Sun 29 Jun 2008
At one point her employer poured hot oil down the front of her pyjamas. Wahida tried to stifle her screams by putting cotton in her mouth. From time to time she would hit her in different parts of her body with a rolling pin. One day Wahida scalded her on her cheek, which left a deep scar. “When he [Rafiqul Alam] asked about it, mami [Wahida Akhter] said, ‘Why do you care about the bandi of the house, do you want to marry her?’ and he never asked about me again.”
Not satisfied with her torture methods, Wahida moved on to more ’sophisticated’ techniques. A couple of months ago, Wahida took a pair of pliers, put it to Ratna’s breasts and tore off one of her nipples. She bled for days but was never taken to the hospital. With no other body part left unscathed, Wahida once put a hot cooking spoon on Ratna’s tongue when she didn’t do her work ‘properly’. [Read Full Report]
June 29th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
If we simply decide to ignore these tortures, if we consider these to be the exceptions rather than rules, we still have a lot to talk about.
The whole culture of live in child domestic worker is a form of slavery. Yes some slave owners/renters ( Like us) are good. We feed them three times day, buy them clothese two times a year, at the end of the month hand out “kari kari” taka to the parents. we also let them sit on the floor and watch some TV shows and give them Moshari while they sleep on the floor. What they do? No too much, at least not digging earth outside or reaking breaks. They only cook the breakfast for all the adults, make all the beds of the house, swipe-wipe the tile/mosaic floors-bathrooms, wash all the clothese of the household, cook for the family, go to local grocery for the errands, carry the little ones on the lap or be the servant to the kids of the home who may as well be older than her/him.
June 29th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
BD needs to create new LAWS to protect domestic workers. Keeping house workers is one thing, but law must protect them against abuse, violence and ’slavery’.
1. Law needs to define what is ‘abuse, violence and ’slavery’, what is OK and what is not.
2. TV and news Media needs to broadcast such LAWs.
3. Extreme cases need to be punished to create deterrent, mass awareness and workers protetion.
Here’s how USA treats abusive ‘masters’:
http://www.nriinternet.com/NRI_Discrimination/USA/2007/Mahender_%20Sabhnani/index.htm
July 8th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
There is bad news. It seems this case is just going to be quickly hidden under the blanket like other such cases. An ASK lawyer just informed me that Rafiqul Alam’s family is creating all kinds of pressure on Ratna’s family to withdraw the case. ASK lawyers proposed to Ratna’s parents that they would bring Ratna to Dhaka and provide all expenses for her treatment and also let her stay at their shelter home for as long as they want but Ratna’s parents have refused point blank. Wahida Haque is already out on bail. This is exactly what happened in Madhabi Majhi’s case where one of the girls, Moni Mala actually died and the murderer Kalpana Majumder has been spotted going around in her air conditioned car and possibly living in the same apartment (have to verify that). It’s still, jor jar mulluk tar.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Surely, we will all go along happily ever after as if nothing has changed and expect the ‘choto loks’ to be law abiding citizen and not resort to mob violence. We will have NRB bretherns to also call for strict enforcement of LAW (with captial letters) by the military to check these hooligans.
All issues are connected, some one once said. They indeed are. We just choose to ignore these connections.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
This is appalling. Amra ki asholei kichhu kortey pari na? Jodi tai hoy, taholey chhoto tou amra.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Here’s just one of the reasons they hate us, Asif Bhai: .
Some of us commit these acts, and some of us let them happen. Where is our blogging community outrage now? Where is the support, the offer of whatever expertise/assistance there is to give?
I don’t know much about how the legal system in Bangladesh works. I know that in the US, there are circumstances under which the state can prosecute someone even if the victim can’t/won’t. I gather that that is neither possible nor practical here. So, do we just wait for these incidents to pile up until one becomes the straw that breaks the camel’s back? Who will protect us from inevitable mob violence then?
July 9th, 2008 at 3:05 am
The poor and the deprived aren’t aware of their rights. Neither they will be able to comprehend with any new “LAWS”.
In this particular case, the intimadatory nature of the Wahida Akhter family will deter any progress. Maybe the Army should make its poorer denizens feel protected instead of writing new legislation?
