"Haath mein shamsheer ho, darkaar nahin Aurat ka tashddud se koi sarokaar nahin" – Adnan Mohsin, Pakistani Urdu poet (Woman brandishing a sword is not necessary/ She has no truck with violence)
The debate, rather a feminist metaphor, as to whether women should be inducted into combat units and sent to fight like their male counterparts is again going on. The pseudo-liberals, feminists and 'experts' are of the view that in this age of egalitarianism, women must emulate men on all counts and fronts. They adduce the isolated examples of Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi, queen Chennamma of Chittoor, and Chand Bibi of Ahmednagar who challenged Akbar. Very well. Who's stopping women from emulating men? But the issue lies somewhere else.
It's not casting opprobrium on women's capabilities as soldiers, fighting alongside men. It's about the psycho-genetic mental make up of a woman that distinguishes her from a man. It's a known fact in behavioural psychology that men and women emote differently and emotive issues have nothing to do with physical strength. Nature has made women for certain specific tasks like child-bearing and nurturing. It's in their DNA with a specified gene pattern. It's not a social stereotype, but a tried and tested biological axiom. That's the reason, nurses are generally female and are still called ministering angels. The same can't be said about the men or especially about the male nurses.
Now, coming back to the raging issue regarding women's entry into combat units as full-fledged soldiers, I must quote the English historian Sir Arnold Toynbee. In his out of print book, The Battles in Europe, Toynbee quoted Roman historians Catullus and Pliny the elder: 'Roman army had male as well as female soldiers. But female soldiers balked at times to see blood and gore....The bloody sight was repugnant to them...' This very statement that 'the bloody sight was repugnant to them' speaks volumes and was later endorsed by a General in Israeli Army. It's worthwhile to mention that Israeli army has female combative units and fighter pilots. Yet, that General felt that killing even an enemy is not programmed or hardwired into a female psyche despite the ostensible ruthlessness shown by them (women). Here lies the difference between men and women, especially from the perspective of military participation.
In short, the psyche differs. And this is one facet of gender persona, the pseudo-liberals and faux feminists aren't ready to accept. Dr Neil Dennison of The United States Army Army observed female soldiers for many years and finally opined that the female psyche doesn't glorify battles, wars and killings. Soldierly activities leave women (soldiers) mentally exhausted, psychologically wounded and emotionally repentant. Nature has made women particularly for the task of creation. This is embedded in them. Warring is against this deep-seated natural and innately compassionate attribute. The intrinsic and implicit motherly trait of every woman militates against the very idea of bloodshed and killing. When French General General Jean Lannes suggested that women could be inducted into the French Army as combat soldiers, emotionally intellectual French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte poohed-poohed the idea by saying, 'A female soldier may see her son in the enemies.' Though a tad too hyperbolic, Napoleon's pithy observation cannot be dismissed summarily. This actually shows women in positive light and underlines the motherliness in them that abhors killings. That apart, the physical disposition and unavoidable female issues like menstruation and concomitant mood swings render women 'combat-insouciant, to quote Sartre and his muse Simone de Beauvoir.
‘A menstruating woman is a dull woman' (rajaswala iti grahayam parvrittam naarinaam). Lopamudra, a female philosopher of Vedic India, herself accepted the ineluctable physical fact that regularly visits a woman of combative age, say, fifty years or so. During those days of the month, mood swings don't let a woman take a calculated, measured and judicious decision and a war or battle may break out anytime, regardless of a woman's mental state caused by her biological issue/s.
'Weapon Awkward Syndrome' (WAS) also goes against women joining combat units of the Army of any country. This term needs to be understood in the words of the legendary West Indian sports-psychologist Rudi Webster. A few years ago, BBC, London's journalist Diana Louis asked him why no one, even women, is interested in watching women's cricket. The thorough gentleman that he is, Rudi said very politely that female body is not meant for certain (cricketing) actions. Because of their rigid socket movement (SM), no woman can bowl round arm like a man. There's no bias. Just the visual ineffectiveness of a female body in certain spheres, may seem awkward, if not ugly, to the spectators, even to the female spectators. To extend this physical anomaly of women to combat actions, heavy weapons are often ham-handedly used, carried and executed by women soldiers and that cannot be gainsaid even by them (women).
Mind you, there's no apparent or hidden prejudice against women joining any field of their choice and discretion. The point is, utility of choice and usefulness of the purpose. Whether women joining the army as a soldier is purely a career decision or it's tainted or influenced by certain presuppositions of gender politics, must be considered in an unprejudiced manner.
Lastly, the novelist Sidney Sheldon summed it up so beautifully: Woman gains more by remaining a woman. Need I say more?
The writer is an advanced research scholar of Semitic languages, civilizations and cultures.
