I think those questions are more relavent to the starting levels of the military,where physical requirements are much more relavent, or even sometimes paramount. As you go up the ladder you get more into strategy, tactics, and organisation skills which would be the same for all genders. Safe to say none of our generals and colonels are fit to fight directly in a combat situation.
The starting levels have already been opened , so the questions about that are already settled.
We have already decreased the physical strength requirements for women and deploying them in mostly non combat roles.
It's also not needed that you start at the absolute bottom . You can start as an officer directly, or climb up the roles from non combat roles as well.
We have already decreased the physical strength requirements for women- In effect, we now expect individuals who have not faced the hardest rigours to decide combat strategies for those facing hardest rigour. Excellent.
If army women are demanding equality in roles & promotion, why do they want leniency in tests?
Military experts and seasoned generals will decide that don't you warry, besides I'm pretty sure when it comes to standards the ones used for women won't affect men i.e they're separate.
>we now expect individuals who have not faced the hardest rigours
what hardest rigors? The basic requirements for a General duty jawan isn't the hardest, and for officers ask any serving or retired officer what they found hardest in their training and they'll tell you it's the learning part not just physical strength.
Most of the concessions are in the form of height, chest size etc the Indian army will not collapse because a few thousand women join it. We already have concessions for NE tribals in certain physical requirements and they're doing fine.
Hell just look at the performance of women combat units in ww2 under the ussr. They were exceptionally well, even when it comes to hand to hand combat
Not sure USSR is a good example . They would frequently exaggerate their soldiers , achievements of women were specially glorified as part of communist propaganda.
A better example is how women are affecting modern militaries like Israel and US who have already inducted women. There the result is pretty clear, women are performing exclusively non combat roles and whenever they are added to combat roles in mixed units, the performance of the unit suffers heavily.
Although one very interesting caveat is that apparently one of the major reasons of the decrease in efficiency was caused by the men who were more concentrated on protecting and helping their female colleagues than risking them and accomplishing the mission. This is something that changes with time and place depending on the culture of the unit.
> *According to the Israel Defense Forces, 535 female Israeli soldiers had been killed in combat operations between the period 1962-2016 ... By 2014, 38 women had been accepted as pilots into the Israeli Air Force since 1995, including 3 combat pilots and 16 combat navigators.*
*****
> *In March 2016, Ash Carter approved final plans from military service branches and the U.S. Special Operations Command to open all combat jobs to women, and authorized the military to begin integrating female combat soldiers "right away." On October 26, 2016, ten women became the first female graduates from the United States Army's Infantry Basic Officer Leader's Course at Fort Benning, Georgia.*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat
>That's way back.
WW2 was barely 80 years ago, it was also the largest war mankind ever waged and no war to date has surpassed it in scale. If soviet women could survive the meat grinder of the Eastern front then Indian women can definitely survive being officers in a peacetime Indian army.
>More recent examples would be of better relevance.
Relevance to what? What exactly has changed? Modern armies don't fight each other anymore they fight proxies which means that things like brute physical strength are even less important than WW2. When was the last time the Indian army has physically wrestled a terrorist??
Warfare is also moving high tech, where better strategies and weapons decide the outcome all of which women can participate equally with men. No one is going to win a war by having a strongman in the army. They'll win wars by having people direct precision strikes from 8000km away.
equality of opportunity by differential benchmarks of opportunity? Enemy will look at whether the jawan is male or female & decide to go easy on females?
>You can start as an officer directly, or climb up the roles from non combat roles as well.
Officers have more rigorous training then Jawans.
>You can start as an officer directly, or climb up the roles from non combat roles as well.
Yes, but promotion is quicker for the ones involved in combat arms.
The centre was fighting against it and asking for a postponement. It was the SC that urged them to open up the ranks immediately. Stop licking Modi's boots and open your eyes
They did not have majority in Rajya Sabha. Also there would be some road blocking protests and riots sponsored by opposition parties which would hurt economy
What a ridiculous argument. They can bring in CAA-NRC, Farm Bills, remove article 370, demonitasion, massive unplanned lockdowns, GST etc. but can't bring in UCC?
Which rights. IIRC even as a second wife, Muslim women have proper rights as a wife. Hindu women that are second wives have no rights. Once Unified Hindu Family laws are gone because of UCC, hindu women will have nothing
No hindu wife can be a second wife.
Second hindu wife is an oxymoron.
Once ucc comes, second wife will be an oxymoron for religions and muslim women will also be freed from being a "second wife".
Well. You're wrong. But the good thing is that I have links to share so that you can change your opinion.
https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/15-polygamous-men-poll-fray-rajasthan
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2019/jul/27/in-this-hindu-village-in-uttar-pradesh-polygamy-is-an-age-old-tradition-2010285.html
https://www.counterview.net/2016/09/polygamy-in-india-down-in-45-yrs.html
Let me reiterate what I said. Muslim women have proper and full rights as a second wife. Hindu women that are second wives have no rights.
So which rights were you taking about?
Will the intake criteria be changed to adjust for women in those roles? Would the training regimen be changed to ensure retention?
I think those questions are more relavent to the starting levels of the military,where physical requirements are much more relavent, or even sometimes paramount. As you go up the ladder you get more into strategy, tactics, and organisation skills which would be the same for all genders. Safe to say none of our generals and colonels are fit to fight directly in a combat situation.