To reiterate So’s point, by tolerating injustice, we are actually taking sides with injustice, not against it. As for ‘blogging community outrage’, maybe the nature of this post, this is being low on ‘political charge’, the regular commentators on UV have decided to slide out of view?
July 9th, 2008 at 7:03 am
#7
We’ve ‘outraged’ over the treatment meted out to blue-collar, ‘unskilled workers’ in a lot of other posts. It’s the same story everywhere. Whether you’re a migrant or a local worker working the jobs that educated people like us won’t touch, you’re going to be treated like sh*t because people know they can get away with it. Thanks to people like Hana-pa and others, we know about Madhobis and Monis. There are many others like them who might be living next-doorts to us and we are perhaps not even aware of their plight.
Two things:
1)It’s a very common phenomenon in BD to threaten and intimidated victims into dropping charges. This happens mostly to victims of lesser-privileged social classes and particularly to women. Sometimes victims are threatened with ‘counter-charges’.
2)There are no laws/facilities in Bangladesh to protect victims from such threats.
Creating laws is not the answer– we’ve enough already, they’re never implemented. Creating awareness is not the solution– we all know it’s wrong and shameful to abuse domestic workers.
We need to bring CHANGE– change in our attitude to such cases, change in our attitude to the problems of the ‘lower classes’ and change in our attitude of ‘jor jar muluk tar’. The army, that upholds and glorifies the prevalent arrogance of classes, is the wrong force– they cannot protect those about whom they don’t really care. They are not katalysts for change in class struggles. This is where you need the independent (?) judiciary and a corruption-free law enforcement agency.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Fariha - you r right we need change, and then you took a jab at the army, as if they are the ONLY ones to blame for all this.
Why did change NOT happen in the last 15 years, (when army could not be blamed) and how can change be ensured after elections?
July 9th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
KGazi Bhai, Fariha did not just point fingers at the army, she also mentioned the judiciary and our law enforcement agencies. However, it’s more than just that…WE need to change - WE do! We might find it unacceptable to mingle with prostitutes socially but would have fewer problems associating with the Wahida Akhters of this world who torture their servants and the Rafiqul Alams who allow such horrific abuse to go on in their homes. I can just hear the sympathetic murmurs now: “Ki korben bechara manushta…Unar shongsharer bepar…Bou-er shongey jhogra korben naki?” Because that would be the worse thing. If we don’t change, then how can we expect change from elsewhere?
July 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
#10
So true! And Mrs.Wahida i bet, no matter how many maids she disfigures and how much we crib about her, will continue to get accepted in all the social circles.
#9
K Gazi bhai,
The current system we’re running under pre-supposes the superiority of one class above another. Our current ruling class clearly believes that they are far superior (perhaps with regards to policy directives or just plain moral higher ground) than the politicians they have put behind bars or the people (in terms of education, class-background, etc etc) in whose choices they do not trust. That is the one of our fundamental problems. IF we continue accept such socio-political attitudes than it will be replicated in our society and the way people act.
I believe I had made a similar comment in the anti-torture post. If the rulers perpetuate and condone torture, then the masses get the message that it’s ok to violate the fundamental rights of others who are less powerful as long as you can get away with it.
The reason I took the ‘jab’ at the army is because they clearly feel that they are the most superior of us all.
July 9th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
And just so that there’s no further confusion..i took a jibe at all ruling classes, with special emphasis (sharper barb) at the army!
July 9th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
So #10 - I like the social change comments you are making that WE have to change. The problem is our change alone will not deter the abusers. Here’s why:
1) abusers will not change VOLUNTARILY - they need to be threatened with law and punishment, thru national media examples, and then ACTUALLY sent to jail with publicity, like my example in #2 above.
2) the master-slave culture is already strong, and for that, just ignoring the abusers will not fix them.
The fundamental rights and ethics for domestic workers must be CLEARLY BROADCAST to masses, as law.
3) Most of us are not the abusers, but the few that abuse are not going to stop their crimes, just by dissociation. Punishment, and the fear of punishment, are the only deterrents that prevent crime.
