Strengthening the Last Wall Standing: Women in Combat Roles – Balancing Equality, Effectiveness and Operational Realities

By Brig Akashdeep Bhanot, SM (Retd)

New Delhi, 15th May 2026: Recently, I met a 35-year-old Lieutenant Colonel, who had served in my team twice – once as a Lieutenant and again as a Captain. All along, I had felt he was endowed with outstanding personal qualities and very good professional acumen. It, therefore, came as a shock to me when he told me he had not been granted Permanent Commission in the Indian Army, being a Short Service Commissioned officer.

Understandably, the officer was upset as he wouldn’t continue to serve in the “calling of his choice” nor get any pensionary benefits despite giving 14 best years of his life to the Indian Army. What added to his chagrin was that Women Short Service Commissioned Officers of three batches who had gone to Court (along with male officers) for not being granted Permanent Commission, had been sanctioned pension by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, despite serving for the same duration, i.e. 14 years, while male officers had been denied the same. Certain underlying issues may have been different, but what registered was the different set of rules for Women Officers.

Context

The expansion of opportunities for women across professions has been one of the most significant and positive societal shifts of our time. From boardrooms and seats of governance to laboratories, women have demonstrated capability, leadership and resilience in equal measure. These initiatives reflect a broader societal commitment to fairness, inclusion and optimal use of human potential.

Unlike most professions, combat is not merely another workplace. Combat roles in the Armed Forces in general and the Army in particular, impose extreme physical demands, prolonged isolation, danger, as well as high-stakes operational risks. Inducting women in combat roles, therefore, invites a more nuanced discussion beyond the principle of equal opportunity. The question is not one of capability or intent, but of ensuring that operational effectiveness, team cohesion and mission success remain uncompromised under the most demanding circumstances, at all times.

Till 1992, Women Officers in the Indian Army were to be found only in the medical domain (Doctors and Nurses). In the wisdom prevailing in 1992, Women Officers were inducted as Short Service Commissioned Officers into the Indian Army in most combat arms (Engineers, Air Defence, Army Aviation, Signals and Intelligence) and services (Army Service Corps, Electronics and Mechanical Engineers, Ordnance, etc.). They were kept out of the fighting arms (Armoured Corps, Infantry and Mechanised Infantry) and Artillery (permitted in the Artillery since 2024).

Women Officers in the Indian Army received Permanent Commission (PC) on February 17, 2020, following a landmark Supreme Court judgment that mandated gender equality in military roles. This decision allowed women to serve at par with their male counterparts, including in command positions. Possibly due to the increasing number of Women Officers in the Army, as a first, women have been inducted in the Other Ranks (jawans) category in the Corps of Military Police in the last few years.

Operational Demands of Combat

At the heart of the issue lies the uncompromising nature of combat. The battlefield does not adjust its demands based on who occupies it. It demands sustained physical endurance, rapid decision-making under stress, highly aggressive mindset and the ability to function effectively in extremely adverse conditions. Some experts argue that, on an average, physiological differences in men and women, such as muscle mass, endurance under load and recovery rates, women-specific biological considerations, etc. can influence performance in certain extreme combat scenarios. This has led to there being a different set of qualifying standards for men and women in many Armies. In addition, by and large, Women Officers are also kept away from deployment in certain isolated and extremely challenging areas, many of them on their own request.

Leaders, more-so military leaders, lead from the front. While we expect Women Officers to lead men just as their male counterparts, laying down considerably lower physical fitness standards for them, leads to a lack of respect by their command. To quote an example, a male soldier failing the 3.2 km run as part of the Combined Physical Tests 2026 (CPT26) may still be ahead of a Woman Officer coming in Excellent category. Will such a soldier and those better than him, respect such a Woman Officer? More aptly, the Woman Officer will shy away from counselling such a soldier as he was ahead of her in the test. This has implications on the battlefield, too.

The debate often centres on whether these standards should be uniform and uncompromised across all roles, considering the adversary does not differentiate based on gender and the battlefield offers no concessions. While there are a few women who can meet and exceed standards required for men on most days, the majority cannot. So, the question is not about individual capability, but about whether standards can and should remain uniform, and how best to ensure that they are never diluted so that only the most deserving serve in the combat units.