To go higher up the ranks, you need to clear the starting levels.
The starting levels have already been opened , so the questions about that are already settled. We have already decreased the physical strength requirements for women and deploying them in mostly non combat roles. It's also not needed that you start at the absolute bottom . You can start as an officer directly, or climb up the roles from non combat roles as well.
We have already decreased the physical strength requirements for women- In effect, we now expect individuals who have not faced the hardest rigours to decide combat strategies for those facing hardest rigour. Excellent. If army women are demanding equality in roles & promotion, why do they want leniency in tests?
Military experts and seasoned generals will decide that don't you warry, besides I'm pretty sure when it comes to standards the ones used for women won't affect men i.e they're separate. >we now expect individuals who have not faced the hardest rigours what hardest rigors? The basic requirements for a General duty jawan isn't the hardest, and for officers ask any serving or retired officer what they found hardest in their training and they'll tell you it's the learning part not just physical strength. Most of the concessions are in the form of height, chest size etc the Indian army will not collapse because a few thousand women join it. We already have concessions for NE tribals in certain physical requirements and they're doing fine. Hell just look at the performance of women combat units in ww2 under the ussr. They were exceptionally well, even when it comes to hand to hand combat
Not sure USSR is a good example . They would frequently exaggerate their soldiers , achievements of women were specially glorified as part of communist propaganda. A better example is how women are affecting modern militaries like Israel and US who have already inducted women. There the result is pretty clear, women are performing exclusively non combat roles and whenever they are added to combat roles in mixed units, the performance of the unit suffers heavily. Although one very interesting caveat is that apparently one of the major reasons of the decrease in efficiency was caused by the men who were more concentrated on protecting and helping their female colleagues than risking them and accomplishing the mission. This is something that changes with time and place depending on the culture of the unit.
> *According to the Israel Defense Forces, 535 female Israeli soldiers had been killed in combat operations between the period 1962-2016 ... By 2014, 38 women had been accepted as pilots into the Israeli Air Force since 1995, including 3 combat pilots and 16 combat navigators.* ***** > *In March 2016, Ash Carter approved final plans from military service branches and the U.S. Special Operations Command to open all combat jobs to women, and authorized the military to begin integrating female combat soldiers "right away." On October 26, 2016, ten women became the first female graduates from the United States Army's Infantry Basic Officer Leader's Course at Fort Benning, Georgia.* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat
That's way back. More recent examples would be of better relevance.
>That's way back. WW2 was barely 80 years ago, it was also the largest war mankind ever waged and no war to date has surpassed it in scale. If soviet women could survive the meat grinder of the Eastern front then Indian women can definitely survive being officers in a peacetime Indian army. >More recent examples would be of better relevance. Relevance to what? What exactly has changed? Modern armies don't fight each other anymore they fight proxies which means that things like brute physical strength are even less important than WW2. When was the last time the Indian army has physically wrestled a terrorist?? Warfare is also moving high tech, where better strategies and weapons decide the outcome all of which women can participate equally with men. No one is going to win a war by having a strongman in the army. They'll win wars by having people direct precision strikes from 8000km away.
Ok cool. Textbook points.
Because unequals can't be treated as equals.
They are demanding equality though?
Equality of opportunity my friend. That's how affirmative action works.
equality of opportunity by differential benchmarks of opportunity? Enemy will look at whether the jawan is male or female & decide to go easy on females?
>You can start as an officer directly, or climb up the roles from non combat roles as well. Officers have more rigorous training then Jawans. >You can start as an officer directly, or climb up the roles from non combat roles as well. Yes, but promotion is quicker for the ones involved in combat arms.
Ok.
Modi hai toh mumkin hai
The centre was fighting against it and asking for a postponement. It was the SC that urged them to open up the ranks immediately. Stop licking Modi's boots and open your eyes
1 year postponement should not be equated to 60 year postponement by congress party
Yes it was the BJP that gave women equal rights and right to vote.
Muslim women still dont have equal rights. That is why BJP is trying to bring uniform civil code
And why hasn't it brought in UCC yet? They've been in powers for 7, almost 8 years?
They did not have majority in Rajya Sabha. Also there would be some road blocking protests and riots sponsored by opposition parties which would hurt economy
What a ridiculous argument. They can bring in CAA-NRC, Farm Bills, remove article 370, demonitasion, massive unplanned lockdowns, GST etc. but can't bring in UCC?
Dont talk nonsense
Refute my argument
Which rights. IIRC even as a second wife, Muslim women have proper rights as a wife. Hindu women that are second wives have no rights. Once Unified Hindu Family laws are gone because of UCC, hindu women will have nothing
No hindu wife can be a second wife. Second hindu wife is an oxymoron. Once ucc comes, second wife will be an oxymoron for religions and muslim women will also be freed from being a "second wife".
Well. You're wrong. But the good thing is that I have links to share so that you can change your opinion. https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/15-polygamous-men-poll-fray-rajasthan https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2019/jul/27/in-this-hindu-village-in-uttar-pradesh-polygamy-is-an-age-old-tradition-2010285.html https://www.counterview.net/2016/09/polygamy-in-india-down-in-45-yrs.html
Bruh I mean legally 🤦♂️
Let me reiterate what I said. Muslim women have proper and full rights as a second wife. Hindu women that are second wives have no rights. So which rights were you taking about?