Rule of law must punish the servant-abuser, the lawyer husband who freed the abusive wife, the policeman who took the ghoos, and the minister who took money from lawyer etc. All of those must be punished for the same crime - and THAT will change society.
Trouble is - some people will say if we have so much punishment - how can we be a “shadhin desh?”, are we becoming like “military imperialism, poradhin under the British or Pakistan, or police state like Singapore”?
The answer is YES. A little punishment FOR CRIMINALS criminals does not change us to a police state - it reduces crime, improves law&order, prevents traficcking, mob violence, crime and corruption.
The question is do we want to remain a criminal state instead? where rich powerful criminals enjoy the freedom of crime??
———–
Fariha #11 - a) you didnt answer the question “Why did change NOT happen in the last 15 years, (when army could not be blamed) and how can change be ensured after elections?”
b) is it entirely true that if “rulers condone torture, then masses violate [servants]“? I am personally against ALL violence, but I think they are independant crimes, not related to each other.
e.g - if George Bush condones torture against ‘terrorists’, it doesnt affect domestic violence in the masses. The law prevents domestic violence separately by punishment as in my example in #2 above. And rate of dom violence probably remains same, whether Bush condones torture or not.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
KGazi bhai,
I think a more appropriate question would be, why didn’t the change happen over the last 36 years? Or the last 100 years for that matter? Do you think such cases of domestic abuse have only happened since 1991? When I was a young child in the 80’s, my neighbour had used her khunti to burn her maid’s hand. When my mother had criticized, we were reminded that we were tenants and they were landlords. Do you think it’s only maids who suffer like this? Do you know what kind of torture educated men inflict on their wives? Are you aware of the torture ‘unskilled’ workers sometimes face at work? Why do you think all these things happen? For lack of laws, punishment or awareness?
It all comes down to our collective tolerance of torture. Our silences help perpetuate this trend. Our class-arrogance perpetuates such violence, because if you notice, its always the powerful vs the powerless. All these incidents are related. Our failure to address it at the top only let’s the arrogance/non-chalance trickle down to the bottom.
IF Bush and his admin and consequently all US admins take a strong stance against torture in all spheres of public and private life, that would also mean taking a stance against domestic violence as well as state sponsored terrorism. If they prosecute or at least sack every US soldier guilty of so much as berating a Guantanamo prisoner and every US senator accused of domestic abuse/torture, then that it is how they will bring change. They will change the attitude of torture, abuse and violence is acceptable. The approach has to be top-down. No point in preaching to the masses when the rules don’t walk the talk.
And KGazi bhai, the fundamental rights of domestic workers are the same as yours or mine. The issue isn’t awareness, but the propensity to disrespect the rights of others who are lesser privileged and less powerful. There are laws—all kinds of them, but they don’t threaten those who know that they can manipulate it. Without a law enforcement agency answerable to people, an independent judiciary and a political system that believes in the power of the people, I don’t think we’re going to be able to bring social change.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:51 am
KGazi, you’ve got it exactly the other way round. I don’t know when was the last time you visited Bangladesh, but there are actually laws against pouring hot oil down the front of someone’s pyjamas.
You keep writing, laws must be enforced etc. How exactly is this going to happen? Do you seriously expect the domestic help to go and file a law suit? Do you expect the police to come and arrest Rafiqul Alam and Wahida Akhter?
This is not going to happen in near future. Let’s accept that reality before anything else.
Let’s consider why the laws are not enforced. Obviously there are problems with police administration etc. Then there are issues with socio-economic barriers that prevent the domestic help to go an seek justice - see Hana’s comment above. These are complex issues that are not going to get resolved overnight. Statements like ‘LAWS must be ENFORCED’ without taking into account these realities is a meaningless exercise.
What then can we do? Well, I think the social pressure is actually very powerful here. So (10) talked about going to a prostitute. If Rafiqul Alam or Wahida Akhter were known to visit brothels, their relatives and friends would shun them from the society. It’s that pressure, more than any law, that prevents them from openly visiting a brothel. It is exactly the same thing here. If Wahida Akhter was boycotted by all her friends and relatives, she would think three times before torturing the next house help.
We cannot realistically turn Bangladeshi state administration into efficient law enforcers overnight. Any attempt to do bring in that kind of revolutionary change creates more problems than it solves.
