LEGAL METHODS-1

Submitted by-
Siddhant Chandak

I.D. Number A026

SUBMITTED TO:

PROF. Ms. JHARNA SAHIJWANI

1st Year (Class of 2026)

B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) First Semester. October-December,2021

Date of submission- December 14, 2021

 THE DEBATE ON PERMANENT COMMISSION –
HOW WOMEN ARE THE VICTIMS OF
STEREOTYPES IN THE INDIAN ARMY

INTRODUCTION

The landmark judgement Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Ors. passed in February 2020
was celebrated as a triumph for women in their battle for equal employment opportunities. At the
same time, it exposed the deep-seated and archaic stereotypes about women that the Army held
that had for decades prevented able and deserving women from availing career advancing
opportunities.

The focus of this research paper will be to analyze three arguments provided by the Indian Army
against allowing women to apply for Permanent Commission in combat units/zones – lower
physical standards, the gender dynamics of the Army and the domestic obligations of women
towards their children and families.
RESEARCH PROBLEM

(i) whether women empirically possess lower physical standards than men,

(ii) whether they are an obstruction to the internal dynamic of combat units and

(iii) whether the assumption of women’s domestic obligations taking priority over their
professional service is reasonable. This is in furtherance of the hypothesis that the Indian Army
was unfair in its defence against providing Permanent Commission to women officers.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

This paper aims to navigate the reasons provided by the Indian Army against providing Permanent
Commission to female officers, with specific focus on its arguments relating to the stationing of
women in combat roles.

‘Lower Physical Standards’?

In its submission to the Supreme Court in The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and
Ors., the Indian Army stated that:

“A soldier relies heavily on his physical prowess to engage in combat. The officers are
expected to lead their men ‘from the front’ and need to be in prime physical condition to
undertake combat tasks. Inherent physiological differences…between men and women
 preclude equal physical performances resulting in lower physical standards…and hence
1
the physical capacity of WOs in the IA remain a challenge for command of units.”

Presently, the extensive physical training provided by the Indian Army to soldiers includes short
and long-distance running, swimming, push-ups and trenches among others,2 which aim to develop
high muscle strength, stamina and flexibility. This training regimen is conducted to develop the
physical skills required by soldiers on the battlefield. The Army here argues that women inherently
possess lower capabilities than men in this respect.

There is no doubt that significant anatomical and physiological differences exist between men and
women. For example, men have higher absolute muscle strength in both upper and lower limbs
due to the innate presence of more muscle fibers. 3 Men also have greater aerobic capacities due to
the higher presence of VO2max.4 Also, the presence of less testosterone in women means that they
5
are, on average, more flexible than men.

At the same time, studies have shown that muscle strength gains are identical if not greater in
women as compared to men when put under the same training program, and differences in body

1
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v Babita Puniya and Ors. [2020] 7 SCC 469 [45.2].

2
“Conduct of Training” (Indian Army: Government of India - Training)
<https://indianarmy.nic.in/Site/FormTemplete/frmTempSimple.aspx?MnId=YLdXZCKe94uLajqKw4s18g==&ParentID=vBJ
Hy5jgTLjKvxbWSjgt3Q==> accessed 21 September 2021.
3
A.E.J. Miller, J.D. MacDougall, M.A. Tarnopolsky and G.D. Sale, “Gender differences in strength and muscle fiber
characteristics” (1993) Vol. 66 European Journal of Applied Physiology 261.
4
DA Lewis, E Kamon, JL Hodgson, “Physiological Differences between Genders: Implications for Sports Conditioning”
(1986) Vol. 3 Sports Medicine 359.
5
Cathe Friedrich, ‘Are Women More Flexible Than Men?’ (Cathe) <https://cathe.com/are-women-more-flexible-than-
men/> accessed 25 September 2021.
composition are negligible while comparing long-distance running results, 6 indicating similar
stamina-developing capabilities. Inferably, simply the presence of physiological differences
between men and women cannot mean that women have lower physical capabilities than men. As
shown by the studies mentioned above, they can withstand tough training regimes and produce
results similar to men. So there is no reason to doubt the ‘physical prowess’ of women on the
battlefield.

