battle which leads to latter disobeying orders and affecting the outcome of battles. These studies were done in western militaries.

 

[pmaitra]

Sakal, I thought you would be happy about this considering your western-type neo-liberal agenda. No???
@spikey360
Another brainless move. Women are given lower requirements for qualification.
Also studies have proven that presence of women among male soldiers lowers the camaraderie among soldiers which is important in battle. Studies have also shown that presence of female soldiers triggers protectiveness among male soldiers during battle which leads to them disobeying orders and affecting the outcome of battles. These studies were done in western militaries.

I largely agree with you. I will add though, the Kurds are doing great and they seem to fight as one unit, men and women together. Now, that might be an exception, not a norm.

 

[Razor]

I largely agree with you. I will add though, the Kurds are doing great and they seem to fight as one unit, men and women together. Now, that might be an exception, not a norm.

That's why I added that the studies were done in western militaries and therefore what i meant is that it is probably applicable to people who's general framework is comparable/relatable to the west. I think these results are applicable to indian army also, but not to middle-eastern societies.
Also I think all women battalions will be okay; as proved in ww2???
Are these kurds in all women teams?? How is their effectiveness as compared to all men teams and mixed teams??
If I am not mistaken, from the few videos I have seen on the kurd conflict: Guard duty women maybe in mixed teams but combat/offensive type duty are in all women teams, right??

 

[Gessler]

What is wrong with top brass of the army and government?

Seems like a move to gain political correctness.

But relax, no well-off woman is eager to crawl in the mud or get shot. Even if every combat role is open, it does not mean there will be women ready to fill all of them. Most of whom who even get the job might go AWOL soon.

 

[Bornubus]

Feminisation of armed forces, pathetic.

How can Sunita and Anita climb vertical cliffs with 25 kg load while bullets passing over their ears.Could she handle the recolil of heavy weapon.

 

[Razor]

Feminisation of armed forces, pathetic.

How can Sunita and Anita climb vertical cliffs with 25 kg load while bullets passing over their ears.Could she handle the recolil of heavy weapon.

Haha, in spite of all the equality talk, they usually lower the qualification standards for women.
So that means for example a women can pass if she carries say 10kg but a man has to do the 25kg (just an example.)
At least this is the case in the US Army, probably the case everywhere else too.

 

[Bornubus]

Haha, in spite of all the equality talk, they usually lower the qualification standards for women.
So that means for example a women can pass if she carries say 10kg but a man has to do the 25kg (just an example.)
At least this is the case in the US Army, probably the case everywhere else too.

Women are already serving in armed forces in non combat role AD, Signals and AMC etc but they are irrelevant in combat role as far as india is concerned since none of our potential enenmy have them in combat roles.

 

[sasum]

Seems like a move to gain political correctness.

But relax, no well-off woman is eager to crawl in the mud or get shot. Even if every combat role is open, it does not mean there will be women ready to fill all of them. Most of whom who even get the job might go AWOL soon.

Absolutely. If anything, women in combat role will be a liability. Besides, how many women volunteer to do hard & hazardous work? Even in police force women mostly do desk-jobs. When on field duty they are invariably accompanied by male colleagues.
First try out women in fire-fighting, relief & rescue related operations, if they qualify then think of giving them combat role.

 

[sasum]

Haha, in spite of all the equality talk, they usually lower the qualification standards for women.
So that means for example a women can pass if she carries say 10kg but a man has to do the 25kg (just an example.)
At least this is the case in the US Army, probably the case everywhere else too.

If you can lower the bar for Dalits, you can do it for women also..and the vicious circle continues.

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/gI...l-combat-roles-to-women-Pranab-Mukherjee.html

Women will finally be allowed to serve in fighter streams of all armed forces in the country.

Four months after the government approved the induction of women into the combat stream of the Indian Air Force (IAF), President Pranab Mukherjee said, “In the future, my government will induct women in all fighter streams of our armed forces.” The announcement was made on Tuesday during his address to the joint sitting of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.

While the IAF is already preparing its women to soon fly fighter jets, the decision to induct women in both the navy and the army will provide an opportunity for women to break the glass ceiling, analysts say.

