India's defence minister had a simple response to why women should not be allowed to take up combat roles in the military. "No," Manohar Parrikar said, when asked about it earlier this year, "think of what can happen if a woman is taken prisoner in a combat operation?" Air Force Chief Arup Raha evidently disagrees. On Thursday, the 83rd anniversary of the birth of the Indian Air Force, Raha announced that he will be looking to induct women into the fighter stream, the first indication that the military is willing to consider women in combat roles.
"We have women pilots flying transport aircraft and helicopters," Raha said. "We are now planning to induct them into the fighter stream to meet the aspirations of young women of India."
In reality that decision is only going to affect a tiny number of women, at least at the moment. Only 5.4% of total officers across the armed forces are women, and the number of those in the Air Force is just 1,328, compared to 11,643 men.
But the actual impact is massive.
Consider: Less than 10 years ago women weren't even allowed to get permanent jobs in the armed forces. Women were hired under short-service commissions, with 10-year tenures. Women were allowed to take an extension of four years beyond that first decade, but that still kept them six years short of being able to earn a pension in the armed forces, and made it much less likely that they would be promoted internally. As a result, the vast majority of women in the armed forces are doctors and nurses.
It was only in 2008 that the government decided to grant permanent commission to women in specific departments, mostly desk-based ones: legal, education, accounts and air traffic controllers. And even in those departments, women haven't had it easy, having to take their cases to the Delhi High Court in order to be given the same sort of rights and opportunities that men get.
Despite these advances, the list of places where women aren't allowed in the military is still long: on warships, in submarines, in the infantry, the armed corps or the artillery. Raha's statement has opened up the possibility about taking to the skies in fighter jets.
And it also might mean a change in the way the military looks at women.
Raha's emphasis on the "aspirations of young women" stands in stark contrast to Parrikar's concern about what would happen to women if they are taken prisoner, as if the risk to men who are captured is any less.
Just last year, Raha seemed to think differently, saying biology could come in the way, in an interview with the Times of India.
There is growing recognition now that many of these concerns are either outdated, misguided or can be overcome. The IAF has health concerns, of course, but it has also expressed worries that after spending crores on training women to be fighter pilots, they could then decide to leave the jobs because of pregnancy or a family.
Moreover, advances in technology have made it less necessary for women to conform to toughness tests that were designed for men. The last impediment comes from the services themselves: submarines and warships are cramped facilities that don't have separate toilets, for example, but that comes from a presumption that there will not be women in combat roles. With women set to take to the skies in fighter jets, that might be ready to change.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
"We have women pilots flying transport aircraft and helicopters," Raha said. "We are now planning to induct them into the fighter stream to meet the aspirations of young women of India."
In reality that decision is only going to affect a tiny number of women, at least at the moment. Only 5.4% of total officers across the armed forces are women, and the number of those in the Air Force is just 1,328, compared to 11,643 men.
But the actual impact is massive.
Consider: Less than 10 years ago women weren't even allowed to get permanent jobs in the armed forces. Women were hired under short-service commissions, with 10-year tenures. Women were allowed to take an extension of four years beyond that first decade, but that still kept them six years short of being able to earn a pension in the armed forces, and made it much less likely that they would be promoted internally. As a result, the vast majority of women in the armed forces are doctors and nurses.
It was only in 2008 that the government decided to grant permanent commission to women in specific departments, mostly desk-based ones: legal, education, accounts and air traffic controllers. And even in those departments, women haven't had it easy, having to take their cases to the Delhi High Court in order to be given the same sort of rights and opportunities that men get.
Despite these advances, the list of places where women aren't allowed in the military is still long: on warships, in submarines, in the infantry, the armed corps or the artillery. Raha's statement has opened up the possibility about taking to the skies in fighter jets.
And it also might mean a change in the way the military looks at women.
Raha's emphasis on the "aspirations of young women" stands in stark contrast to Parrikar's concern about what would happen to women if they are taken prisoner, as if the risk to men who are captured is any less.
Just last year, Raha seemed to think differently, saying biology could come in the way, in an interview with the Times of India.
"As far as flying fighter planes are concerned, it is a very challenging job. Women are by nature not physically suited for flying fighter planes for long hours, especially when they are pregnant or have other health problems."
There is growing recognition now that many of these concerns are either outdated, misguided or can be overcome. The IAF has health concerns, of course, but it has also expressed worries that after spending crores on training women to be fighter pilots, they could then decide to leave the jobs because of pregnancy or a family.
Moreover, advances in technology have made it less necessary for women to conform to toughness tests that were designed for men. The last impediment comes from the services themselves: submarines and warships are cramped facilities that don't have separate toilets, for example, but that comes from a presumption that there will not be women in combat roles. With women set to take to the skies in fighter jets, that might be ready to change.