As soon as the word ‘war’ comes to our minds, a picture of violent soldiers fighting in the battlefield armed with their weapons is painted. We talk about violence, brutalities and hardships as the characteristics of war but little about the participants of the war. As the world is in the transition phase to accept and have dialogue on gender studies, the times have come when we should be comfortable to talk about war and masculinity. From the conventional forms of warfare, it is the men who are the performers of violence in its organized forms. Men are evidently the planners as well as the executors of armed conflicts. The question which immediately pops in our mind would be: Are men responsible for the horrors of war? The answer might be yes. But are men ‘solely’ responsible for the horrors of war? That cannot be truly affirmative. It is the culture and the institutional framework that might determine who is actually responsible for the horrors of war. Masculinity and men has always been the protagonist of violence. For instance, many warriors like Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Leonidas of Sparta, Arjuna from the Mahabharata are some of the deadliest warriors throughout history and are known for their extreme violent means of warfare. All the abstract expressions relating to toughness or being ‘macho’ have been promoted and carried forward by the contemporary society. However, it is pertinent to note that there lies a foundational relationship between men and violence which is also referred to as the ‘masculine condition’.
It was in the 1970's when after the brutalities of the Second World War, the next wave of feminism was gaining recognition. The feminists propounded that men’s and women’s behavior is changeable and is not determined biologically but rather socially. Soon thereafter, it was a promoted notion that a man is not born violent, rather he becomes violent. The gendered aspect was liberalized in other fields as well. But the scenario did not really change in the case of armed conflicts. For a warrior, to be violent and fiery is a trait which is embedded in his psychology and is not to be replaced. From time immemorial, the warrior’s honour conferred upon by the ultimate sovereign power cannot be questioned.
The situation is slight different in a complicated way today. Firstly, there is no absolute sovereign power, rather rule of law is supreme. Secondly, after the world wars, the nations recognized to foster respect to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and since then human rights have grown in many forms. There are various conventions which act as guarding tools to protect human rights like Convention Against Torture, 1984, Convention Against Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, the Geneva Conventions and its two optional Protocols. But masculinity still finds its route back in varied forms. The ethnic cleansing done during the Yugoslavia breakdown under the leadership of Slobodan Milošević can be one such example as to how a laddish leadership gave effect to the killing of millions of innocent people.
One can also find simpler examples from the movies, fictions and comics read by children and the youth. For instance, the cinema portrays males in the ‘superhero’ category having aggressive and brave impulses. Portraying a female playing such role is seen as a bold step to promote the idea of feminism. The desire for a strong man has never faded away and strong here means physical strength and aggressive nature. The simple fact is society has prejudicial norms about the men being tough and aggressive as the ideal ones.
Masculinity also includes leadership and influence with a touch of spirituality and self-control, such as that of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Moreover, he was the foremost promoter of non-violence as the primary tool to resolve any conflict. Can it be said that he was any less masculine? Not really.
Now, one might say that male violence exists which is true, but that is not the whole truth. The male culture particularly among the warriors could be cruel as well as kind. There are many nations now which recognize the principles of humanitarian law related to fair and reasonable means of warfare. Principle of humanity and principle of distinction are given utmost importance in many army manuals. Such principles pertain to limit the unnecessary use of force and thus control the peculiar dangers associated with wars. We have associated ‘violence’, ‘war’ with the masculine nature of the men, but ‘suffering’ and ‘pain’ are the terms which are stereotyped very quickly with women and children. However, it is argued that the principle of impartiality of providing aid applies by looking at the need of the individual and not the identity. Men suffer equally and rather more terribly on the battlefield. It would not be any less masculine for a warrior to offer humanitarian aid to a fellow combatant. Today there are even women in the front line, performing military combat and strategic roles. But the warrior masculinity has largely stood out in the wars because of the assumption of the masculine nature of the warriors.
What essentially can be done to de-stigmatize the agenda would be to combat the association of nature of masculinity with extreme violence. This simply means to understand masculinity from varied perspectives of human psychology. It is also suggested to understand that there is no “ideal” form of masculinity. Masculinity differs from person to person and can have different personified meanings. It’s important to re-assess the notions of how we link masculinity with individuality rather specifically to male and more specifically to soldiers in war. An individual’s masculinity can be affirmed in more constructive ways like conducting a social experiment on people from defence, academicians, leaders, women of similar strata and assessing their responses to a given conflicting situation. Each one of them would have to resolve the conflict. The different approaches taken by them would be their form of masculinity which will be reflected in combating the conflict. Theories and ideas like these may entail a new trend in warfare which would reduce atrocities and foster more on humanitarianism. Recently, the Indian Army created a human rights wing in the defence forces to monitor human rights violations closely is one such crucial step. Comprehensive training of the defence forces with respect to humanitarian law should be promoted. Policies which promote participation of women soldiers on the front line and also in supervisory capacity to be considered. Henceforth, the appeal is to open the horizons of the gendered cage and look for more such wholesome policies which are based on the ideals of humanity.
The article has been authored by Apoorva Agarwal , a final year law student at VIPS, New Delhi and Digvijay Singh, a final year law student at RMLNLU, Lucknow.
Comments