Social changes, now that’s something we can do. Are we sure that there are no Wahida Akhters in our extended social circle? Next time you hear that khala, or the neighbouring bhabi, or friend’s mother beating up the bua, take a stand. It’s not as glamorous as writing about National Security Council, but it is just as important.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:05 am
Fariha - No. Question is “15 years” specifically for 1991 to 2006, targetted at those who are anti-army leaning. any Prior to that they will blame Ayub, yahya zia ershad - so 15 years! when there was no army directly to blame.
I’ve been hammerring my ‘repeat mantra’ HERE DAILY for past 2 years, and do I know about the crime corruption torture and injustice in BD? I sure know.
You’re writing well, and I think we need to go deeper into WHY. - why is there “collective tolerance of torture, propensity to disrespect rights of others, and doesnt threaten those who know that they can manipulate it”? If you do a deeper root-analysis - you will find a VERY low rate of punishment in BD legal system.
In most countries of good law-abiding society, prosecution rate is HIGH, in BD its only around 5-10%. This gives FREEDOM of crime for would-be criminals and abusers.
This is not my theory - it has been reported, proven, recommended and supported by UN, ADB, TIB etc who work in Bangladesh.
Even you have agreed on this in your 3rd para saying “If they prosecute or at least sack every US soldier guilty ….”, suggesting PUNISHMENT as a solution.
So, PUNISHMENT (or high rate of prosecution) is the answer to reduction of ABUSE of domestic workers, lower class, trafficking, change of society, etc.
The US example in #2 shows punishment of a millionaire. In BD, politicians thought they were untouchable, invincible too - because they thought law would never punish them.
CTG and army has changed that outlook permanently. Bangladesh will be changed forever, after 1/11, due to this punishment.
heres a ref:
http://www.thedailystar.net/law/2006/05/02/index.htm
July 10th, 2008 at 4:24 am
Jyoti #15
There are laws but the abuser came out free. Thats the problem. Had the system been more effective, less corrupt, then there would have been punishment.
Social pressure would be stronger if there was guranteed prosecution and punishment. But you cannot use “khala-khalu” social pressure alone to fix corruption, when corruption itself protects the criminals.
Thats when you need a strong arm like CTG to break that corruption chain, and introduce punishment, which straightens the backbone of criminal society.
July 10th, 2008 at 5:46 am
KGazi, I know you’ve been harping on about law enforcement daily for the past two years. I applaud your consistency. I find your optimism touching, and I definitely commend your passion. Your views on politics are well known (if a tad bit delusional), and let’s not open that old argument about the army and anti-corruption here - this thread is not about that issue anyway.
You seem to think that law enforcement happens in a vacuum. It doesn’t. Laws that are not in sync with underlying social realities get respected in breach. There is a volume of literature in social science going back to classical Greeks making this point. The way societies evolve is like this: there are accepted social norms, behaviour outside this norm are considered illegal, and illegal acts are punished.
Will social pressume be stronger if there was guaranteed prosecution and punishment? Sure. But if there was guaranteed prosecution and punishment, would we need social pressure?
Until the average Bangladeshi family agree that what Wahida did is unacceptable in a way going to brothel is unacceptable, laws will not be enforced. We can keep harping on about LAWS MUST BE ENFORCED for next decade, but that won’t change anything. Khala-khalu social pressure actually could.
You are fond of using the US examples. Here is one. Until the 1960s, African Americans were deprived of most basic of rights in vast parts of America. There were laws which were never enforced. There were other laws which were clearly in violation of the constitution. Do you know how these changed? Young people, not too dissimilar to Fariha, Hana, Kajalie and others in DP/UV challenged their parents and relatives and friends to change their ways. Ordinary men and women decided that segregation was wrong, Jim Crow was wrong, KKK was wrong. It was that change in social attitude that made Dr King’s march on Washington, and JFK-LBJ’s politics possible.
