In a recent review by a senior officer of the Indian Army, concerns were raised regarding the performance and leadership styles of women Commanding Officers (COs) in the Indian Army. The review highlights a range of interpersonal and leadership issues, including ego problems, frequent complaints, and a lack of empathy in decision-making.
Integrating women into key positions of leadership in the Indian Army began after the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in 2020, allowing permanent commission for women officers. Following this, in 2023, 108 women officers were promoted to CO roles.
The review dwells into entitlement and ego issues exhibited by women COs, demanding personal privileges and prioritising their comfort over the needs of their soldiers. The report also speaks of minor management issues that, instead of being resolved internally by the women COs, were often escalated to senior commanders, which led to distrust within the ranks. Lack of delegation; reduced trust in subordinates; harsh decision-making with a lack of empathy; rigid leadership styles to compensate for perceived gender biases; over-celebration of small accomplishments – have all been highlighted as the trademark characteristics of women COs.
What appeared in the social media is a copy of a Demi official letter initiated by a Corps commander addressed to the Army Commander with copies endorsed to the Adjutant General and Military Secretary – Principal Staff Officers (PSOs) at the Army HQ. Several issues come to the fore beside the contents of the DO. Let’s discuss these first before we come to the contents.
The contents of this DO, to my mind, deals with the demonstrated performance of the women COs and therefore a matter of high sensitivity. The letter should have had a CONFIDENTIAL security classification. It is beyond my comprehension how this letter has been initiated UNCLASSIFIED and consequently now floating around in social media and discussed on mainstream TV. The leakage of such confidential matter is perhaps as serious as the contents.
The senior officer who initiated this letter is a Corps Commander. Given the sensitivity of the matter, I have a strong feeling that such a matter would first have been discussed one to one with the Army Commander, or in a senior officer’s conference first, before formally being put in black and white. It is very likely that pursuant to discussion, someone at a higher level accepted the notion that there is a problem at hand and the matter needs to be formally examined and corrective measures adopted. Therefore, the Corps commander was asked to initiate a formal letter. The letter being simultaneously addressed to the PSOs at the Army HQ, in some ways violating the chain of command, is also indicative of this likelihood. One letter has leaked into the media. We are not sure whether there are other such reviews supporting or contradicting the views in this report.
There is also a social media view that this letter was deliberately leaked to the media to address a problem which the Army feels is an albatross hung around its neck by the courts and the Government, a subject on which the Army has little or no control. Proponents of this view argue that the main purpose of a deliberate leak was to stir an hornet’s nest and bring out a problem into public awareness. Given my knowledge of the working of the Army, I doubt whether this could be true.
Let us now come to the contents of this letter. Initially I was inclined to dismiss the contents of the letter as a sexist rant from an imbalanced senior military officer. Male COs whom I have come across in service displayed to a lesser or greater degree some or all of the traits enumerated in the letter. This observation sort of confirmed my initial outlook. But then am I being too judgemental in my view? Is there a possibility that the letter indeed reflects some actual facets of the demonstrated performance of women COs of the formation observed by the Corps Commander? Could it be that there is some truth which has been wildly exaggerated? Is it possible that due to some quirk of probability, a set of very poor specimens got posted to the formation and based on their performance the General resorted to unfair gender generalisation?
The fact is that the contents of the letter could be anywhere in the spectrum between absolute fiction to the bitter truth. Your guess is as good as mine. Let’s leave it at that.
As per media reports there are 108 women COs in the Indian army and the formation in question had eight of them. It is not necessary that what the General observed, even if it is deemed to be objective, reflects a wider malady. That the letter seemed to suggest the issue as a wider malady, is the main reason why it struck me as a sexist rant.
The General pleads for gender neutrality in appointments rather than gender parity. In other words, appoint the meritorious irrespective of gender rather than ensure that there is some parity in the gender equation as the courts seemed to have ordered. To my mind this is a reasonable point of view and indeed a fair point. But feminists argue that the generalisation is wrong at a time when the NATO forces and the Israeli Defence Forces apparently have women as 3-Star Generals. It is worth considering the employment of women officers in the Indian defence forces from a historical perspective.
Initially the main purpose of employing women officers in the Indian defence forces was primarily to address the problem of shortage of officers. They were commissioned as short service officers employed for five years extendable to 10 or 15 years without any pension liability. This appeared to be grossly unfair. The women officers took legal recourse and after a long battle got their rights to permanent commission. They pressed further and recently the courts ordered their appointment as COs as well. The sore point is that since their initial commission did not envisage their role as COs many of them did not get the training and exposure that is necessary before an officer assumes the appointment of CO. Some of them were not even exposed to command criteria appointments in lower ranks. In the case of the current lot of women COs, the requirement of having reports in command criteria appointments before promotion to the rank of Colonel may possibly have been waived in many cases. These aspects present some serious lacunae in an environment where I feel even the male counterpart receives inadequate training to be a CO. There is obviously a case to better train our COs in general and not only our women COs.
