09-27-2006, 01:11 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Army has no gender </b>
Pioneer.com
Media should be cautious in criticising the Army as it could demoralise the forces and jeopardise the nation's security, says Vinay Shankar
It is not funny how easily sanity and objectivity can become casualties in the wake of the media's competitive sensationalism and the political elite's addiction to expediency. The recent suicide by an Army officer is a typical example of this trend.
In fact, there were two suicides; both were used to put the Army in the dock. In one case, the officer's wife accused the Army hierarchy of covering up the murder; and in the other, the victim was a woman officer whose parents alleged that she was not treated well.
For a few days the media made the Army its punching bag. The frenzied pummelling was relentless till the bag ruptured and the stuffing drained out. The political leadership, instead of deflecting the attack, too, joined the fray.
The media moved on. The politicians, too, have perhaps forgotten the incident. And, the Army is left tending to its wounds. But few understand that the nation may end up paying a heavy price if the Army cracks. After all, it remains a vital national pillar. For the Army to deliver, its morale needs to remain high, it must have cohesion and self-esteem, and it must enjoy the respect of its countrymen. Unfortunately, other than the Army hierarchy and maybe a few other segments, most do not care.
Since the mid-1980s, the Army has been stretched to the limits, as it has been engaged in stressful combat situations with insufficient officers and inadequate equipment. Under more benign circumstances, the Army could have weathered such sniping and slashing. Even in these difficult times it might. But must we subject the Army to this kind of senseless battering.
It cannot be anyone's case that the Army must not be probed, scrutinised and subjected to the gaze of the media and the public. Like any other institution, the Army must be prepared to take the brickbats together with the bouquets. At the same time, it expects that the media does its homework, analyses the incident and makes an effort to understand the repercussions before it begins to splash.
Let us first look at the case where the wife alleged murder. While anything is possible the probability of a murder being twisted to a suicide is remote, especially in the kind of cheek by jowl proximity that pervades life in units and formations. Since the story is no longer being aired it can be surmised that the death has eventually been accepted as suicide. This chapter may have been closed, but the Army's image would have taken a beating.
Some effort to understand the character of our Army could have made a difference to those in the media who latched on to this story. For those who are familiar with the ethos of the Army will vouch that in cases of suicide, the first organisational response is to look at what can be done to support the family because suicide does not entitle the dependants to normal pension benefits. Besides, units do try and adopt such families to the extent they can. Admittedly this tradition is today not as strong as it was some years ago, but nevertheless it endures.
The bigger issue was the suicide of a woman officer. As the news spread, the first charge that surfaced was that the officer's superiors did not deal with her with sensitivity and concern. The feminists then did not rise to the defence of the Army and proclaim that all officers must be treated alike and that women must be able to take the rough and tumble of Army life.
Instead they remained silent, like they remained silent when a woman candidate for the Army insisted that she be medically examined only by a female doctor. Her demand was acceded to and now as a policy only women doctors examine women. Could there be a socially more regressive step? Prior to this our society viewed doctors as doctors and not as men or women. Their sex was never an issue.
The really knottier problem exploded when the script took its inevitable turn to the issue of 'women in the army'. An unwary Vice-Chief of the Army Staff, when quizzed on this subject by the media, was perhaps not circumspect enough, or has been misquoted. While what he uttered may be reflecting the views of a reasonably wide cross-section of the Army leadership, it has to be admitted that he could have handled the questions more adroitly.
The animated and angry response from women's rights groups was to be expected. But what was surprising was the shrill vitriol spewed by an erstwhile Cabinet Minister, known for her intellect and sagacity. By stridently demanding the sacking of the Vice-Chief who has served the nation diligently for almost 40 years, she struck some vital body blows at the self-esteem of the Army.
The response of the Defence Minister to the tirade of the feminists was equally distressing. Given his experience, we thought that he would stand by his Vice Chief and skilfully diffuse the situation. Instead, he too succumbed and the Vice-Chief had to tender a public apology.
The Army has had women as doctors and nurses. The recent decision to recommend to the Government the induction of women as officers into the other branches of the Army was not imposed. It was a proposal that the Army made of its own volition. The primary reason for proposing the enrolment of women as officers in the Army was to address the problem of the acute shortage of officers. The gender issue also weighed in to strengthen the case.
Women have been in the Army for more than a decade. Before rushing to some rash decisions, it may be a good idea to conduct a dispassionate study of this experiment. Let a special committee be constituted for the purpose. Based on the recommendations that are made appropriate reforms can be implemented. But without adequate deliberation ordering the entry of women in the combat arms would be a monumental blunder.
The national imperative of addressing the complexity of gender bias and securing equal opportunities for women is unexceptionable. There may also be a case to further sensitise the Army leadership to gender issues. But to contemplate using the Army to engineer social change would be unwise.
