Attitude of Men Towards Inclusion of Women in Bhutanese and Indian Army: A Literature Review

Abstract

This article compares and contrasts the attitudes of men of Royal Bhutan Army (RBA) and Indian Army (IA) towards women in their military. Literature review brings forth the various elements, namely, recruitment, training, employment in combat arms and services, and segregation or integration in the existing set-up about which the men express their views. These four elements help us to understand the factors that have an impact on shaping the attitudes of military men towards the employment and inclusion of women in army, which not too long ago had a policy that prohibited women to join.

Keywords

Inclusion army India Bhutan women men attitude

Introduction

In recent times, inclusion of women in army is an increasingly global trend. But there are still many countries that do not include women in army such as Iran or have a handful of women in army such as Afghanistan. Every country gives its own reasons to include or exclude women from their armies. Although military has been historically a gender-defining institution, women have always served in the armed forces with enhanced participation in different roles. It is a reflection of changes in gender norms, role of women in civilian society and the evolution in the nature of the military. The changes towards expansion and contraction of participation of women in military are going to be a result of these factors and the political as well as social views of those in power (Segal & Segal, 2004).

The usefulness and accomplishments of women in army are viewed differently by women and men and also by personnel of different ranks (Stiehm, 1998). In most of the countries, despite women being a vital source of willing workforce for the army, their acceptance and inclusion remains a challenge. The ethos of military, values about war, dominating image of gender roles, masculinity in the identity of soldiers are totally divided on the basis of gender-biased attitude (Khare, 2017). Despite some fields being closed to women and the lower participation rate of women in army, studies have demonstrated that the incorporation of women into the different branches of army has been quite positive (Bustamante, 2012). Thus, there is a need to have an insight into the mindset of the majority of the population in army, that is, soldiers towards the employment and inclusion of women in army.

Though there have been a number of studies highlighting the attitudes of military men towards the women in Western democracies (Carreiras, 2004; Ivarsson, Estrada, & Berggren, 2005; Vogt, Bruce, Street, & Stafford, 2007), no such studies have been carried out in the Asian context. Whenever the issue of induction of women in combat is discussed, one of the reasons against it is that since soldiers come from diverse backgrounds, they find it difficult to adjust with women in military like being led by women in operations, taking orders from them or getting punishments from them. Although much research has been done on gender inclusion in militaries of various countries (Carreiras, 2002; Woodward & Winter, 2004), the issue has not received much attention from a comparative point of view.

Context of Bhutanese and Indian Armies

The approximate strength of Royal Bhutan Army (RBA) is 10,000 at present. They started commissioning women officers since the year 2000 and have inducted women as medical officers, dental officers and law officers. Presently, there are 21 women officers in Royal Bhutan Army, out of which 20 are medical/dental officers and one is a law officer.

In India, women were inducted in Military Nursing Service from 1927 in the capacity of nurses and as doctors in Army Medical Corps since 1943. However, women were commissioned in Indian Army (IA) as officers in services and supporting arms with effect from 1993. They were inducted as short service commissioned officers, in Army Service Corps (ASC), Army Ordinance Corps (AOC), Army Education Corps (AEC) and Judge Advocate Generals Branch (JAG), initially for a period of five years, after which extension of another five years was granted (vide Special Army Instruction 1/S/92). After that, gradually, amendments were done, women were commissioned in other services such as Corps of Electronics and Mechanical Engineers (EME), Intelligence Corps (INT), Supporting Arms such as Corps of Engineers (ENGR), Corps of Signals (SIGS) and Army Air Defence (AAD), and they can serve for 14 years now.