In comparison with NATO and other defence forces. We have a very peculiar situation. In the foreign defence forces women were enlisted in All Ranks and not only as officers. In our defence forces there is still hardly any entry at the Personal Below Officer Rank (PBOR) level. Women officers who initially came in as stop gap remedy for officer shortage have now aided by the government and courts risen to be COs. So, we have a very anomalous situation. We are the ONLY nation in the world where we have soldiers who are nearly 100% male being commanded by a woman CO.
Short sighted planning by the defence forces and perhaps inadequate understanding of these dynamics by the courts have resulted in this strange situation. If at least 10 to 20% of the PBOR under command are women, the issue would not have been as incongruent as it is today. Firstly, we are a nation where the notion that fighting is seen to be a man’s profession is deep rooted. Secondly the concept of patriarchy cuts across all sections of our society and is strongly entrenched. I am of the view that these notions are outdated and need to go. But as of now when we have a single woman, often not fully trained for the job, commanding a 100% male force, problematic dynamics are bound to arise.
Let me now divert from the issue of Women COs and look at the issue of training of COs in general and what an ideal CO should be. Was I prepared to command the soldiers on being appointed the CO?
I will emphatically say “NO.” It was merely by my own observation of my own and other COs and analysis that helped me in my command. The Senior Command Course every officer underwent prior to taking over command was nothing but re-frying of what one learnt during Junior Command Course and the Staff College Course, and it had nothing to do with nuances of being a CO.
Soldiers want to be led by leaders who are inspirational, provide strength, and guidance and who will listen to them and help them become leaders and champions. Mutual trust is one of the most important principles in mission command, for that it is a key factor in the Army profession, more so than any other profession. Soldiers want to be led by someone they are willing to trust their lives on.
Command is far from a popularity contest. It is about getting results and meeting goals and objectives. Good COs put time and effort into self-improvement. They take pride in all areas of their life and set standards by example. Leadership is also about disappointing your own people at a rate they can absorb.
COs do not have followers; they have people entrusted to their care. COs train their subordinates and equip them with the tools they need to be effective junior leaders by effective delegation.
Every CO must read the Chetwood’s motto every morning-
The safety, honour and welfare of your country come first, always and every time.
The honour, welfare and comfort of the men you command come next.
Your own ease, comfort and safety come last, always and every time.
Our son when in Grade 12 worked at the city’s swimming pool in Canada as a swimming instructor and lifeguard. One day he said “I teach the kids for thirty-minute class and to become an instructor and lifeguard I had to undergo ten levels of swimming, three courses on leadership and swimming instructorship, first aid, Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), child psychology and obtain a life saving certificate. What qualifications did you have to be a parent?”
I did not have any qualifications to be a parent. It was all by trial and error and by the knowledge gained through reading observation and interactions.
Now I asked myself – “What qualifications did I have to be a CO? Was I trained for it? Did I have any formal qualifications like first aid, CPR or soldier psychology?”
After a few days into command, our Subedar Major (Master Warrant Officer) Thangaswamy, asked me one morning, “You do not want to be received at the office when you come in. In my over 35 years of service, I have never seen a CO not wanting to be received when he comes in. It is the duty of the Adjutant and SM to receive the CO at the office.”
I reasoned with him “At the Army Headquarters, even General Officers are not received. They got to carry their own briefcase and lunch box after alighting from their vehicles. I carry nothing to or from the office and hence even the Stick Orderly is not required. You and the Adjutant must be busy with your chores early in the morning or passing orders to your staff and if you have to leave the office every time the CO arrives, it will not only impede your chain of thought but will also be time wastage for all those awaiting you in the office.”
Our SM did not appear convinced and hence asked me “How come all my previous COs wanted to be received at the office?“
I replied “I am not too sure why they wanted it that way. I am quite confident that I am commanding the Regiment, and I don’t need these props to reassure me about that fact.“
The need of the hour is to train the officers to be leaders at various levels, especially to be COs. Command is the function of both the heart and the mind, and it must come from within and by setting examples. Some of the matters of the mind do get into some training curricula while matters of the heart are not addressed at all.
Good military leaders are groomed and grown from within, through a lot of hard work and strong leadership by their COs, officers and soldiers. COs need to train their young officers to be engaged leaders who know their soldiers and can effectively train them while ensuring that the soldiers and their families are well taken care of. I was lucky to learn some of these traits from our COs.
Good leaders develop through a continuous, career-long process of self-study, education, training, and experience. COs must ensure that all available resources are utilised in training, mentoring and developing young leaders. The COs must always remember that these officers (including women officers) are the ones who will replace the CO. If the baton must pass on meaningfully, every CO must look upon this as a sacred duty.
REJINCES 