- (The writer is former Director-General, Artillery)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
Media should be cautious in criticising the Army as it could demoralise the forces and jeopardise the nation's security, says Vinay Shankar
It is not funny how easily sanity and objectivity can become casualties in the wake of the media's competitive sensationalism and the political elite's addiction to expediency. The recent suicide by an Army officer is a typical example of this trend.
In fact, there were two suicides; both were used to put the Army in the dock. In one case, the officer's wife accused the Army hierarchy of covering up the murder; and in the other, the victim was a woman officer whose parents alleged that she was not treated well.
For a few days the media made the Army its punching bag. The frenzied pummelling was relentless till the bag ruptured and the stuffing drained out. The political leadership, instead of deflecting the attack, too, joined the fray.
The media moved on. The politicians, too, have perhaps forgotten the incident. And, the Army is left tending to its wounds. But few understand that the nation may end up paying a heavy price if the Army cracks. After all, it remains a vital national pillar. For the Army to deliver, its morale needs to remain high, it must have cohesion and self-esteem, and it must enjoy the respect of its countrymen. Unfortunately, other than the Army hierarchy and maybe a few other segments, most do not care.
Since the mid-1980s, the Army has been stretched to the limits, as it has been engaged in stressful combat situations with insufficient officers and inadequate equipment. Under more benign circumstances, the Army could have weathered such sniping and slashing. Even in these difficult times it might. But must we subject the Army to this kind of senseless battering.
It cannot be anyone's case that the Army must not be probed, scrutinised and subjected to the gaze of the media and the public. Like any other institution, the Army must be prepared to take the brickbats together with the bouquets. At the same time, it expects that the media does its homework, analyses the incident and makes an effort to understand the repercussions before it begins to splash.
Let us first look at the case where the wife alleged murder. While anything is possible the probability of a murder being twisted to a suicide is remote, especially in the kind of cheek by jowl proximity that pervades life in units and formations. Since the story is no longer being aired it can be surmised that the death has eventually been accepted as suicide. This chapter may have been closed, but the Army's image would have taken a beating.
Some effort to understand the character of our Army could have made a difference to those in the media who latched on to this story. For those who are familiar with the ethos of the Army will vouch that in cases of suicide, the first organisational response is to look at what can be done to support the family because suicide does not entitle the dependants to normal pension benefits. Besides, units do try and adopt such families to the extent they can. Admittedly this tradition is today not as strong as it was some years ago, but nevertheless it endures.
The bigger issue was the suicide of a woman officer. As the news spread, the first charge that surfaced was that the officer's superiors did not deal with her with sensitivity and concern. The feminists then did not rise to the defence of the Army and proclaim that all officers must be treated alike and that women must be able to take the rough and tumble of Army life.
Instead they remained silent, like they remained silent when a woman candidate for the Army insisted that she be medically examined only by a female doctor. Her demand was acceded to and now as a policy only women doctors examine women. Could there be a socially more regressive step? Prior to this our society viewed doctors as doctors and not as men or women. Their sex was never an issue.
The really knottier problem exploded when the script took its inevitable turn to the issue of 'women in the army'. An unwary Vice-Chief of the Army Staff, when quizzed on this subject by the media, was perhaps not circumspect enough, or has been misquoted. While what he uttered may be reflecting the views of a reasonably wide cross-section of the Army leadership, it has to be admitted that he could have handled the questions more adroitly.
The animated and angry response from women's rights groups was to be expected. But what was surprising was the shrill vitriol spewed by an erstwhile Cabinet Minister, known for her intellect and sagacity. By stridently demanding the sacking of the Vice-Chief who has served the nation diligently for almost 40 years, she struck some vital body blows at the self-esteem of the Army.
The response of the Defence Minister to the tirade of the feminists was equally distressing. Given his experience, we thought that he would stand by his Vice Chief and skilfully diffuse the situation. Instead, he too succumbed and the Vice-Chief had to tender a public apology.
The Army has had women as doctors and nurses. The recent decision to recommend to the Government the induction of women as officers into the other branches of the Army was not imposed. It was a proposal that the Army made of its own volition. The primary reason for proposing the enrolment of women as officers in the Army was to address the problem of the acute shortage of officers. The gender issue also weighed in to strengthen the case.
Women have been in the Army for more than a decade. Before rushing to some rash decisions, it may be a good idea to conduct a dispassionate study of this experiment. Let a special committee be constituted for the purpose. Based on the recommendations that are made appropriate reforms can be implemented. But without adequate deliberation ordering the entry of women in the combat arms would be a monumental blunder.
The national imperative of addressing the complexity of gender bias and securing equal opportunities for women is unexceptionable. There may also be a case to further sensitise the Army leadership to gender issues. But to contemplate using the Army to engineer social change would be unwise.
- (The writer is former Director-General, Artillery)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->