Women officers have been in IA for more than two decades now, but they are not inducted in combat arms such as infantry, armoured and artillery units. The case for grant of permanent commission to women officers is subjudice in the honourable Supreme Court of India; hence, there is a court stay on the release of women officers who want to serve beyond 14 years (SLP(C) 1752–1754). Those who want to quit on completion of 14 years can go on release as per the existing terms and conditions of service. Out of 1.3 million active personnel in the Indian Armed Forces, 2.5 per cent are female officers. The majority of women, that is, 1,436 served in the IA, 1331 in the Indian Air Force and 532 in the Indian Navy (Gady, 2016). Though some countries of the world have given permanent commission to their women officers, have recruited women in Other Ranks as soldiers, and have also inducted women in combat arms, but in IA, the debate is going on two important issues, the induction of women in combat arms like infantry and armoured corps and the grant of permanent commission (serve up to a minimum of 20 years like male officers and get pensionary benefits) in all corps in which they are allowed to serve.

Global Perception of Women in Army

Army men of different countries have different views towards the inclusion of women in army. Men in both US and Norwegian armies agree that women are an asset to the military organization, but the men in American army believe that equal opportunities should be created for women whereas the Norwegian men feel that equal treatment should be given to both the genders in army. Interviews conducted by Carreiras (2006) found that the Portuguese soldiers have more ‘macho’ and ‘sexist’ sentiments when compared to Dutch soldiers who are more ‘integrationist’ in their outlook. Except about 16 nations, most of the armies of the world restrict entry of women in combat arms (CNN, 2013). In majority of the countries, the combat exclusion of women has persisted mainly because of myths, that women are physically unfit for the demands of war, that the public cannot tolerate the casualties of women, female soldiers affect the unit cohesion and male bonding of troops in combat and also the stereotypes linked with the capabilities of women and men and the “band of brothers” culture of military (MacKenzie, 2015). Some studies also suggest that the performance and achievement of women is viewed as more important than gender status by men (Harrell & Miller, 1997).

Traditional gender beliefs are also viewed to have a negative impact on how male soldiers evaluate their female colleagues (Boldry, Wood, & Kashy, 2001). The attitudes of men towards women in the Swedish military are positive and the sexist beliefs, rank and interpersonal contact with women in the military seem to be the best predictors of these attitudes (Ivarsson et al., 2005). The research data shows that women have a limited acceptance in military (Stiehm, 1998) and often men resort to subtle forms of gender harassment to show their disapprobation of women in powerful positions in military (Miller, 1997). Kummel (2002) is of the opinion that it is not necessary that men are coherent in their views towards women in army. Depending on the approach and which part or people of the military are being studied, the analysis of their attitudes may yield different results (Drake, 2006; Firestone, 1987). Studies also show that outlook of men on the participation of women in army is affected by the masculine military culture too (Kurpius & Lucart, 2000; Lahelma, 2005). Herbert (1994) is of the opinion that the views of the men on the role of women and their experience with service women do influence the attitude of men. The research findings also suggest that attitudes towards women in the military vary across content domains (Vogt et al., 2007).

Theoretical Perspective

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory developed by Geert Hofstede (1980, 2003) is a framework for cross-cultural communication, and describes the effects of culture of society on the values of its members, and the way these values relate to attitudes and behaviours. This theory has been widely used in various fields for research, mainly in cross-cultural psychology, international management and cross-cultural communication. Geert Hofstede conducted one of the most comprehensive studies of how values in the workplace are influenced by culture and defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind distinguishing members of one group or category of people from others” (Hofstede, 1980).

Based on his extensive research studies, Hofstede (2010, 2011) developed six dimensions in which national cultures differ: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism–collectivism, masculinity–femininity, long-term–short-term orientation and indulgence–self-restraint. On exploring the culture of Bhutan and India through the lens of this six dimension model, the difference in the national culture of both the countries emerges as both the countries are graded on a scale of 1 to 100 on the basis of the field survey (Hofstede, 2010, 2011).

Power Distance: Power distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally (Hofstede, 1980, 2003). This dimension deals with the fact that all individuals in societies are not equal and expresses the attitude of the culture towards these inequalities amongst us (Hofstede, 1980, 2003). Bhutan has a score of 94 on this dimension indicating that it has a hierarchical society and people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. India scores 77 on this dimension, indicating an appreciation for hierarchy and a top-down structure in society and organizations but lesser in comparison to Bhutan (Hofstede, 2010, 2011).