“We have already expressed our commitment towards bringing in women into the combat streams of IAF and it is going to happen very soon. From providing proper toilet facilities to moderating male chauvinism, IAF has come a long way and we are ready now,” said air vice marshal Kapil Kak (retired). The first woman fighter pilot will be in the cockpit in June 2017. Women pilots of the IAF currently fly transport aircraft and helicopters. Women fighter pilots have been serving in the air forces of Pakistan, Israel, the UAE, the US and the UK among others. IAF has about 100 women pilots serving as transport and helicopter pilots.

The decision to induct women in combat roles in army, however, came as a surprise.

“While this may be a good start for air force and navy, it isn’t practical for army—given the kind of conditioning in which we operate, and also the cultural and social milieu of our country,” said retired Indian army Major General Ashok Mehta. The major concern is that unlike other forces, in army, a combat role involves physical contact with the enemy. “In army combat roles, there is a close quarter battle with the enemy. Including women in combat support, certainly not in infantry, might be a good start,” Major Mehta said.

A retired brigadier of army, requesting anonymity said, “Having women along just increases our workload. We need to keep a close eye on them—we have to protect them,” he said.

Colonel D.S. Randhawa undertook a research project titled ‘Women Officers and Work Environment: Indian Perspective’ for which he spoke to 600 seniors, juniors, peers, subordinates, women officers and parents.

According to this 2005 study which was published in the issue of the United Services Institution, “To majority of troops, the presence of women in the forces, meant lowering of physical standards, adjustments of work culture norms suitable to women, restrictions on a soldier’s ego and freedom, tensions, courtships, jealousies, favouritism, disintegration of hierarchies, unenforceable codes of conduct leading to resentment and sex scandals.”

Sandhya Suri, who worked as a Short Service Commissioned officer in the Indian Navy till 2001 said even though the decision is a step forward, what is important is that men need to accept women being around. “As long as anyone is physically capable of doing a role, the person should be allowed to do it. The restrictions were not put because we did not want to work in fighter streams, it was because the decisions were taken by men who wanted to protect the women,” says Suri.

Indian forces opened up to women only in 1992, though they had been appointed to the Military Nursing Service and the Medical Officers cadre since 1927 and 1943, respectively.

The “gender bias” in attitudes of the services towards its women officers has been a matter of discussion over these years. It was in 2006 when a serving officer, Lt Sushmita Chakraborty committed suicide because of “extreme dissatisfaction” with her profile. It was alleged that she was repeatedly assigned the task of arranging official parties at the Officers Mess. There was another case of Anjali Gupta, the first woman officer to be court-martialled, committed suicide for personal reasons.

“These concerns will be there wherever you go. Aren’t there cases where a woman is harassed by her own relatives, or by her father inside the home? But that doesn’t mean we will stop women from taking up jobs they want to take,” said Lieutenant General Puneet Arora.

##################################################

What is wrong with top brass of the army and government?

“As long as anyone is physically capable of doing a role..."

This is commie subterfuge. There is no such thing as 'physically capable' as far as competitive areas are concerned. The one who does best, wins. By introducing this poisoned idea of 'physically capable' they are trying to plant an idea that as long as you meet the bare minimum requirements, you are fit for the job. But military is not a place for 'bare minimum' inputs. Every position in the military ought to be allotted by a bidding system whereby the most capable person is allotted there. By introducing this concept of 'physically capable', they are forcing the military to define the threshold of 'bare minimum'. It's all downhill from here.

I'd like to paste a small anecdotal story here, please bear with me :

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich; a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the third test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, all failed and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

It could not be any simpler than that.

There are five morals to this story:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

It is this same socialism that is being forced down our throats when someone talks of 'bare minimum physical requirements' in the military.

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

Haha, in spite of all the equality talk, they usually lower the qualification standards for women.
So that means for example a women can pass if she carries say 10kg but a man has to do the 25kg (just an example.)
At least this is the case in the US Army, probably the case everywhere else too.

But if you reveal or admit that this anomaly exists, then you are a, quote "racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic male chauvinist pig" according to cultural communists.