Hana and others, don’t discount the power of individual acts. Bangladesh is a closely knit society. We all know people who are guilty of abuses like this (maybe not as severe, but abuses nonetheless - Rumi bhai’s comment in 1 describes most households). This is actually something where we can take a concerted and principled stand without waiting for a grand political revolution.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Jyoti - thanks for the recognition - and my “delusional” political views which dont fit your accepted corruption norms!!
if a nation, say, wanted to ban the use of cell phone in hand while driving, what process would they use? You are saying khalu-khalu pressure would be more effective than a traffic penalty?
Obviously that’s not true - and if thats the mentality in BD society - then thats the reason why there is so much crime and social abuse.
‘Accepted social norms’ are established by lawmakers based on the direction that THEY want the nation to go - thru parliament debate etc. If lawmakers in BD want to ban gay-marriage for example - they they will pass a law against it. But if Khala Khalus believe 20 years from now, that its an acceptable social norm then they will appeal to the lawmakers thru parliament/whatever to revise the law, fine.
But Until then - gay marriage will be illegal - and violaters MUST be punished. Now if the law FAILS to punish them - just like servant abusers, then khala-khalu’s “social pressure” MAY work (to stop violaters) but only to a LIMITED rate. You cannot establish a nation’s rule of law on khala-khalus’s social pressure ALONE, is what I am saying.
Instead, you will have to REPAIR the legal system - and establish more prosecution/punishment (which the CTG are trying to do).
July 10th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Was it Eleanor Roosevelt who had said ” Be the change you want to see” ? I can’t remember.
I think the collective tolerance is there because we always try to offload responsibility and try to put it on to the shoulders of ‘law makers’ and the ’state’. Who are these law makers? Who makes up the State? It’s us!
Next time you see a policeman slap or hit a rickshawpuller on the streets, step up and tell him it’s wrong to hit a powerless rickshawallah . Don’t worry, you won’t get arrested. Next time, you see a beggar getting berated on the street by some hi-fi bhodromohila ask her to mind her language. That’s the smallest way we can bring change, but that’s a big change for the victims in question. Naive? Yes! Doable? Definitely!
There are at least 6 people on this post talking against torture. If all 6 of us take a resolute stand against torture, in all it’s form and inflicted on anybody regardless of race, ethnicity, gender and (dare I say) criminal records then that is at least a start. That’s the start of social change.
Relegating responsibility for social change onto the State (which is basically again us) and it’s powers (our rulers) or to exemplary draconian punishment (at the hands of those who too are guilty of committing violence, abuse and torture) just won’t do. We cannot exempt ourselves from our individual acts of perpetration and silence because collectively, these build and strengthen the house of torture.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Jyoti bhai and So,
I think you guys may also be a little out of touch. People soliciting prostitution (I’m assuming we’re refering to men) aren’t shunned by society in Bangladesh.
There are now ‘parlors’ in Gulshan and Baridhara which men visit. People in their social circles are aware and they are able to get accepted. In the Gulshan club and Dhaka Club parties you will meet women of ‘questionable virtue’ who ‘go home’ with some of the most respected men of our class. I hear kana ghusha and gossip about these things, but I’ve never heard of any one (man) getting shunned by his peers for going to a sex worker.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:12 am
K Gazi says:
‘‘Accepted social norms’ are established by lawmakers based on the direction that THEY want the nation to go - thru parliament debate etc. ‘
So if lawmakers in Bangladesh today say that gay marriage and prostitution is legal through parliamentary ‘debates’, then it will be an acceptible social norm in Bangladesh?!!
Do you even make these arguments half seriously?
Why would the politician feel pressure to do anything if there is no pressure from his voters? That’s where the importance of advocacy and awareness comes. Why did the politicians feel the pressure to change laws about civil rights in the sixties? Out of a void? They did this only after there was significant social and political pressure from the mass. You have got it backwards, bro.
Rule of law is the number 1 priority, I agree. But given that it is not happening overnight, there needs to be significant pressure from us, the people who live in this society, on these social issues. In other words, to go back to the example I started with, lawmakers will argue gay rights in Bangladesh only if he sees that the voters are rooting for it and if there is significant social pressure for it. Its simple supply and demand. If there is no demand for it, there will be no supply of it.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:37 am
KGazi: ‘Accepted social norms’ are established by lawmakers based on the direction that THEY want the nation to go.