Individualism–Collectivism: The primary issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. It has to do with whether people’s self-image of people is defined in terms of “I” or “We”. In Individualist societies people are supposed to look after themselves and their direct family only. In Collectivistic societies people belong to “in groups” that take care of them in exchange for loyalty (Hofstede, 1980, 2003). Bhutan has an intermediate score of 52 on this dimension (Hofstede, 2010, 2011). A middle score like this does not indicate a strong preference to either end of the scale. India, with an intermediate score of 48, is a society with both collectivistic and individualistic traits (Hofstede, 2010, 2011).

Masculinity–Feminity: The basic issue here is what motivates people, whether wanting to be the best (Masculine) or liking what you do (Feminine). A high score (Masculine) on this dimension indicates that the society will be driven by competition, achievement and success, with success being defined by the best in field. A low score (Feminine) on the dimension means that the dominant values in society are caring for others and the quality of life. Bhutan has a score of 32 on this dimension (Hofstede, 2010, 2011), meaning that it is a relatively feminine society. In feminine countries, the focus is on well-being and status is not shown or emphasized. India scores 56 on this dimension (Hofstede, 2010, 2011) and is thus considered a masculine society.

Uncertainty Avoidance: This dimension reflects the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and have created beliefs and institutions that try to avoid these. Bhutan has a low score of 28 (Hofstede, 2010, 2011), indicating its fairly pragmatic culture. Hofstede (1980, 2003) reflects that low score means that emotions are not shown much in these societies, people focus on planning, are fairly relaxed and not averse to taking risks with larger degree of acceptance for new ideas, innovative products and a willingness to try something new or different. India scores 40 on this dimension and thus has a medium low preference for avoiding uncertainty (Hofstede, 2010, 2011).

Long-term–Short-term Orientation: This dimension explains as to how every society needs to maintain some links with its own past while dealing with the challenges of the present and future, and how societies prioritize these two existential goals differently. Normative societies that score low on this dimension prefer to maintain time-honoured traditions and norms while viewing societal change with suspicion. The societies with a culture which scores high take a more pragmatic approach and encourage thrift and efforts in modern education as a way to prepare for the future. For Bhutan, no score is currently available for this dimension. India has an intermediate score of 51 in this dimension, (Hofstede, 2010, 2011); hence, a dominant preference in Indian culture cannot be determined in comparison to Bhutan.

Indulgence–Restraint: This dimension is described as the extent to which people try to control their desires and impulses, on the basis of the way they were raised. A tendency towards a relatively weak control over their impulses is called “indulgence”, whereas a relatively strong control over their urges is called “restraint”. For Bhutan, no score is presently available for this dimension. India receives a low score of 26 in this dimension (Hofstede, 2010), meaning that it is a culture of restraint.

The theory of cultural value orientations by Schwartz (2006) also specifies three bipolar dimensions of culture that represent alternative resolutions to each of the three problems that confront all societies: embeddedness versus autonomy, hierarchy versus egalitarianism and mastery versus harmony. The analyses established that all three cultural dimensions contribute distinctively to the explanation of important social phenomena and the difference in the culture of nations.

National Cultures

Ghemawat and Reiche (2011) define culture as a set of shared values, assumptions and beliefs learnt through membership in a group that influence the attitudes and behaviours of group members. Culture is a group phenomenon that exists at several different levels, namely, organizations, occupational groups, geographical regions and nations, and differentiates people of one group from another. In the present study, we focus in particular on national culture and the role of cultural differences in militaries across two countries: Bhutan and India. Our analysis is focused on how the Bhutanese culture and Indian cultures may have contributed to the shaping of the attitude of military men by offering a ready supply of cultural resources helpful in framing and presenting their views.

Ann Swidler (2013) has shown the ways in which people make use of their surrounding culture to create a meaningful life. People are not only passive recipients of culture, but they decisively use elements of the culture accessible to them to assess and make sense of the world. As per Swidler (1986), culture exists as a manifold and diversified structure, which provides people with a pool of resources, a “tool kit”, from which they can choose as required. In daily life, people habitually draw on their culture without much deliberation, because the resources that are most persistent tend to blend with experience, hence, it no longer feels like culture (Swidler, 2013).

