Indian Woman for Combat Duties

[alphacentury]

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?

This is like a self made crisis. Totally horrible. Lets say an under qualified woman is serving, and if is captured by enemy, (say pakis) , Imagine the upper hand the enemy would get, it will put the govt. in a compromising situation. The people who will glee with today's news, will cry tomorrow and with the possible media crisis (in house paki's like barkha), the govt will be forced to accept demands of enemy.

Also, there will be all kind of fraternization and we know it. Say, in kashmir and combat prone areas, where the basic sanitation and bathing conditions are minimal in an army post, will the women be posted there along with men. Also , wouldn't that result in "netflix and chill..", in a place where company is highly desired, specially female company.

Also, same problems will arise in combat time. Say, a general has feelings for his subordinate. so, he might not send the particular unit to the combat, which would have been effective otherwise. I think these problems are argued before somewhere in the forum.
Also, same for homos. They should not be allowed in Armed forces. There is no place for political correctness in sensitive issues like this. Totally idiotic steps from the govt, I guess too much Hollywood movies, while those countries themselves aren't following suit.

ps- also the difference(different strengths and weaknesses ) between men and women are not only physical but mental,psychological, which effects more I think. and no, difference isn't a bad thing.

 

[alphacentury]

http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/?p=494

In announcing that all positions in the U.S. armed forces would be opened to women, Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter lied. According to the December 4 New York Times, he said,

They’ll [women] be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALS, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers, and everything else that was previously open only to men.

That statement is false. Women will not be able to do those things. Their bodies are not designed to do many of the tasks those positions entail. So long as realistic standards are maintained for those specialties, women will not be able even to qualify for them much less perform adequately in them. Men and women are different, physically and mentally, and their traditional social roles reflect their inherent differences.

Had the Truth Fairy landed on the SECDEF’s tongue as he was about to make his announcement, he would have said,

We are opening all positions in the armed forces to women. Women will not be able to do many of the duties entailed especially in the combat arms. We–the Obama administration–don’t care about that. Our ideology of cultural Marxism demands we pretend men and women are interchangeable. We will do whatever is necessary to maintain that illusion. In this case, if women cannot meet the standards, we will change the standards. If not enough women make it into the combat arms, we will establish quotas.

If, in combat, women cannot perform the mission, that’s not our problem. If it means lost engagements and unnecessary American casualties, what isthat to us? Our ideology comes first. Get with the party’s program–or else.

Here again we see the slide of state armed forces into history’s wastebasket. Playthings of a political establishment that knows nothing of war, they exist for every purpose except fighting. Many of those inside them have figured this out. An Army study done at least ten years ago found that two-thirds of the Army’s women and one-third of its men disagreed with the statement, “The Army’s main purpose is to fight.” Most state armed forces produce so few fighters from their total manpower that they could not fight if they wanted to, not against any serious opponent.

So why do we keep them around, at immense cost? Mostly from habit. Few politicians know enough to see their obsolescence, and fewer still would take the political risks involved in pruning them back to budgets that reflect their military utility. The public, wallowing in the usual “Support the troops” rhetoric, cannot see their uselessness, and the air shows are fun to watch.

For the establishment, state militaries remain highly useful. They provide jobs and money that can be steered to political allies. Defense companies are big political donors. If you vote right, when you leave office many will offer you paid seats on their boards, plus lobbying contracts.

Senior officers feed from the same troughs, not to mention pensions that most people can only dream about (paid for by those dreamers). Once you make it to lieutenant colonel, the pay is great and the duties are easy, so long as you don’t object to working on vast staffs that produce nothing but contentless briefings which you must pretend to take seriously. If you hope to keep moving on up the career ladder, don’t forget the knee pads and the vaseline.

So to this dysfunctional and militarily impotent stew let’s now add women. Why not? Can anything make it worse than it already is? Actually, in this case yes, because putting women in combat units undermines the basic reason why they fight, unit cohesion. Instead of forming a band of brothers, the men fight each other over the women. When I asked the captain of an amphib with a male/female crew the fraternization rate, he replied, “100% of course. I have male sailors in knife fights over women officers.”

But in the end, it doesn’t matter much. These institutions are finished. Every time they take on non-state, Fourth Generation opponents they get their butts kicked.