The comment on ‘equal physical performances’ seems to ignore the possibility that there are men
who may not possess the expected standards of strength and stamina but are still not disqualified.
Thus, it is unfair to exclude women from command units if the same treatment is not meted out to
men. It would be more reasonable to judge officers based on their physical merits rather than
disallow women from training altogether. The assumption of the Army about the hindered ability
of women officers to serve in and lead command units on both a short and long-term basis based
on their ‘physical capacity’ is therefore unreasonable.

Peculiar Gender Dynamics of the Army

In its arguments, the Army acknowledges that the infrastructure in border/forward areas is
inadequate, unhygienic and primitive 7, which it believes women officers will not be able to adapt
to. The field numbers present a different reality – thirty percent of all women officers are posted
in sensitive areas in both combat and non-combat roles.8 They believe that the Army has
deliberately prevented women from serving in these areas by leaving out the female perspective
in forming border zone-related policies that ultimately result in a lack of basic facilities for them

6
Lewis, Kamon, Hodgson (n 4) 365.
7
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Ors. [2020] 7 SCC 469 [45.4].
8
Ibid para 54.3.
such as washrooms. This is despite being aware of the challenges they have to face, including that
9
of pregnant women working in hazardous conditions.

According to the Army, a historical lack of women in both the officer (higher ranked) and rank
and file (cadet) cadre has led to an ‘all-male’ presence within command units. It implies that the
presence of women both as colleagues and superiors is unnatural. This is supported by the fact that
in 2020, there were only 1653 female officers out of the held strength of 40825 10 - exactly 4%.
Further, the reactions of male officers in the Army to the announcement by the Delhi High Court
in 2010 permitting women to apply for Permanent Commission in combat units 11 revealed the
reflection of archaic and prejudicial notions about the female presence in workspaces.

From their perspective, the presence of women in command units is both a threat to the gendered
notions of masculinity and femininity – fighting is a man’s job and not a woman’s, and thus combat
units must be a purely male space. If women were to enter this space, then there would be an
imbalance in the traditional division of gender roles in society, generating the fear that there would
be a ‘militarisation of femininity’. 12 Men view their frontline combat positions with a sense of
pride as they believe that they are doing jobs that demand immense bravery and valour. The
perception of women as sensitive and timid leads them to believe that the values dictated by the
institutions of war and combat would be corrupted if they were made to serve alongside women.

9
Prema Sridevi, ‘“We are treated like third class citizens.” Women Army officers allege discrimination; send legal
notice to Army; approach tribunal for justice’ (The Probe, 22 Aug 2021) <https://theprobe.in/we-are-treated-like-
third-class-citizens-women-army-officers-allege-discrimination-send-legal-notice-to-army-approach-tribunal-for-
justice/> accessed 26 Sept 2021.
10
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Ors. [2020] 7 SCC 469 [47].
11
Secr., Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Another [2010] SCC OnLine SC 77.
12
Prem Chowdhry, ‘Women in the Army’ (2010) Vol. 45 No. 31 Economic and Political Weekly 18-19.
The Army is also right in its contention that the ‘all-male’ dynamic of its officers would be
challenged if women were inducted into combat roles, 13although its defence of the same is
questionable. There has been a homosocial and exclusionary development of the notion of
‘brotherhood and comradeship’ which places great importance on honouring a ‘code of conduct’
that regards women as distractions and objects of fantasy. 14 The regular presence of women among
them would, in their view, have a negative bearing on this established dynamic. It would invite
‘tension, courtships and jealousies’, distracting men from their ultimate goal of serving the nation.
The denigrating and objectified manner in which women are referred to is seen as justified because
15
‘men will be men’.