Consider This:

“In 2015, the US Marine Corps released the results of its year-long study of women in combat units. The study found all-male units outperformed mixed gender units in 70% of the 134 Military Operational Specialties tasks that were tested. Basically, the all-male groups outperformed the integrated groups.”

The long and short of this study is “reduced combat potential” by an unacceptable 20 per cent, in mixed gender combat units. In prolonged operational deployments, the lack of basic amenities has a greater debilitating effect on women as compared to men. In field conditions, there are no washrooms, no place to even change and even water is scarce.

Psychological and Cultural Considerations

Equally important are considerations of psychological readiness of all team members of both genders, cohesion and trust, as well as unit and operational dynamics, including emotional resilience under fire and in the face of casualties. Combat roles also require a high degree of aggression and risk acceptance which, while not exclusive to any gender, are considered distinctly higher in men. Concerns are sometimes raised about whether existing recruitment and training systems fully account for these factors.

Integrating any new dimension into such tightly knit systems requires careful calibration. The deployment of mixed-gender units (or women led male units) in high-intensity combat scenarios raises questions about cohesion, morale and interpersonal dynamics. These concerns are not insurmountable, but require careful planning, training, leadership and institutional support, so that effectiveness is strengthened rather than inadvertently compromised.

Safety and Strategic Risks

A particularly sensitive issue relates to the risks associated with personnel being captured in hostile environments. The capture of any soldier is a grave concern; however, there are arguments that the capture of women personnel may carry additional psychological, social and propaganda implications in certain contexts. This has historically influenced operational policies in some forces.

In certain air combat doctrines, operational restrictions have been placed on specific roles, not as a reflection of capability, but as a risk management measure. Most Air Forces employing women pilots, ensure they do not fly over hostile territory for fear of their capture, if shot down.

The Role of Institutions and Policy

Judicial and policy-making institutions play a vital role in upholding principles of equality and non-discrimination. Their interventions have often accelerated progress and opened doors that were previously closed. However, since the Judiciary doesn’t have first-hand knowledge of all domains where they have to adjudicate, at times, their inadequately informed judgements are detrimental to the concerned organisation. E.g., military organisations operate under unique constraints, where decisions must be guided by operational evidence, field experience, strategic considerations and empirical evidence. Ensuring that these perspectives are adequately integrated into policy decisions is essential. Military experts must, therefore, be consulted by the highest Courts before giving policy changing judgements, that may have major implications on combat effectiveness.

The challenge, therefore, lies in achieving a balance – ensuring that opportunities are not denied based on assumptions, while also preserving the effectiveness and readiness of the Armed Forces.

A Way Forward

None of the above is an argument against women in combat roles. On the contrary, it is an argument for getting the integration right. Rather than viewing this as a binary debate, a more constructive approach may involve:

• Role-specific standards that are transparent, evidence-based and uniformly applied

• Continuous research into performance, injury rates and operational outcomes

• Adaptive training systems that prepare all personnel for the realities of combat

• Open dialogue between policymakers, military leadership and society

In our context, it needs uniformity in selection, training and subsequent employment. That calls for gender-neutral SSB interviews, common merit without fixed quotas/seats for women, living in common accommodation in training Academies, training together under same conditions and qualifying standards, and finally, serving in the same areas whatever be the degree of difficulty or domestic/personal/physiological/biological/psychological compulsions. That will rightly distinguish soldiering from a corporate or an office job.

As far as uniformity in training standards goes, a good example to emulate is the US Army Fitness Test (AFT), that has gender-neutral combat standards for active duty. The AFT is a five-event physical readiness assessment designed to measure the fitness qualities that modern combat demands. Women soldiers meet the same performance thresholds as male soldiers of the same age.

In Sum

The objective of inducting women in the Armed Forces should not be symbolic inclusion, for leading parades and performing ceremonial duties, but meaningful participation that enhances, rather than tests, operational effectiveness.

A constructive path forward lies in focusing on role-specific, evidence-based standards that apply equally to all, investing in training systems that prepare every soldier for the realities of combat, and fostering an environment where capability, not assumption, determines opportunity. Continuous research, open dialogue and institutional humility will be key to navigating this complex terrain.

Ultimately, the goal should be to build Armed Forces that are both, inclusive and uncompromising in their effectiveness. Respecting the aspirations of individuals while safeguarding national security is a delicate, but necessary balance.