4GW forces are about fighting. They don’t have much gear and their technical skills often aren’t great. But they and the men in them want to fight. Most of their personnel are fighters. Senior officers regularly get killed. Some of them seriously study war, a practice virtually unknown among our officers.

So the wheel of fortune turns. The fat, dumb, and happy careerists in their pressed camis are on the way down, and the lean and hungry believers with their AKs and IEDs are on the way up. Unserious, womanized state armed forces will vanish with the states they cannot protect and their ideologies not worth defending.

* Bill Lind is the author of the Maneuver War Handbook (1985) and the 4th Generation Warfare Handbook (2011) as well as several other volumes that deal with war. This article was originally published on traditionalRIGHT on 11.12.2015.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

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.

Just because I don't believe in Russian Gospels like you does not make me libtard!!

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[Razor]

Just because I don't believe in Russian Gospels like you does not make me libtard!!

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

Russian gospels, where do they sell that??
I don't need to read your so called called russian gospeels.
But nice strawman attempt Mr.Mod.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Russian gospels, where do they sell that??
I don't need to read your so called called russian gospeels.
But nice strawman attempt Mr.Mod.

I don't mix market economy with gender BS. Sorry, that you did not figure it out from my posts.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[Razor]

I don't mix market economy with gender BS. Sorry, that you did not figure it out from my posts.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

Actually I did notice that, but I'm afraid you will eventually.

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

@Navneet Kundu & @Gessler - irrelevant, but, Seema Rao & her husband are not so 'well'-known. i & others may be wrong, but....bah! nevermind. carry on.

There is no explicit answer here, on one hand there are cultures that have done this, like Israel, Kurds, and even Indian Maoists and LTTE cadre, but then remember these women have been through leftist brainwashing which motivates them to put their cause above their individual sense of self (gender, religion, caste, financial status) so these women go beyond the call of duty and not demand special treatment like Indian women do. In India, this equality is in theory only. Women only complain against 'patriarchy' and demand 'equality' where it suits them but are still unwilling to let go of the dividends and privileges of a patriarchal society. Dono side se malai chahiyea. They wont be able to shun the special status that they enjoy in society to work in the army.

Also consider, if a soldier gets held hostage in foreign land as prisoner of war, if this soldier is male, no one will care, but if it is a female then everyone in India will raise a storm. Why? because even though they theorize that both genders are equal, they haven't really let go of the idea in their minds that women are somehow special and deserve special attention. Tomorrow if a female soldier gets taken prisoner then the domestic pressure to negotiate with the enemy will be so high that we will have to give in to the enemy's demands in order to secure her release. Have you thought about that aspect? on top of that there will be feminists making claims that "men are sending women to die in wars". These are two faced people who speak from both sides. The potential liability of inducting them far outweighs whatever perceived benefit (I don't see any).

Fokat ka headache hai. Not to mention false rape claims. Already the leftists and jihadists are encouraging and coaching Kashmiris to make false rape claims against the army. If there are women in combat roles then there will surely be instances of politically motivated females (aka commie bitches) who will join the army with the sole purpose of making a false case which will be then used by vested interests (like that Nirbhaya drama) to shame the entire nation and demoralize the army. Are you willing to pay all these costs? and if yes, then what are the gains from it? what capability will it add to our military that we are missing now? I can understand the use of females as spies, undercover agents, covert operators, intelligence officers but we are talking about purely combat roles here.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Actually I did notice that, but I'm afraid you will eventually.

As I said, unlike Russian or US fanboys I prefer to use my brain!!

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

There is no explicit answer here, on one hand there are cultures that have done this, like Israel, Kurds, and even Indian Maoists and LTTE cadre, but then remember these women have been through leftist brainwashing which motivates them to put their cause above their individual sense of self (gender, religion, caste, financial status) so these women go beyond the call of duty and not demand special treatment like Indian women do. In India, this equality is in theory only. Women only complain against 'patriarchy' and demand 'equality' where it suits them but are still unwilling to let go of the dividends and privileges of a patriarchal society. Dono side se malai chahiyea. They wont be able to shun the special status that they enjoy in society to work in the army.

