In the military 100% they should be allowed and even more aggressively recruited but in combat it's a big NO.
Along with that with the right training and right placement among men, women fighters have time and again proved their mettle on the battlefield in Soviet army, IDF, US armed forces etc.
The Soviet Army took anyone it could get- men, woman, children and the elderly they were hardly being selective in their recruiting, there are a few standout stories of females excelling but that was a very specific situation. The IDF, for all the talk, has very few female combatants (if any), I've seen this discussed on the military forums where ex-IDF soldiers point out that whilst they are in the IDF woman are more often assigned to non-combat duties (engineers, logistics, medics etc) and that they had never served alongside females in combat. And the US example is limited because they only recently lifted the ban on women in combat, Yes they have had Female Engagement Teams (FET)attached to regular (male) infantry units in Afghanistan but they did not play the part of combatant and were there to engage with the not fight. To date I still don't think any US military female has played an active role in combat AS A COMBATANT.
Physical strength is not the only parameter that defines characteristics of a combatant.
But it is the main one and increasingly so in modern warfare where they carry so much more equipment than ever before (making examples from WW2 Russia all but irrelevant). If a combatant isn't as strong as the rest of the unit they are a liability simple as that. Infantry aren't specialists they are grunts and part of their role is hauling heavy equipment on foot, there's no point in having a member of a unit who may come in handy in specific situations but the rest of the time is slowing everyone else down. An infantry team is as strong as its weakest link.
To date no female has passed through the US Marine Corp's Infantry Officer Course despite the physical standards being already lowered for women and the course being open to them for 3 years now and many having tried.
Women can match and exceed endurance of their male counterparts, along with that they can surpass their male counterparts in presence of mind, exceptional focus, discipline and patience
No doubt females possess many commendable attributes and in certain situations will be more useful than the average man but like I have said, the role of the infantry is predefined and if they can't meet the same standards as the rest of the men then it is nothing but a liability to have them around. Will an average female be able to carry the average male with all his gear on her back in the case he is injured on the combat field? I think not.
Aside from physical differences there are many other biological differences between men and women we simply can not overlook this such as menstrual cycles, hormones and such.
For more on this everyone interested should have a read, written by a former US Marine (female) and I've posted it here before on this subject:
The Problems of Women in Combat - From a Female Combat Vet
There are other elements to it too. We all agree men and women should be treated equally but can we all really say that the death of a male combatant would be treated as collectively upsetting as that of a male combatant? I don't think so, all societies would be far more affected by such a death. No society would be as accommodating of scores of body bags being filled with females as it would be with males. And what if a female soldier is captured in Kashmir? A very rare occurrence but it has happened in the past. Does anyone want a captured female soldier to be in that situation with those jihadist savages? God only knows what they would do to her.
Then there is the child rearing element, not only would it be impractical to have a certain percentage of your unit on maternity leave at any point of time (they are of no use to the unit for their entire pregnancy period and for a certain number of months after) plus would a woman really be okay with leaving her child(ren) for 6 or more months at a time on a 2-3 year deployment in Kashmir where she only got to go home for a few weeks at a time? How many women would truly, truly sign up for this?
A final remark- do women even want to be in combat? Is there a genuine call from the females in India to start serving on the frontline in Kashmir? I simply haven't seen anything to suggest this is the case. It is more like the media is raking up such issues because they see social problems in the wider society (which do truly need to be addressed but combat and females are two unrelated matters)with little understanding of the facts and realties.
Not allowing females into combat is neither sexist or unfair, it is a pragmatic decision in the face of cold hard facts.
We have EXCLUSIVELY Women Battalions in BSF
For manning the IB that is fine, female officer BSF have never been sent to the LoC, this tells you something.
We can have one in Army too
To what end? On average this unit would be far less capable than the equivalent male battalion so all you are doing is producing a sub-par battalion and diminishing the military's overall capabilities.
N btw sexual offenders are in every dept. however defense forces are more disciplined.....
In theory yes, but human nature is what it is no matter ones position of level of "professionalism". Sexual misconduct would still happen and all one has to do is look at the US military, the statistics are absolutely sickening, something like 80% of female members of the military claim to have been sexually abused by their male counterparts in one way or another during their time in service.
Such things WOULD reduce the morale of the military as a whole.
