CHENNAI: In early October, lieutenant general Rajeev Puri of the Indian Army wrote a five-page letter to his senior, general officer commanding-in-chief lieutenant general Ram Chander Tiwari, appraising the work of eight women colonels under his authority. It was not even two years ago that the Indian Army allowed women officers to be promoted to the rank of colonel, and only 108 have been given this title so far.
This letter was somehow leaked to the press last week, resulting in the public learning about lieutenant general Puri’s very critical review of the eight colonels. He had harsh opinions on their leadership and interpersonal skills. Among the charges were “excessive tendency to complain”, “lack of empathy”, “ego problems”, “sense of entitlement”, “over-ambition” and “ensuring a mean facade”, while acknowledging the “desire to prove oneself in a predominantly male field”.
With good reason, many ordinary citizens have reacted to this report. When opportunities finally open up to women in any arena, but their performance is subsequently decried through a slew of phrases that are commonly used against career women, it is difficult not to suspect sexism being the cause of such criticism.
There are comments online suggesting that this document was leaked in order to defame the lieutenant general, the colonels or the army itself. Yet, when I first heard of the leak — and subsequently was unable to find the actual letter, even in media reports quoting it — I felt that anyone who took such a risk did it in order to expose the patriarchal mindset of the institution. That won’t be news to most feminists, of course: defence forces are, by design, patriarchal (and as problematic as they are necessary). But to those who believe in the power and the place of this institution, sexism in its inner workings can certainly be dismaying to see.
Aside from the many phrases widely quoted, one particular idea that lieutenant general Puri put forth has also come under the radar, although not critiqued much. This was that the focus should be on “gender neutrality”, not gender equality. He wrote: “A comprehensive policy on gender neutrality be issued by the adjutant general’s (AG) branch. Further neutrality in posting and selection profiles be implemented... While attempting proportionate representations in assignments like UN missions/foreign postings, the military secretary (MS)/AG’s branch should also monitor proportionate tasking in all assignments within the organisation.”
The term “gender neutrality” in a patriarchal world is usually a kind of eyewash, similar to the phrase “I don’t see race” that white people have been pulled up for using for decades. In a particularly damning remark, lieutenant general Puri had claimed that the eight colonels were “not trained to be commanders”. The insinuation may be that the army itself has been cutting corners in favour of representation.
That, of course, would be a serious issue — not just an internal matter, but a national security one. But we don’t know if that’s the case, or if this is just another situation where the old guard is adjusting badly to progress. It happens in all fields. Maladjustment and censure, that is. Progress, though, we could have a lot more of-everywhere.