There is a fear of women occupying higher positions in the Army as they will ‘eat away
vacancies’.16Men are unwilling to take orders from women as it upsets traditional social
hierarchies in which men are the ‘boss’. This behaviour is in line with the general treatment of
women in superiority – their orders are ignored, expertise doubted, contributions to policymaking
dismissed and are expected to follow rather than lead, even at high positions. 17 This is in line with
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s observation that ‘…We have been so conditioned to think of power

as male that a powerful woman is an aberration. And so she is policed.’ 18

It is only natural then, that women will feel ‘isolated’ as contended by the Army, but not only
because of the small and detached areas they have to serve in – because of the social exclusion and

13
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Ors. [2020] 7 SCC 469 [45.3].
14
Chowdhry (n 12) 19.
15
Ibid.
16
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Ors. [2020] 7 SCC 469 [48].
17
Melissa Ann McCooley, ‘Overcoming isolation as a woman in the male-dominated superintendency’ (EdD thesis,
Rowan University 2017.
18
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Dear Ijeawele, or a Feminist Manifesto in Fifteen Suggestions (1st edn,
HarperCollins 2017) 14.
lack of support they are faced with daily. There is an element of both physical and mental
‘isolation’.

The above arguments present a fundamental flaw in the Army’s reasoning – it assumes that the
prejudiced attitude towards and lack of women in its barracks is natural behaviour and that they
will disrupt the existing social order if inducted alongside men. It holds onto archaic and traditional
definitions of the terms ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ and perpetuates them in a time where the binary
lines of character along which men and women are divided are not only changing but becoming
blurred.

Rather than confronting the reality that the attitude towards women in its units is structurally
flawed and deeply discriminatory, the Army expects that women should adapt to the conditions
presented to them because it is only normal for men to behave in front of female colleagues the
way that they currently do. Providing Permanent Commission to women would not only establish
their regular presence in command units, it would also increase the chances of their superiority –
something that worries the Army because it is ‘unnatural’ and may cause tension among male
officers. The Army must acknowledge that rather than the presence of women officers, it is the
behaviour of male officers that should be considered unnatural and disruptive.

Women and ‘Domestic Obligations’

Yet another plank of the Army’s argument rests on the following submission:

“…it is a greater challenge for WOs to meet these hazards of service, owing to their
prolonged absence during pregnancy, motherhood and domestic obligations towards their
 children and families, especially when both husband and wife happen to be service
19
officers.”

If women were to be granted Permanent Commission, the Army would be at a disadvantage

because the dues of male officers would be compromised by paid absences due to pregnancies or
domestic obligations.20 Moreover, it would not be possible for women to prioritise their
professional obligations as balancing domestic and professional life would become too arduous.
Serving in combat is less preferred for women because of the inherent risks of injury or death and
the continuous transfers across army bases.

There is a dangerous assumption involved here – that ‘the primary profession of women is
motherhood’.21Women would ‘naturally’ choose to place greater priority on their children and
families after some point of time during their service. The Army’s stance is a reflection of the
archaic gender roles outlined for men and women in society. As articulated by Adichie, the
traditional division of labour emphasises that women are in charge of the housework – cooking,
cleaning and taking care of their families. 22Men, on the other hand, are expected to be the primary
breadwinners of their families; as a result, it is more acceptable for them to have mobility between
23
home and work contexts.

In depicting the situation where both parents are serving in the military, the Army does not consider
the possibility that some men may choose to take up domestic duties while their wives earn for the

19
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Ors. [2020] 7 SCC 469 [45.1].
20
Ibid [40] .
21
Nivedita Menon, Seeing Like a Feminist (1st edn, Penguin 2012) 14.
22
Adichie (n 18) 10.
23
Simone I. Flynn, ‘Family Gender Roles’ in Salem Press (ed), Sociology Reference Guide: Gender Roles and
Equality (Salem Press 2011).
family. Moreover, the Army does not recognise that pregnancy and motherhood is a choice. It
argues that the dues of male officers will be compromised on the dated assumption that it is a
24
mandate and ‘good’ mothers will stay home to take care of their children.

Adichie stresses that it is important to realise that ‘motherhood and work are not mutually
exclusive’. 25This is supported by survey findings in the past few decades, where men are more
involved in household duties and childcare, while more women are strongly involved in income
earning.26 Men and women are reimagining their familial duties, and the notion of ‘household
27
duties’ as having a feminine connotation is being rejected.

