India is strengthening its democratic structures by abolishing an absolute embargo on women in the peacekeeping operations
When we confine women’s participation to the shadows, we forgo the possibility of lasting peace. Studies indicate the close connection between women, peace and security (WPS) for long lasting peace-building measures. The adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 has created a watershed moment in our international understanding of WPS. A recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India granting permanent commission to women in the armed forces is especially laudable in this context. The link between participation of women and more durable peace has been established and Secy., Ministry of Defence vs Babita Puniya marks a leap for the global south. By virtue of this judgement ,India is strengthening the ground it stands on by strategically eliminating institutional prejudices based on myopic stereotypes. This judgment enunciates why women must no longer be treated as “adjuncts” to an otherwise male-dominated establishment which has caused irreparable harm to the careers of several women officers.
One of the most popular arguments for opposing the inclusion of women into the Armed Services is the alleged “physiological limitations” of women officers accentuated by marital constraints, motherhood and childcare. In Kush Kalra vs Union of India, the Supreme Court of India lays down a proactive approach in persuading the defence services towards taking a more gender-neutral approach. A more condescending criticism claims the deployment of women officers is unadvisable to hardship postings due to minimal facilities for habitat and hygiene. It cannot be over-emphasised that all such rebuttals are rooted in benign patriarchy and sex stereotypes.
At this juncture we must reflect on why denying admission on the grounds of sex is an affront not only to their dignity as women but also as officers of the Indian Army, who serve the country as equal citizens sharing a gender-neutral constitutional fundamental duty. Sustainable peace is directionally proportional to an environment that fosters growth for women and girls and we have seen the indispensable role women play in strengthening a society’s democratic structures by gender mainstreaming in peacekeeping operations. But this gender dimension has only been made possible because women have had a seat at the decision-making tables. The vital role of women in peace processes and conflict resolution has been made possible because we have given their voice a forum, a platform for meaningful and inclusive participation. Condemning gender-based violations of human rights on women and girls in conflict situations is as imperative as is acknowledging the pivotal role women play in promoting peace.
Law is a reflection of society that evolves as its norms change. Women constitute 48 per cent of India’s population and the Constitution of India is unique as it not only grants equality to women but also empowers the State to adopt measures of positive discrimination in favour of women. This is an affirmative action measure to neutralise the cumulative socio-economic and political disadvantages faced by them over the centuries. In light of this, emphasising on these focal points, namely women, peace and security, is the resolve we need. An absolute embargo on women being considered for the grant of Permanent Commissions would be a travesty of justice implicit in the guarantee of equality that the Constitution of India promises to its citizens. With the Supreme Court of India recognising this intersection of women as equal beneficiaries of law and gender justice, this is significant in terms of India setting the benchmark for other countries to emerge victorious in a long battle for gender-just opportunities.
Articles 2, 3 & 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) form a trifecta that is connected to these judgments by a golden thread. When CEDAW mentions “political and public life of the country”, it is an inclusive term that leaves ample room for evolution and friction that the passage of time demands. CEDAW does not explicitly cover a wide range of concerns, for instance, violence against minority women (caste and religion-based discrimination), new economic policies that may disadvantage women, issues pertaining to migrant or refugee women, amongst others. But the strength of the Convention lies in its interpretation. CEDAW seeks to achieve substantive equality in addition to formal equality which means that along with equal access and opportunities women and girls experience equality of results. It is important to remember that India is a signatory to CEDAW and hence is obligated under Article 3“to ensure the full development and advancement of women” in all fields including the political, social, economic and cultural spheres. By becoming party to a treaty, States undertakes a legal obligation to put in place relevant domestic measures and legislation; in this sense, treaties are “legally binding” on State parties. By formally securing equal participation in domestic armed military and uniformed service, India has lifted a barrier that disallowed Indian women from leveraging the accessibility, availability and applicability of the CEDAW.
Additionally, India ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), as early as 1979, which established an international minimum standard for States to take steps to respect, protect, fulfil economic, social and cultural rights. Within the ambit of this Covenant, it is required of States to expedite available resources that ensure progressive realisation and prohibits discrimination with respect to economic, social and cultural rights. Having said that, it is commendable how these judgments, operating well within the Margin of Appreciation, mark a giant stride towards equality of opportunity by abolishing unequal standards for women in the armed forces. What this judgment does is inch India closer to de facto equality.
While India is an affirmatively-legislated country, there is always the fear that even the most robust legal framework can become a redundancy unless the State enables circumstances that enhance women’s participation to conflict prevention and peace processes. Concurrently, we must work at mitigating factors that creep into a bias perpetuated by gender stereotypes. Perhaps social norm changing is the only way forward if we are to commit to re-affirming an active stance on women’s rights. The days of women being relegated to the confines of spectatorship are over and this is the decade of gender-responsive change. However, the inventory of change must necessarily include a volitional and legislative metamorphosis by any society for it to raise its bar on the spectrum of advancement.