Also consider, if a soldier gets held hostage in foreign land as prisoner of war, if this soldier is male, no one will care, but if it is a female then everyone in India will raise a storm. Why? because even though they theorize that both genders are equal, they haven't really let go of the idea in their minds that women are somehow special and deserve special attention. Tomorrow if a female soldier gets taken prisoner then the domestic pressure to negotiate with the enemy will be so high that we will have to give in to the enemy's demands in order to secure her release. Have you thought about that aspect? on top of that there will be feminists making claims that "men are sending women to die in wars". These are two faced people who speak from both sides. The potential liability of inducting them far outweighs whatever perceived benefit (I don't see any).

Fokat ka headache hai. Not to mention false rape claims. Already the leftists and jihadists are encouraging and coaching Kashmiris to make false rape claims against the army. If there are women in combat roles then there will surely be instances of politically motivated females (aka commie bitches) who will join the army with the sole purpose of making a false case which will be then used by vested interests (like that Nirbhaya drama) to shame the entire nation and demoralize the army. Are you willing to pay all these costs? and if yes, then what are the gains from it? what capability will it add to our military that we are missing now? I can understand the use of females as spies, undercover agents, covert operators, intelligence officers but we are talking about purely combat roles here.

Bhai, all those Israeli and Kurish women are usually for photo-ops. Female maoists are there to satisfy the sexual urges of comrades and win new combatants by offering them.

Question is- how many pitched battles these women have fought?

 

[Razor]

As I said, unlike Russian or US fanboys I prefer to use my brain!!

So that explains your love for the homos? By using your brain?
Weren't you the one who said/suggested homos are better than rajputs or something?

 

[Razor]

Bhai, all those Israeli and Kurish women are usually for photo-ops. Female maoists are there to satisfy the sexual urges of comrades and win new combatants by offering them.

Question is- how many pitched battles these women have fought?

Kurdish women fighters are not always fake/photo-op. There are some who have seen action.
Their situation is different, theirs is an existential-crisis type situation.
Additionally, just because they've seen action doesn't mean they are as effective as male members of the YPG

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

So that explains your love for the homos? By using your brain?
Weren't you the one who said/suggested homos are better than rajputs or something?

Am I homophobic like some fanboys? No.

Do I like gay parades? No.

Did I start the thread on Rajputs and called them weaklings? Yes. But that was more hyperbolic to show that Rajputs screwed up as much as other castes.

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

Bhai, all those Israeli and Kurish women are usually for photo-ops. Female maoists are there to satisfy the sexual urges of comrades and win new combatants by offering them.

Question is- how many pitched battles these women have fought?

No military will reveal those statistics but I agree that the proposed inclusion of female infantry in the Indian army will be disastrous.

Kurdish women are fighting to prevent being raped by ISIS, they are not for photo-ops. The Kurdish society is an inherently leftist society (like Jews, Malyalis, Bengalis). The only thing that makes the Kurds different from those other societies is that a war has been imposed on them so the women have taken up arms instead of simply being armchair philosophers like Bengalis.

Maoists ladies are sex slaves, no doubt in that. I just used that as a classic bad example to show that the only ones who are doing it are loony people. Kurds and Israelis are faced with an existential threat, so they do it. Maoists and LTTE usually kidnaps and forces girls. In a way, all those who are doing it are doing it because there is some sort of compulsion, there is no need for us to follow that model.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

@Razor - Also I neither fall for Victorian era sex laws nor their BS AIT/AMT theory!!

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

No military will reveal those statistics but I agree that the proposed inclusion of female infantry in the Indian army will be disastrous.

Kurdish women are fighting to prevent being raped by ISIS, they are not for photo-ops. The Kurdish society is an inherently leftist society (like Jews, Malyalis, Bengalis). The only thing that makes the Kurds different from those other societies is that a war has been imposed on them so the women have taken up arms instead of simply being armchair philosophers like Bengalis.

Maoists ladies are sex slaves, no doubt in that. I just used that as a classic bad example to show that the only ones who are doing it are loony people. Kurds and Israelis are faced with an existential threat, so they do it. Maoists and LTTE usually kidnaps and forces girls. In a way, all those who are doing it are doing it because there is some sort of compulsion, there is no need for us to follow that model.

How many of these Kurdish women are fighting on the front? Even in case of Israel, men see most of the action.

But these countries do not have option because they don't have enough men. But even they know the power of the womb I guess and do not send them to the front blindly.