Comparative Perspectives

The cross-national studies of Michele Lamont (2000) have confirmed the importance of this theoretical perspective to comparative research. She has highlighted that people from different cultures connect different repertoires to assess their surrounds. Every culture makes specific cultural materials that are more accessible to its people, hence, people from other cultures do not tend to use the same cultural resources. Lamont and Thévenot (2000, pp. 25–56) reflect that investigating variations between national cultural repertoires is a good way for analysing differences in how people from diverse societies validate and frame their opinions. Building on this approach, this study starts by exploring the cultural resources utilized by the RBA men and IA men in their perception of women, before examining as to how differences in national repertoires made the respondents to frame the issue of inclusion and employment of women in two different ways.

Recruitment: In India, acceptance of women officers among the male soldiers is low since most of the male soldiers are from rural areas and are not used to taking orders from women (Bhattacharyya, 2012). In IA, the response of most of the soldiers varies from complete disapproval to casual dismissal of the issue of recruitment of women officers (Munshi & Pandey, 2017). Feedback also points out that women officers suffer from low acceptance and all stakeholders from top to bottom consider them as a burdensome problem, not found suitable for the service (Suman, 2017). Both Norwegian and American military men perceive women as a welcome asset in the military institutions and support their recruitment in military but differ in their attitude towards their treatment and grant of opportunities (Gustavsen, 2013). The research study of cultural dimensions and all the above mentioned studies bring to light that army soldiers of various armies differ in their opinion towards the recruitment of women in their respective nations.

Training: Vogt et al. (2007) found that gender integrated training leads to more positive interactions between the genders, later in military service, whereas gender segregated training leads to greater adherence to traditional role attitudes. US army men feel that by setting a lower standard for women the creed of equality will not be violated, whereas Norwegian men feel that criteria should be same for both men and women, having equal danger and equal responsibility (Gustavsen, 2013). However, setting different physical standards for training of women and men is viewed as a measure of special treatment for women (Cohn, 2000). As seen from these studies, it can be observed that army men from different countries differ in their opinion towards the training of women in army.

Combat Inclusion: The views of the soldiers of different countries for including women in combat (combat inclusion) are also diverse. There exists a level of satisfaction among Russian service men, that the women in their services are not exposed to the danger of getting wounded or killed in the battle as they feel that combat duty is not meant for women (Mathers & Jennifer, 2000). Hansi (2015) is of the opinion that if women meet the criteria of set physical and professional standards, they can be considered for inclusion in fighting arms of IA gradually in a phased manner. Ackerman (2015) feels that the opening of 10 per cent of frontline direct combat jobs to women will reduce the combat effectiveness of the tactical fighting units, affect the male bonding and will also lead to placing of women at a disadvantage and a greater danger than the men in combat roles. Thompson (2015) reflects that the military will ease its standards under political pressure, resulting in a less capable force, degrading combat effectiveness, making nation less secure harming military recruitment and thus retention.

Kemp (2016) feels that the decision of opening the ground close combat roles to women in British Army was a bad error of judgement which is made only for political purposes and has no military advantage leading to reduction in standards in the infantry. According to Davar (2017), women should not be inducted in combat arms just for promoting gender equivalence, since the role of army is to defend the country, win wars and conflicts. According to an informal survey, majority of the troops in IA were of firm opinion that women officers could never lead them efficiently in a war, instead, the men officers will have to carry their weapon and equipment (Suman, 2017). Sharma (2017) opines that women from west Asian nations face resistance from men when it comes to serving in frontlines and are also striving hard to play a more valuable role in the armed forces. The studies show that soldiers of different armies have difference of opinion as far as the inclusion of women in combat roles is concerned.