—
There it is. That sentence summarises where KGazi and I differ. He thinks that some group of people - lawmakers, army, priests, bhodrolokes - establish ‘accepted social norms’ based on the direction they want to take. I don’t. End of story.
Fariha, everytime I go to Dhaka, I am surprised by something new - so it’s almost cetainly the case that I’m out of touch. But tell me this, jei shob bhodro shahebder shomporke kana ghusha shono tara ki tader barite giye baap-ma/attiyo shojon ke bole tader Dhaka ckub conquest er kotha? Probably na, tai na? Now think of how they, or their family members, treat the house helps. Do they even pretend to hide what Rumi bhai describes in comment 1? Probably na.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Jyoti bhai,
Kotha shotto . You’re right! That is not a ‘norm’, at least not in the public sphere. But here’s another interesting anecdote.
A lot of these men are wife-beaters. (Well even the ones who aren’t beating their wives are guilty of psychological torture if they’re sleeping around). And a lot of these abused wives, are maid-torturers themselves!
Again, this is purely anecdotal– based on what I see in my small circle and hear from people. A lot of victims of spousal abuse end up taking their angst out on their domestic helps and sometimes even on their children (but on a much smaller scale and limited extent). May be we need a survey done on this or something.
For all we know, Rafiqul Haque could have been one of those men (negligent husband, wife-beater, adulterer or all of them) and Wahida could’ve been one of those oppressed wives herself. In no way does this excuse what she did. But, if the hypothesis is proven true, it gives us insight into the matter of ‘collective tolerance of torture’.– ‘The master’s tools cannot dismantle the master’s house’, Audre Lorde had said.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Fariha, yes, for all we know Rafiqul is one of those negligent husband / wife-abuser type. But then, to take that kind of hypothesis further, maybe Rafiqul is usually kicked around by his boss at work. Bangali babu-ra shara din office-e British shaheb der pedani kheye bashai eshe ginnider opor korta-giri folan - that’s a 19th century stereotype.
Explaining the abuse is helpful. And more data is always good.
But it is still abuse. And we should still condemn and shun it.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:42 am
As I said Jyoti bhai, there is no excuse for torture. We should not never condone it, regardless of who is perpetrating or who is victimized. But perhaps we also need to understand the psyche of the torturer– if nothing else, at least for changing their attitudes.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I’d really like a believable and constructive survey to be done on this. People in the ‘woman empowerment’ sector sincerely believe that abuse is the norm, not the exception, and that new laws created to protect women are used as a proxy to take men’s grudges out on other men. A survey could look at families where the problem has been successfully resolved and figure out how and why.
Its quite laughable to think that one of the weediest governments in the world can establish social norms amongst bangladeshis. The disconnect there speaks volumes about how far away government is from the normes and values held (if not lived up to) by the people. The only group further away are the NGO sector, i feel.
In what way is the debauchery and abuse of some amongst the economically wealthy similar to the other economic groups, and other kinds of groups who hold more strongly to their religion’s social vision? Is there no behavioural difference?
While it would be nice to have a legal system that was followed, i dont think that is ever the case. Conflicts go to courts at the last resort where the costs of official justice is very high indeed. theres plenty of room down stream for resolution. That is if the society has the mojo for it, and can operate on itself without development dollars.
jyoti, ‘condemn and shun’ didnt really work on the corrupt over the past decades. Its not a redundant technique, its just not very sophisticated when the shunee has no shame and the society around it is so gossipy as to get the most simple of things out of proportion.
A better technique i think is positive guidance, which requires a socially known and accepted code of honour and dignity upon which guides kudos is respected.There need to be more social techniques.
