"Gender is not a side issue." 

Dr Yasmine Hasnaoui, of the American International University, emphatically stated as she welcomed the panelists of the 'Recent Research on Gender, Peace, and Security' panel to present their papers at the International Political Science Association conference held at Seoul, South Korea on 16th July. Co-chaired by Dr. Debangana Chatterjee, from National Law School of India University in Bengaluru, at the heart of this panel was the primordial need to create sustainable and inclusive solutions that take into account the complexities and challenges of women. 

1. Dr Swarna Rajagopalan, from Krea University in India, presented her paper on the theme 'Women, Peace Activism and Institutions in India: A Review of Opportunities and Barriers'. 

She points out the irony: women’s peace activism thrives locally, yet the decisions that shape their security are made in spaces they can’t access. Swarna reflects on India’s institutional landscape and the question: can civil society, especially women’s groups, find real entry points into security and foreign policy? She shows us how electoral democracy opens certain “windows” of engagement—but not lasting “doors.” "Where can a citizen reach a legislature and talk about their position?" she asks. Even though there’s a question hour, it is short and is not enough time. Further, there are several restrictions not just dependent on implementations but also on interpretations. These create barriers. She notes that being a part of an electoral democracy itself creates access to the state, on paper at least. Meanwhile, the best form of access is through local governments. Yet, that makes little to no difference as the Constitution does not expressly anticipate the workings of the civil society beyond informal groups. Swarna emphasises the need for demanding access, holding institutions accountable, and refusing to let policy forget the people it affects.

 

2. Deidi Olaya, of Washington University in St. Louis, United States, spoke on the 'Armed Conflict and the Prevalence of Intimate Sexual Partner Violence: A Gendered Perspective'

Her work poses a difficult question: Does armed conflict increase the prevalence of gender-based violence (GBV) by intimate partners during war?Using data from Colombia’s Demographic and Health Surveys and with a Differences-in-Difference research design, she traces how the presence of armed conflict didn’t just increase public violence—it also raised the chances of women being abused by their partners. The spillover was stark. In areas where the presence of armed groups that have perpetrated GBV was high, women were more likely to experience sexual and physical abuse at home. Deidi isn’t just mapping numbers. She dissects how militarized masculinities creep into domestic life, how violence doesn't retire when the guns are put down. In a map she shares, red zones of conflict overlap almost perfectly with red zones of intimate partner violence. The symmetry is haunting.
 

3. Chloe Julianne Mariano and Sumaiya Bhyria, from De La Salle University Manila, Las Piñas, Philippines, shared their scholarship insights on the 'transition from Military Prostitution to Prostitution Tourism in the Philippines'

For Chloe and Sumaiya, the entry point into gender and security isn't war. It's tourism. Interestingly, they do tie it back to war by delving into how tourism in the Philippines functions as a quiet extension of militarized exploitation.

They build context by referring to the U.S. military bases that defined the Philippines' economy and how the bodies of local women were drawn into that system through prostitution. The military may have left in 1991, but Chloe and Sumaiya show how a new form of control took its place: tourism, and with it, sex tourism. They note how tourism generates employment but also contributes to low productivity because most people become part of the informal economy. Though outlawed, the prostitution laws are weakly enforced in the country. 

Conducted under the guise of entertainment, dance bars etc., it comes unfortunately at the expense of seeing women as mere commodities. Their interviews with women working in this shadow economy strike us: The women aren’t naïve; they know they’re part of an exploitative system. Nevertheless, a job that helps them cater to their childbearing, rearing, and other familial responsibilities. 

What stands out is the idea of a "network of complicity"—how local police, hotel staff, and tourism boards are all part of the machine, often condoning the business while also actively contributing to the problem as clients. Chloe and Sumaiya mention how the women prefer giving services to the locals as they are not as aggressive with their fetishes and fantasies. The foreigners also do not provide adequate remuneration and their demands are excruciating for them. Chloe and Sumaiya note how this makes the prostitution industry a microcosm of shifting global powers. 

 

4. Marina Bousquet, a French scholar from Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV

Gradignan, France, delved into the 'Feminist Condemnations of the United States' Ultimate 'Mistake' in Afghanistan' 

From a feminist perspective, how does one critically engage with the failures of the intervention while at the same time considering that international troops should have stayed in Afghanistan? That's the question this paper aims to discuss. Through 18 semi‑structured interviews with Western feminist policy‑makers and Afghan women advocates and a narrative analysis of policy documents, Marina attempts to probe deep into the perceived benefits, failures and mistakes of the intervention. Benefits as perceived by the interviewees include advances in women’s legal rights (education, political participation) in urban centers and symbolic victories cited by both Western feminists and some Afghan interlocutors. 

Failures and mistakes include contextual misunderstanding, that is rapid policy imposition without deep engagement with Afghan social norms; perceived betrayal in the form of hasty troop withdrawal and undermining prior gains; and data silencing or inadequate monitoring of rural women’s lived experiences, leading to skewed assessments. Some of her interviewees describe “progress” as more girls in schools, more women in parliament. Others express regret, even shame. Marina calls these reflections “error narratives”—ways of accounting for what went wrong.

5. Lastly, Neha Dhull, from Tata Institute of Social Sciences in India, presented her paper on 'Women In Armed Forces: Female Soldiers And Masculinity

Neha’s paper critiques the culture in the Indian Armed Forces steeped in masculinity—not just in command, but in everyday language, jokes, silences. Women are allowed in, but on conditions: don’t be “too feminine,” don’t complain, and above all, don’t aspire to be like “other women.” The women she interviews echo a common refrain: “We are not like other women.” It’s meant as a badge of pride, but Neha observes it comes at a cost: of aspiring for a standard of hypermasculinity as the ideal and leaving behind femininity because it is seen as lesser, as emotional. Drawing on Cynthia Enloe’s work, Neha traces how gender integration in the military often functions symbolically, not structurally. And while the policy documents may celebrate “diversity,” the lived reality is one of isolation, constant and tiring attempts at proving, and yet, invisibility.


Engaging with the papers of all panelists, Dr Yasmine raised relevant questions for all speakers to reflect and engage on: 

To Dr Swarna, she posed what structural and cultural barriers limit women’s political participation in India today. To Deidi, her question was how effective have been international humanitarian laws been in addressing IPV at the international level. Dr Yasmine encourages Sumaiya and Chloe to think about the impact of prostitution tourism on Philippines' global image? For Marina, as a researcher from the west, Dr Yasmine asks what voices are consciously centred in the discourse and, for Neha, Dr Yasmine raises the important question of how caste, class and regional identities intersect for women soldiers and in turn, impact their visibility and respectability. 

Ultimately, the panellists come together to identify and critically assess the many renditions of women’s lived experiences as they navigate through and negotiate with the systems of security, peace-making and conflict resolution and the cost at which they continue to survive within these highly patriarchal structures.