Inclusion in Services: Davar (2017) with his 41 years of service in combat in IA is of the strong opinion that leaving aside infantry and armoured corps, women officers can perform well in all other services and non-contact combat arms. In Russian Army also, women serve only in services and supporting roles (Mathers & Jennifer, 2000). Almost all female soldiers in Chinese army are employed in support roles in military with highest concentration in hospitals, research institutions, communication facilities and headquarters, and no women serve in combat role on ground (CNN, 2013). Thus, various studies show that in most of the armies of the world, women are included only in services and supporting arms.

Integration or Separate Battalion: The units comprising only of women with their male counterparts at commanding levels would reduce the issues related to sexual tension and enhance military readiness significantly (McCollough, 2013). Davar (2017) is of the view that raising an all-women battalion like that of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) is not an option as there is a marked difference in the operational employment of army and other allied forces because of which it is not practical. Even in Border Security Force (BSF) of India, the all-women battalion is commanded by a male officer and is not positioned on line of actual control (Suman, 2017). From these studies, it can be seen that there is a difference in the opinion of army men regarding the integration of women in the existing set-up or raising separate women battalion.

Conclusion

The primary goal of this study was to document the difference in attitudes of the men in army of two different militaries towards the women in army with respect to (a) recruitment of women in army, as officers, as soldiers or both, (b) training of women with men or separately for the same duration or a longer duration, (c) induction of women in combat arms, (d) induction of women only in services and supporting arm, and (e) integration of women in existing set-up or separate battalions.

This article presents a country-specific approach of the military men of IA and the RBA that may be useful to the decision-makers in both countries to devise more accurate strategies for the effective inclusion of women in their militaries. It also provides significant input for the researchers working in this field. The analysis enhances the understanding of leaders on the attitudes held by the military men and the correlation of those attitudes to the wider culture. It is fair to conclude that different security situations, national cultures, beliefs, mindset, exposure and personal experience with the military women have an impact on the attitudes of men of different countries towards women in their army.

References

Ackerman, A.

(2015, December 17). Gendered arguments used against women’s recruitment in combat roles in the US: Myth or fact? (Research Paper). Newyork University, Centre for global affairs, Brooklyn, United States.

Bhattacharyya, A.

(2012). Women in military in India: The cry for parity. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 317–325.

Boldry, J., Wood, W., & Kashy, D. A. (2001). Gender stereotypes and the evaluation of men and women in military training. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 689–705.

Bustamante, S. B.

(2012). The role of women and gender in conflicts: General catalogue of official publications. Spanish Ministry of Defence. Retrieved December 2016, from http://www.publicacionesoficiales.boe.es

Carreiras, H.

(2002). Women in the Portuguese armed forces: From visibility to “eclipse”. Current Sociology, 50(5), 687–705.

Carreiras, H.

(2004). Gender and the military: a comparative study of the participation of women in the Armed Forces of western democracies.

Carreiras, H.

(2006). Gender and the military: Women in the armed forces of western democracies. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

CNN. (2013, January 24). By the numbers: Women in the U.S. military. Retrieved May 2016, from http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/military-women-glance/index.html

Cohn, C.

(2000). “How can she claim equal rights when she doesn’t have to do as many push-ups as I do?” The framing of men’s opposition to women’s equality in the military. Men & Masculinities, 3(2), 131–151.

10.

Davar, K.

(2017). Storming the male bastion. Defence and Security Alert, 8(6), 8–11.

11.

Drake, M. J.

(2006). Ambivalence at the academies: Attitudes toward women in the military at the federal service academies. Social Thought & Research, 27(1), 43–68.

12.

Firestone, J. M.

(1987). Sex-appropriate roles: Comparing the attitudes of civilian and military youth. Population Research and Policy Review, 6(3), 275–296.

13.

Gady, F.-S.

(2016, February 26). India’s military to allow women in combat roles. Retrieved May 2016, from http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/indias-military-to-allow-women-in-combat-roles/

14.

Ghemawat, P., & Reiche, S. (2011). National cultural differences and multinational business. Globalization Note Series, 11, 1–18.

15.

Gustavsen, E.

(2013, November). Equal treatment or equal opportunity? Male attitudes towards women in the Norwegian and US armed forces. Acta Sociologica, 56(4), 361–374.