 

[Bornubus]

If you can lower the bar for Dalits, you can do it for women also..and the vicious circle continues.

There is 00 relaxation for Dalits in armed forces not in written exams and absolutely none in Physical standards.

There are relaxation for Hill people and tribals but only in Height not in Running, long jump etc even relatives of martyrs are supposed to do these tests.

This is the only institution which is free from this victim hood rot otherwise it were Indians who became POWs in 1971 instead of Pakis.

Today women next Hijra will ask for combat role in Army may be a patrol in Siachin.

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

There is 00 relaxation for Dalits in armed forces not in wriiten exams and absolutely none in Physical standards.

There are relaxation for Hill people and tribals but only in Height not in Running, long jump etc even relatives of martyrs are supposed to do these tests.

This is the only institution which is free from this institution rot otherwise it were Indians who became POWs in 1971 instead of Pakis.

He is just a commie doing commie propaganda trying to undermine the Indian Army as an institution. They are 'intellectuals' they don't need facts when they have opinions. Facts can be manufactured to suit opinions.

The Mahar regiment has served with distinction in the Army, their achievements are well known. It's an insult to them for someone to cook up false facts to claim that they came in through reservation.

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

“As long as anyone is physically capable of doing a role..."

This is commie subterfuge. There is no such thing as 'physically capable' as far as competitive areas are concerned. The one who does best, wins. By introducing this poisoned idea of 'physically capable' they are trying to plant an idea that as long as you meet the bare minimum requirements, you are fit for the job. But military is not a place for 'bare minimum' inputs. Every position in the military ought to be allotted by a bidding system whereby the most capable person is allotted there. By introducing this concept of 'physically capable', they are forcing the military to define the threshold of 'bare minimum'. It's all downhill from here.

I'd like to paste a small anecdotal story here, please bear with me :

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich; a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the third test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, all failed and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

It could not be any simpler than that.

There are five morals to this story:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

It is this same socialism that is being forced down our throats when someone talks of 'bare minimum physical requirements' in the military.

but then, the physical/medical requirements will also be defined. those who pass, will be subject to the training (for whichever role). and herein if they fail for any reason, the door out is always there. i don't think that there will be a 'bare minimum' beyond the candidature-stage. during training, if you are found lacking, no cajoling. either you pass or you dont.

P.S. - BTW, i fear times may come when the Forces could also see a jump in accusations of 'rape'; if you understand what i mean.

 

[Bornubus]

He is just a commie doing commie propaganda trying to undermine the Indian Army as an institution. They are 'intellectuals' they don't need facts when they have opinions. Facts can be manufactured to suit opinions.

The Mahar regiment has served with distinction in the Army, their achievements are well known. It's an insult to them for someone to cook up false facts to claim that they came in through reservation.

Mahar regiment was established due to Ambedkar (a mahar himself) Mahar also served in WW 2 basically they are Marathas who had long martial history just like Scindia/Shinde a Dalit but martial caste.

Sikh LI regiment is also made of Mazhabi Sikhs totally different from Sikh Regiment which has mostly Jutt and Rajput Sikhs.Since there is clear devide among them.

Even Tribals enrolled in Indian army and never demanded reservation Gurads regiment is one such regt.

Elbert ekka was a tribal and winner of PVC.

 

[FRYCRY]

if they can become like dr seema rao, then what's the problem?

 

[Razor]

There is 00 relaxation for Dalits in armed forces not in written exams and absolutely none in Physical standards.

There are relaxation for Hill people and tribals but only in Height not in Running, long jump etc even relatives of martyrs are supposed to do these tests.

This is the only institution which is free from this victim hood rot otherwise it were Indians who became POWs in 1971 instead of Pakis.

Today women next Hijra will ask for combat role in Army may be a patrol in Siachin.

Tribals height relaxation is agreeable.
I don't actually know what a dalit is, there are a lot of obc, kbc, bbc, that I don't bother to look into it too much.
But there is a limit to this reservation-type BS, now everyone is trying to get it.
And I recently saw an ad for IB where reservation thingy was applied, i.e. lower standards for certain groups.