Her most defining international moment came in 1971, when the Pakistani military’s crackdown in East Pakistan forced millions of refugees into India, creating an immense humanitarian and strategic burden. Gandhi responded through diplomatic campaigning, military preparation and support for the Mukti Bahini.
The Indo-Soviet Treaty, signed in August 1971, strengthened India’s position amid overt American support for Pakistan. When war broke out in December following Pakistani strikes on Indian Air Force stations, the Indian armed forces and the Mukti Bahini secured a decisive outcome.
Pakistani forces surrendered in Dhaka on 16 December 1971, paving the way for Bangladesh to emerge as an independent country. Gandhi’s leadership during the crisis demonstrated that firmness also required foresight and patience to prepare before taking action.
Two years later, Golda Meir, Israel’s first and only woman Prime Minister, faced a crisis of her own. As Foreign Minister, Meir had helped forge Israel’s alliance with the United States.
On 6 October 1973, Egypt and Syria launched an attack on Israeli forces on Yom Kippur, seeking to reclaim the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. Israel was taken by surprise, exposing lapses in intelligence and military preparedness.
Meir’s government sought urgent American supplies, and an emergency US airlift helped Israel launch its counterattack. Her resolute handling of the crisis and astute superpower diplomacy helped turn the tide.
However, military success and the subsequent ceasefire could not erase the failures that preceded the war or the loss of lives. Meir resigned in April 1974 amid public anger, although the Agranat Commission’s interim report cleared her of direct personal responsibility.
An interesting anecdote from the papers of P. N. Haksar, Indira Gandhi’s Principal Secretary, documented in Gary J. Bass’s The Blood Telegram, highlights cooperation between the two leaders despite the absence of formal diplomatic relations between India and Israel.
During the 1971 crisis, Meir arranged for an Israeli arms manufacturer to supply India with mortars, ammunition and instructors.
Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s first woman prime minister, faced her defining moment in April 1982, when Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands.
Thatcher dispatched a naval task force to retake the islands, fighting a campaign thousands of miles away while working closely with the United States and continuing diplomatic efforts.
Argentine forces surrendered at Port Stanley on 14 June 1982, after 74 days, restoring British sovereignty.
The outcome strengthened Thatcher’s authority, cemented her reputation as the “Iron Lady” and contributed to her landslide victory in 1983. However, the campaign’s casualties and controversies remained part of her legacy.
The achievements of these leaders did not exempt them from scrutiny. Indira Gandhi’s Emergency in 1975 brought censorship, the detention of political opponents and weakened democratic freedoms.
Her defeat in 1977 demonstrated that the electorate could hold even a powerful leader accountable.
Meir’s legacy was marred by the intelligence failures of 1973. Thatcher’s success in the Falklands was overshadowed by divisive economic policies, and her premiership ended in 1990 after she lost support within her own party.
Three strong women, three very different conflicts. Any direct comparison between them would be unhelpful, but their political journeys highlight the intense scrutiny they faced during crises that tested their judgment, particularly their decisions on timing and risk-taking.
Women in leadership face contradictory pressures: the need to demonstrate toughness while also being criticised for displaying it.
Labels such as “Iron Lady” recognise determination but reduce an entire political journey to a single trait, overlooking the importance of listening, reconsideration and the ability to distinguish conviction from inflexibility.
Describing these leaders as women of steel also shifts attention away from judgment and responsibility.
Their achievements deserve recognition, but their missteps must also be critically analysed rather than treating them as symbols to be uniformly celebrated or condemned.
The measure of a woman of steel lies in the quality of her decisions, the purpose they serve and her willingness to accept responsibility for their consequences.
As Indira Gandhi’s death anniversary approaches, a critical appreciation of what she stood for and how circumstances shaped her choices becomes imperative.
Outright condemnation or complete adulation would do an injustice to her legacy and to those of the other two women of steel.
About The Author
Comment List