I hope that maybe there will be a slow change and mobilisation around better values triggered by the 1/11 initiative.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
When I mentioned mingling with prostitutes socially, I didn’t necessarily mean just sleeping with them. I am well aware that men (especially the powerful ones) who are known to have engaged in extramarital sex with prostitutes are still accepted in society. I was talking about society in a slighter broader sense…the kana ghusha, in fact. While a man is unlikely to be socially ostracised for actually sleeping with a woman (prostitute or otherwise) who is not his wife, the woman will most certainly be avoided by people who are unwilling to “sully” themselves by keeping such company in social settings. Not always, perhaps but often. Yet the same people who would rather not associate with such a woman would find associating with the Wahida Akhters of the world much more palatable. It seems that we, as a society, find extramarital sex more harmful than torture. It was not my intention to start an argument about the merits/demerits of prostitution and/or sleeping around. I’m not endorsing, condoning or condemning anyone for what they do to/with their own bodies. But I firmly believe that to deliberately inflict pain on someone else’s being against that person’s wishes is wrong, and it’s something we need to talk about. So, yes, I am all for the “khala/khalu” method of bring about change. Why? Because it can work. We are more likely to listen to people whose opinions affect our daily lives. When I tell my friend that he/she shouldn’t drive me around while talking on the phone, that friend obliges me because he/she cares about my opinion and thinks twice about the possibilities of having an accident when some other loved one is in the car at some other point in time. When I ask a relative why she thinks it’s ok to have a 10-year-old servant iron her 15-year-old son’s school uniform every day, it’s more likely to make her stop and think about it. It may make no difference, but it may make some. And if enough of us speak up about things, it will make lots of difference. So the last thing I’m suggesting is that we just ignore it. Of course, social change is not the only method we should pursue, but I’m not as interested in why other methods were not used thus far as I am in what we can do now. And I’m very pleased that we, even the few of us who have, have started talking about this here.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
#22, a different issue..
as far as I recall, prostitution was legal in certain government licensed approved locations in Bangladesh. I recall a lively debate in parliamnet in late 70s or eraly 80s on this issue. Don’t know whether any new law came up during later years.
July 10th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Asif #22, Jyoti “ So if lawmakers in Bangladesh today say that gay marriage and prostitution is legal through parliamentary ‘debates’, then it will be an acceptible social norm in Bangladesh?!! “
————————–
Absolutely.
1) because it will be legalized
2) because there will be no punishment for it.
Now, why would they make such a law?? For the same reasons that you described –maybe social demand, national priority, security, lobbying or whatever their ‘debate’ included. Civil rights movement was a rare exception. How many laws are created like civil rights movement? Very few. Majority 99.9% of laws are made by legal system to protect public from crime and abuse etc. even before there is any public demand for it. Servant abuse is one of those majority cases. On this issue, the laws are already there. The demand for creating this law has aready been met by the legal system.
But my focus here is - why then is there “acceptable social norm” towards it?
Answer: because there is no punishment & prosecution for servant abuse.
By not prosecuting defaulters, the legal system sends a MESSAGE to society that domestic worker abuse are acceptable. Then, having found no resolution the crime propagates and establishes itself in society. First comes lack of punishment/prosecution – then comes the “social acceptable norm”. Not the other way round.
When punishment happens, it no longer becomes a “acceptable social norm”. So, if we want to reduce domestic worker abuse, what we (and HR activists) MUST do now is to create the DEMAND FOR PUNISHMENT and prosecution, for the law which already exists.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:42 am
You are confused here or I am by your circular logic.
But i am not going to engage as Jyoti said there are fundamental differences on our views. You think there should always be ‘a few good men’ who will know what’s best for the country and the rest of us will follow. We give importance to the system that will give rise to a representatives who are connected with thre real people addressing real issues based on their pressing demand. We don’t believe in messiahs. We have faith in the people. Based on that view point we believe public demand on any issues will set the lawmakers to get rolling making laws of the land as long as they are fair and equal and ensures social justice.
We also believe in a developing demorcracy like Bangladesh, law and order enforcement will come out of fixing the judicial system which is a long and overdue process. Until the day we get to that stage, the pressure needs to be strong and sustained. Simply making laws is not enough. There is a need to build up a huge social change in attitude on most fundamental issues like torture and treatment of our labourers etc.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
#20
“Was it Eleanor Roosevelt who had said ” Be the change you want to see” ?”
It was Mahatma Gandhi.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
and we use the quote in our music video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa0a7LsCnkQ
July 11th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
When laws exist, the key to upholding the law is Prosecution. Otherwise no point in having laws, or even a justice system.
Yet in the context of Bangladesh, where there is so much social injustice and crime, why am I the only one talking about Punishment and Prosecution ?
Thats all I have.