SUGGESTIONS

Rather than confronting the reality that the attitude towards women in its units is structurally
flawed and deeply discriminatory, the Army expects that women should adapt to the conditions
presented to them because it is only normal for men to behave in front of female colleagues the
way that they currently do. Providing Permanent Commission to women would not only establish
their regular presence in command units, it would also increase the chances of their superiority –
something that worries the Army because it is ‘unnatural’ and may cause tension among male
officers. The Army must acknowledge that rather than the presence of women officers, it is the
behaviour of male officers that should be considered unnatural and disruptive.

24
Nancy Felipe Russo, ‘The Motherhood Mandate’ (1976) Vol. 32 No. 3 American Psychological Association 147.
25
Adichie (n 18) 7.
26
Janet Zollinger Giele and Elke Holst, ‘New Life Patterns and Changing Gender Roles’ (2003) Vol. 8 Advances in Life
Course Research 6.
27
Adichie (n 18) 8.
 CONCLUSION
In the above paper, I have argued that the arguments made by the Indian Army against providing
women officers the permission to apply for Permanent Commission are untenable and based on
archaic stereotypes about gender roles and female capabilities. I have also attempted to draw
parallels with Adichie’s observations about the gender imbalance in her ‘suggestions’. The
unfavourable treatment meted out to women is a result of the structural flaws in the Army itself
and cannot be justified based on the premise that the male domination of command units is
‘natural’. In order to truly ensure equality of opportunity within its ranks, it must acknowledge
these flaws and prioritise policies that create an equitable and respectful environment for women.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS AND BOOK CHAPTERS

 1. Menon N, Seeing Like a Feminist (1st edn, Penguin 2012) 14.

 2. dichie C.N., Dear Ijeawele, or a Feminist Manifesto in Fifteen Suggestions

(1st edn, HarperCollins 2017) 7-14.
  3. Flynn S.I., ‘Family Gender Roles’ in Salem Press (ed), Sociology Reference
Guide: Gender Roles and Equality (Salem Press 2011).

JOURNAL ARTICLES

 1. Russo N.F., ‘The Motherhood Mandate’ (1976) Vol. 32 No. 3 American

Psychological Association 147.
 2. Giele J.Z. and Holst E, ‘New Life Patterns and Changing Gender Roles’
(2003) Vol. 8 Advances in Life Course Research 6.

 3. Chowdhry P, ‘Women in the Army’ (2010) Vol. 45 No. 31 Economic and

Political Weekly 18-19.

 4. Miller A.E.J., MacDougall J.D., Tarnopolsky M.A. and Sale G.D., “Gender
differences in strength and muscle fiber characteristics” (1993) Vol. 66 European
Journal of Applied Physiology 261.

 5. Lewis DA, Kamon E, Hodgson JL, “Physiological Differences between

Genders: Implications for Sports Conditioning” (1986) Vol. 3 Sports Medicine 359,
365

WEBSITES
  1. “Conduct of Training” (Indian Army: Government of India - Training)
<https://indianarmy.nic.in/Site/FormTemplete/frmTempSimple.aspx?MnId=YLdXZCKe
94uLajqKw4s18g==&ParentID=vBJHy5jgTLjKvxbWSjgt3Q==> accessed 21
September 2021.

 2. Friedrich C, ‘Are Women More Flexible Than Men?’ (Cathe)

<https://cathe.com/are-women-more-flexible-than-men/> accessed 25 September 2021.
 3. Sridevi P, ‘“We are treated like third class citizens.” Women Army officers allege
discrimination; send legal notice to Army; approach tribunal for justice’ (The Probe, 22
Aug 2021) <https://theprobe.in/we-are-treated-like-third-class-citizens-women-army-
officers-allege-discrimination-send-legal-notice-to-army-approach-tribunal-for-justice/>
accessed 26 Sept 2021.

JUDGEMENTS AND CASES

 1. Secr., Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and ors.[2010] SCC OnLine

SC 77.
 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Ors. [2020] 7 SCC
469.