Neither the defence minister nor her officials claimed any personal credit, yet a section of Army widows will in future note with relief and satisfaction that it was during Mrs Nirmala Sitharaman’s tenure that a grave gender-injustice was junked. Though she is too much of a professional to project herself as a shrill feminist, a recent decision “liberates” the widows of gallantry award winners ~ they will henceforth be free to re-marry a man of their choice. Earlier they had to forfeit the special pension allowance earned courtesy their husbands’ valour if they married anyone except his brother. A recent notification by the defence ministry rescinded an earlier order of 1972, reiterated in 1995, which pertained to the special allowances that are raised from time to time. A defence ministry press release said: “Representations were received from various quarters to remove the condition of the widow’s remarriage with her late husband’s brother for continuance of the monetary allowance. As per the new rules allowance shall be admissible to the recipient of the award, and on his death to his widow lawfully married by a valid ceremony till her death”. To put that legalese-jargon into perspective, it is worth recalling the old rule which said that the special allowance would be paid only if the widow was living a “communal life with the living heir.”

The origin of the gender-insensitive, perhaps even offensive rule is unclear but it resulted in a widow being under pressure to remarry her brother-in-law for essentially financial reasons, and denied her a choice she was fully entitled to make. A feudal desire to “keep the money within the family” could well be at the root of that chauvinistic thinking. Some years ago, then defence minister George Fernandes was under pressure to revise the pension rules to prevent a widow from receiving the entire amount, and a share to be given to the soldier’s family. The “logic” was that a soldier’s family made a financial sacrifice when “sending their son to the Army”, and lost out when his entire pension went to his wife. That thinking had also resulted in widows being pressured to remarry their husband’s brother.

A defence minister has a lot on his/her hands, but “welfare” schemes and the regulations that govern them could do with a comprehensive overhaul: a woman’s perspective is necessary when re-visiting matters pertaining to widows. That many opt to live in “war widows hostels” may be a matter of pride for the Army, yet it also suggests a range of social problems ~ the Army Wives Welfare Association has done its bit to address some of the difficulties but a more empowered body needs to undertake a comprehensive review. Mrs Sitharaman would do well to initiate the process of giving the military widow a better deal.