Commanding heights

A senior Army commander has recently sparked a minor earthquake in the well-paved roads of cantonment across India by his remarks on women commanding officers. He has flagged traits which he feels render them ill-prepared for holding such posts hitherto reserved for mostly much moustachioed males.

The trauma which the good general appears to have suffered on having to see women in commanding roles has touched his soul deeply enough for him to vent his views in a letter to his immediate superior. But underlying his attempts to find some plausible cause for their underwhelming performance as leaders is the fact that he seems to be looking at them from the prism of a much harried, sorry, much-married man. Most of the weaknesses he points out are qualities which have helped women command and lead men through the battlefield which marriages often become. I suspect that most male army officers are averse to the idea of women commanding officers at the workplace because having one in civilian pants at home is tough enough!

Take my way or the highway trait which the general characterises is a flaw. Husbands have the habit of casually declining or challenging any suggestion made by their spouses as decision-making is considered a man’s domain. But wives will often put their foot down and hold their breath till either they turn a deathly blue or the husband surrenders. So whether it’s about the mandatory attendance of a distant cousin’s niece’s wedding or the colour of the new sofa cover, ultimately it’s the wife’s way which one tread. And soon enough you realise perhaps it was for the best because now she can happily spend time pointing out the many shortcomings in the wedding event instead of focusing on your shortcomings. And the sofa colour remains the same for many years saving you money because she will not admit to it being the wrong choice! The units under such officers also benefit from the determined stance of their commandants ensuring uniformity of purpose and look which is so ingrained into the regimental ethos.

Mutual Empathy is a necessary ground on which successful marriages thrive. But wives know when to turn off the empathy button before it becomes a cause for trouble. If one of your relatives enters the market for a loan and approaches you, she can save you the blushes of trying to find an excuse for not loaning.

“Only last month he had to go for a thorough check up and now again he is having all those stomach problems spending most of his day in the bathroom. Never know when suddenly we will need a loan ourselves,” the relative is informed while he looks quizzically at a seemingly healthy man sipping his evening vodka and tonic, albeit sheepishly! This lack of empathy comes very handy for commanding officers when they crack the whip across ranks and deliver unpopular decisions.

Another misgiving the general harbours is the tendency to complain exaggeratedly. Most wives do so and with good reason. They have the extra acumen and eye to detect a fault or mal-intent howsoever small and well camouflaged. Any golfing husband will vouch for that. Imagine an excellent Sunday morning with just the right mix of sunshine and a nip in the air and all you can think of is how soon you can reach the golf course and join a four-ball. As you casually mention the weather and the long-due meeting with a friend and nudge the golf bag towards the door, you will be reminded of things to be fixed, furniture to be rearranged, pets to be taken to the vet and a million other chores with an exasperated,” And you have golf on your mind?” Of course, women will complain excessively and with ample justification. I am sure the same applies to the army units where no doubt there are duties and responsibilities of subordinates much like that of husbands which have to be continuously supervised and ensured with constant reminders.

Wives are experts in the warfare strategy of conflict termination with a single look or a terse word and, at times, without saying a word, simply sweeping the room with a stony silence. This leads to immediate termination and resolution of any conflict that the husband may have been harbouring in his poor bosom. No time is a time for war, and this approach is desirable at the battlefront where our brave units stand guard. Surely, the general cannot rue this quality of terminating conflicts, which also brings about instant resolution.

The general also complains that women officers handle HR issues with a firmer hand than their male counterparts. I find this grouse so antithetical to the Army philosophy of discipline and supremacy of authority. Would the general prefer the commanding officers to become all motherly and melt at the slightest trigger of sob stories by subordinates asking for leave, exemptions etc. for a myriad of real and unreal reasons? How many times have husbands been dealt with severely for their good, while pleading for that last drink for the road? And had the Drill Havaldar been less than firm at the Military Academy, how would have boys been turned into men?

I think the good general would do well to remember that men and women under his command look up to him as their only lighthouse in a career that at the best of times is not smooth sailing. By singling out women officers is he suggesting that male officers are perfect and do not suffer from similar traits? If an officer is wanting there are enough rules and ways to provide course correction. Public chastisement in a generalised manner is not one of them.

I have served under five different women officers during a long civilian career. Unlike their pioneering army counterparts, these officers had the advantage of being part of a system which had long accepted women in leading roles. They were among the best bosses I had worked under. Of course, they were at times unpredictable and moody and tended to bark without biting. My worst bosses were men who both barked and bit in a very predictable manner.

Views expressed are personal