16.

Hansi, H.

(2015). Employment of women in the Indian Army. Retrieved May 2016, from http://www.claws.in/1378/employment-of-women-in-the-indian-army

17.

Harrell, M. C., & Miller, L. L. (1997). New opportunities for military women: Effects upon readiness, cohesion, and morale (Report No. MR-896-OSD). Santa Monica CA: RAND Corporation.

18.

Herbert, M. S.

(1994). Feminism, militarism, and attitudes toward the role of women in the military. Gender Issues, 14(2), 25–48.

19.

Hofstede, G.

(1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 10(4), 15–41.

20.

Hofstede, G.

(2003). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

21.

Hofstede, G.

(2010).

Gert Jan

Hofstede and

Michael

Minkov . Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd ed, 88–115. New York: McGraw-Hill.

22.

Hofstede, G.

(2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 8.

23.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. F., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. revised and expanded (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

24.

Ivarsson, S., Estrada, A. X., & Berggren, A. W. (2005). Understanding men’s attitudes toward women in the Swedish Armed Forces. Military Psychology, 17(4), 269.

25.

Kemp, R.

(2016, July 8). Women to serve in combat in British Forces. Retrieved 16 August, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news

26.

Khare

Vijay

. (2017). Women’s participation in Indian defence forces. Defence and Security Alert, 8(6), 12–15.

27.

Kummel, G.

(2002). Complete access: Women in the Bundeswehr and male ambivalence. Armed Forces & Society, 28(4), 555–573.

28.

Kurpius, S. E., & Lucart, A. L. (2000). Military and civilian undergraduates: Attitudes towards women, masculinity, and authoritarianism. Sex Roles, 43(3, 4), 255–265.

29.

Lahelma, E.

(2005). Finding communalities, making differences, performing masculinities: Reflections of young men on military service. Gender & Education, 17(3), 305–317.

30.

Lamont, M.

(2000). The dignity of working men: Morality and the boundaries of race, class, and immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

31.

Lamont, M., & Thévenot, L. (2000). Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: Repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

32.

MacKenzie, M.

(2015). Beyond the band of brothers: The US military and the myth that women can’t fight. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

33.

Mathers, J. G.

(2000). Women in the Russian Armed Forces: A marriage of convenience? Minerva, 18(3/4), 129.

34.

McCollough, J. E.

(2013, March 25). Why not all-female combat units? Retrieved 13 September 2017, from http://nation.time.com/2013/03/25/why-not-all-female-combat-units/

35.

Miller, L.

(1997). Not just weapons of the weak: Gender harassment as a form of protest for army men. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60(1), 32–51.

36.

Munshi, A., & Pandey, S. (2017). Inclusion in army: A study of acceptance of women leaders by men in uniform. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 10(8), 25–41.

37.

Schwartz, S. H.

(2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2), 137–182.

38.

Segal, D. R., & Segal, M. W. (2004, December). America’s Military population. Population Bulletin, 59(4), 3–37.

39.

Sharma, A.

(2017). Case study of west Asian nations. Defence and Security Alert, 8(6), 50–52.

40.

Stiehm, J. H.

(1998). Army opinions about women in the army. Gender Issues, 16(3), 88.

41.

Suman, M.

(2017). Feedback on women in the Army: Asset or liability? Defence and Security Alert, 8(6), 20–22.

42.

Swidler, A.

(1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 52(2), 273–286.

43.

Swidler, A.

(2013). Talk of love: How culture matters. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

44.

Thompson, M.

(2015). Sending women to war: the Pentagon near a Historic decision on equality at the front lines. Times Inc., p. 54. Retrieved September 2016, from time.com/4134372/sending-women-to-war

45.

Vogt, D., Bruce, T. A., Street, A. E., & Stafford, J. (2007). Attitudes toward women and tolerance for sexual harassment among reservists. Violence Against Women, 13(9), 879–900.

46.

Woodward, R. & Winter, P. (2004). Discourses of gender in the contemporary British Army. Armed Forces & Society, 30(2), 279–301.