 

[Razor]

Am I homophobic like some fanboys? No.

Do I like gay parades? No.

Did I start the thread on Rajputs and called them weaklings? Yes. But that was more hyperbolic to show that Rajputs screwed up as much as other castes.

Hyperbolic??
Many of the posts on that thread seemed to show a deeper intent.
And come on, it is not just that thread.
In any case, it's up to you to decide whther you are homo-fanboy or not.

Russian fanboy bait/taunt: Yes, I'm pro-Russian as far as the recent geo-political events are concerned: ranging from afghan war (birth of Brzezinski's brain child mujahadin,) to chechen wars (funded by saudi-wahhabi-american cabal),to ukraine war, to syrian war and more.
What's your problem??
These US wars are designed to destabilize the region to keep down competitors.
Just because you are US fanboi doesn't mean I have to conform/stoop down to your standards.

@Razor - Also I neither fall for Victorian era sex laws nor their BS AIT/AMT theory!!

I don't know about Victorian-era sex laws. I'm guessing it has to do with homo stuff.
And "BS AIT/AMT theory" bait. Nice try. It's for another thread.
Is baiting the only thing you do here??

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

How many of these Kurdish women are fighting on the front? Even in case of Israel, men see most of the action.

But these countries do not have option because they don't have enough men. But even they know the power of the womb I guess and do not send them to the front blindly.

You might be right about Israel. But Kurdish ladies do fight, simply because there is no other ceremonial desk job, there are no missile operator posts, no analyst post, no submarine post, infantry is all you can be when you are a Kurdish militia. Learn to operate the assault rifle and go to the front line, that's the checklist. Small arms is all these people have.

There are no ceremonial posts in Peshmerga. Every single documentary I've seen of the Kurdish women, I've seen a woman mentioning the death of her fellow female soldier. It's not like those feminist Indian 'soldiers' who give interviews to Randi TV brooding about hypothetical girly things like 'ohh, I feel more confident as a woman' 'the society's way of looking at me has changed blah blah' 'I'm here to prove that women can do anything men can do blah blah'.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Hyperbolic??
Many of the posts on that thread seemed to show a deeper intent.
And come on, it is not just that thread.
In any case, it's up to you to decide whther you are homo-fanboy or not.

Russian fanboy bait/taunt: Yes, I'm pro-Russian as far as the recent geo-political events are concerned: ranging from afghan war (birth of Brzezinski's brain child mujahadin,) to chechen wars (funded by saudi-wahhabi-american cabal),to ukraine war, to syrian war and more.
What's your problem??
These US wars are designed to destabilize the region to keep down competitors.
Just because you are US fanboi doesn't mean I have to conform/stoop down to your standards.


I don't know about Victorian-era sex laws. I'm guessing it has to do with homo stuff.
And "BS AIT/AMT theory" bait. Nice try. It's for another thread.
Is baiting the only thing you do here??

Oops, I did hit a raw nerve!!

The connect between AIT and being homo-phobic is linked very well to British era laws and legacy.

There is nothing wrong with being Russian fanboy but it becomes a problem when people want to draw policy conclusions forgetting their true loyalty to India. @spikey360 - wanted to commit India to the mad-house of Syria when Turkey shot down Russian plane.

Sorry, I will continue to burst this echo-chamber.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

You might be right about Israel. But Kurdish ladies do fight, simply because there is no other ceremonial desk job, there are no missile operator posts, no analyst post, no submarine post, infantry is all you can be when you are a Kurdish militia. Learn to operate the assault rifle and go to the front line, that's the checklist. Small arms is all these people have.

There are no ceremonial posts in Peshmerga. Every single documentary I've seen of the Kurdish women, I've seen a woman mentioning the death of her fellow female soldier. It's not like those feminist Indian 'soldiers' who give interviews to Randi TV brooding about hypothetical girly things like 'ohh, I feel more confident as a woman' 'the society's way of looking at me has changed blah blah' 'I'm here to prove that women can do anything men can do blah blah'.

Are these all-women units or mixed units?

 

[Bornubus]

Intelligence agencies doing effective work are more important for the stability and security of the nation than the army.

Can you point out, if you can, where I have "stated" IB is more important than Army??
YOU CAN'T
What you are doing is called strawman argument, i.e. arguing against a point I did not make.

...........................................