Wed 21 May 2008
It appears that the Shahjalal Bank has made it mandatory for female employees to wear the headscarf. The decree was given yesterday, according to the Sachal blogger. I have not seen this story covered elsewhere, so I cannot vouch for its truthiness. Readers back home may have better information.
The question is - would such a move be legally permitted? At the very least, the decree would appear to discriminate against minority employees. Then again, if you were to go through the staff rolls of Shahjalal Bank, I wonder how many minority employees you would actually find.
Subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) discrimination against Hindu, Buddhist and Christian employees is commonplace in Bangladesh. But this move appears to institutionalize such discrimination. It is also further evidence of the creeping Islamization of the public sphere that started as far back as Zia/Ershad and which seems to be gaining pace with time, as its practitioners become more and more emboldened.
It’s almost enough to make one wish for the appearance of our own Ataturk.
What does the constitution have to say about this? In the West, such a move would be immediately hammered with lawsuits from all sides - bodies like the ACLU or Liberty exist to challenge such discriminatory practices. Does an outfit like the Ain O Shalish Kendro have a remit to look into the legality of this decree? Although I do not doubt that the merest whiff of a legal challenge will bring the bearded cave-dwellers out on to the streets, armed to the back-teeth and screaming Kaffir or Murtad at the top of their voices. O tempora, o mores.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Good point Mustofi.
But I am afraid this is not brand new in Bangladesh.
1. Girls attending Ideal school and College in Dhaka have to wear a heavy long coat. Boys have to wear a “tupi’ ( Ex-Ideal students, correct me if I am wrong). I have seen little girls sweating, roasting in electricity-power less scorching Dhaka of April-May with the heavy long coat over their regular school dress.
2. Chittagong College has the same rule effective as early as 60s.
3. I believe same constitutional rule applies for educational Institutes and commercial outfits.
4. It is as importantly a women’s right issue as it is a religious issue.
5. There should be some policy/ oversight org responsible for monitoring these breaches.
6. These are good national debate and we ought to take part in. But this debate will be healthier if we can keep Zia/ Ershad/ Khaleda/ Hasina out of it.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:09 pm
This issue is one that deserves to be taken up, and I believe with enough work, we can get Shahjalal Bank to change its policy.
However, I don’t see how having an Atarturk will really help us. Not being able to wear the headscarf at all doesn’t seem to be much better than enforced wearing of the headscaf.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:28 pm
why do we want Shahjalal Bank to change its policy? What’s wrong with it? They are just stabbing themselves. Let them keep their ways, they are a private institution and they will act as the market recommends. They are not public property/company or anything to get jolted over.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:10 am
I’m not sure about the legal situation in Bangladesh, but I don’t think the same laws should apply to schools as to private business.
Schools are by definition where children (legal minors) are taught. In a free society, what they are taught should be up to the parents. If some parents think that their daughters need to be taught to wear long coats or hijabs, then they should have the choice to find a school that allows that option.
I don’t think the same logic applies in case of an employer forcing the employee to do something that is irrelevant for performing their task. That seems very much in the realm of discrimination to me.
Of course Tacit is right about the Ataturk business. Not being able to wear hijab at all is just as problematic. This is actually a major issue in the west where many women have taken up hijab as an identity / rights issue. And this has problems too. A bit of self-promotion:
http://jrahman.wordpress.com/2007/05/05/on-hijab/
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:35 am
Some companies in Bangladesh also force their employees to pray.
What’s next, the Muttaqun?
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
[...] Unheard Voices on a bank in Bangladesh that has made it mandatory for female employees to wear the headscarf. Posted by Neha Viswanathan Share This [...]
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Dear Kaiser Kabir,
We usually are all reasonable men who read, make and analyze comments in boards like “Drishtipat”. So I hope many of us will feel comfortable if we are served with the names of some of companies those force to pray.
______________________
About Shahjalal Bank:
I don’t know about anything that say there are no non-Muslim employees in Shahjalal Bank. I don’t know anybody but surely there are non-Muslim employees in Shahjalal Bank. The question is, has the bank admin asked non-Muslims to wear hijab too? It needs to be made clear.
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Citi Bank NA in Bangladesh gives their employees a handbook on office etiquette and conduct, where they ask their female employees to not wear sleeveless clothes, short tops or tight skirts or tops. The local conglomerate I work for has the same unwritten rule imposed by our HR.
There are so many things these companies make us do which SO DO NOT fall under realm of our daily job performance or business operations directly. What they do affect is our business on a larger scale. They affect our public perceptions and client relations. May be the patrons of Shahjalal would prefer to deal with Hijab-clad women?
The question we need to ask about Shahjalal (an Islamic bank by declaration) are:
1)Are they enforcing it as a uniform? I believe if it is introduced as a uniform,that is legal under labor/human rights laws.
2)Are the employees protesting? Or does it concurr with the terms of their employment?
If the so called progressive companies can ask female employees to dress in the certain way, as part of their code of conduct, why can’t an Islamic Bank do the same? Who are we to point fingers if the employees are already following the decree?
Does anyone know of any employee resistance?
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:59 am
According to my information, there is no employee resistance against this.
I hope Fariha’s comment will answer a lot of questions.
May 25th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I really don’t like the way this issue is being framed in this post. Reading it, one is almost tempted to echo comment #7. Maybe the writer decided to avoid the larger debate that is vital to this issue and would probably open a can of worms on this blog.
The larger debate involves not just women from “minorities”, but also Muslim women as well. This ruling affects not just Hindu, Buddhist and Christian women. It also affects Muslim women who do not want to don the hijab.
So xanthis, the question is not just whether the bank has asked “minority” women to don the hijab. The question is part of a much larger one that asks if institutions (a bank of all things!) have the authority to impose a dress code that they deem appropriate, especially one that is so alien to the MUSLIM tradition of this country.
In the public sphere Sarees, salwar-kameezes and what have yous were enough for Begum Rokeya, for my ultra-religious grandmothers, my five-times-a-day praying aunt and mother without anyone raising an eyebrow. Why the IMPOSED change? Why now?
Before you jump on my case, go to my blog and search for my posts on hijab and read them. I’m for a woman’s right to choose, and not be told by men what to wear. I think I’m very much within Islamic bounds in that.
Does anyone else think it funny that 21 years after “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, we’re having a debate about women’s rights on this board with an overwhelmingly male crowd?
Fariha, you added a very sane voice there.