The world over, militaries remain a predominantly male sphere of influence. The Nepal Army is no exception, despite its history of recruiting women since 1961. The first women recruits in the Army were nurses, followed by parachute folders, parajumpers, doctors, lawyers and engineers. It was only in 2004 that the Army began recruiting women for combat. However, their roles remain administrative and technical in nature as military police, signallers, drivers, clerks, members of the Army band and aircraft technicians. According to the Army website, women comprise a mere 1.91 percent of its total strength. Against this backdrop, the Army recently implemented the Directive on Gender Conduct 2070 BS and Women Military Directive 2070 BS. The Gender Directive aims to provide a gender-responsive working environment and introduces a zero tolerance policy against any kind of violence against women. The Military Directive, on the other hand, ensures appointment of in-service women in fixed groups and seeks to provide career development opportunities and facilities up to the highest position based on merit. Through such measures, the Army hopes to increase the strength of women to 5 percent of its total size.

The fact that the Nepal Army, an essentially male-dominated institution, has recognised the need for more women is in itself commendable. However, the plan to increase the presence of women in the Army upto 5 percent is not new. This policy was adopted back when Rookmangud Katuwal was Chief of Army Staff (2006-2009). The slow progress in increasing women’s presence in the Army has largely to do with the traditional understanding of gender roles in society. Furthermore, the institution still thrives on masculine traits which do not value nor seek to recognise the abilities of women important to warfare, argues Indra Adhikari, a researcher who has written extensively on the issue. There is also a deep-rooted perception that women need protection themselves and are thus incapable of providing a sense of security to the people.

So increasing the participation of women in the Army will need more than changes in policy. It demands the tougher task of high-ranking Army personnel themselves challenging their perceptions of gender roles. And then, helping soldiers perceive the other sex differently, as equals. Furthermore, the Army should portray itself as a more woman-friendly institution and explore options to do so. A good start would be to dissuade soldiers from using swear words that demean women and portray them as the weaker sex. It should also encourage women to command different units within the Army—Section, Platoon, Company, Battalion, Brigade, Division—and provide them with the necessary leadership training and professional exposure to do so. Only then will the inclusion of women in the Army take place in a true sense.