How far Bangladesh progressed in eliminating discrimination

Discrimination means showing bias or prejudice towards someone based on race, religion, caste, gender, or age. It does not necessarily have to be linked with good or evil. 

Even within the words and actions of the interim government’s law adviser, there exists a kind of contradictory discrimination—noticeable in the contrast between what he said before and after assuming office. He himself has admitted to his contradictory remarks regarding the 2.6 million Indians working in Bangladesh. There are countless inconsistencies in his statements. Before assuming power, he had clearly stated that the top leaders of the BNP were involved in the grenade attack on Sheikh Hasina’s rally on 21 August and that they tried to cover up the crime in the most heinous manner. Now, who dares to ask what his opinion is on the matter?

When asked about the indiscriminate filing of murder cases against Awami League leaders and activists, the law adviser’s straightforward reply was that if anyone files a case against a “dictatorial” government out of anger, the government cannot interfere, and the truth or falsity of the allegations will be determined only through legal process. That’s the law, he said. In 2018, several aggrieved freedom fighters filed a writ against the abolition of the quota system by the Awami League government. According to the law adviser’s own logic, those cases were not the responsibility of the government. Then why did Asif Nazrul, at that time, place the blame for the freedom fighters’ lawsuits squarely on the Awami League government? Why didn’t he then say that the freedom fighters had the constitutional right to sue, that the then Law Minister Anisul Huq had no authority to stop them, and that the matter should be settled only through legal process? The contradictions between “intellectual” Asif Nazrul and “law adviser” Asif Nazrul are thus numerous.

After the mass uprising, an attempt was made to eliminate the discriminatory rule that prohibited anyone above 30 from applying for government jobs. In developed countries, people can apply for jobs at any age—there is no such restriction as in ours. On the other hand, in our country, anyone over 59 is considered unfit for employment, and contractual appointments beyond 65 are also barred. This discriminatory law led Dr Muhammad Yunus, the current Chief Adviser of the interim government, to file a case against the Awami League government, which he eventually lost.

The Awami League government had amended the law to retain Fazle Kabir, the over-65 governor of Bangladesh Bank, considering his indispensability, but remained indifferent in Dr Yunus’s case. Perhaps that is why, after assuming power, Dr Yunus has recruited over 65 individuals. Discrimination also exists in retirement ages—university teachers and judges retire later than others. If their extended experience is deemed essential for their work, why are the experiences of school and college teachers or civil servants treated as less valuable?

The quota reform movement unexpectedly turned into an “anti-discrimination movement,” something even veteran jurist Z.I. Khan Panna did not notice. But such a name seems inaccurate. To elevate the status of sweepers, Mahatma Gandhi had named them Harijans—“people of God”—yet even with this affectionate label, he could not integrate them into mainstream society. B.R. Ambedkar, the drafter of the Indian Constitution, was not allowed to sit at the same table with his classmates at school because of his “untouchable” Dalit identity. When he was thirsty, a peon had to pour water into his mouth from above, as touching the vessel was considered a grave sin. Such discrimination still exists in India today.

In our own country, small ethnic groups, the so-called indigenous peoples, as well as women in general, still face social neglect and deprivation. Whatever progress they have made is largely due to the quota system. Quotas are needed to eliminate inequality — that is why the Awami League introduced them in independent Bangladesh. For the same reason, the interim government’s committee proposed raising the maximum age limit for government jobs to 35 for men and 37 for women. Although this discriminatory proposal was not finally accepted, it nonetheless indicated that gender discrimination persists in our society.

After Dr Yunus took power, it was said that the United States would restore Bangladesh’s GSP privileges — but that never happened. Interestingly, while Bangladesh needs a GSP quota to gain a little trade advantage in garment exports over India, China, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia, movements erupt at home to abolish quotas for disadvantaged minorities and women. Not only Bangladesh — all countries of the world give priority to the underprivileged and marginalised; without such affirmative measures, social inequality would have been far deeper and wider. The Chief Adviser has expressed his desire to unite all citizens into one family. But unless discrimination is eliminated, his dream of “one family” will wither at birth.

The gap between rich and poor continues to grow. Those who build homes from polythene sheets on pavements often have to sell their bodies to survive, while those whose bodies are not desirable rummage through dustbins for food. Under the oppression of the wealthy and powerful, even prostitution becomes impossible for many. Under Awami League leader Shamim Osman’s direction, sex workers were evicted from Narayanganj’s Tanbazar; leaders and activists of all political parties joined that eviction drive, yet no one offered those women even a single meal afterwards. During Dr Yunus’s interim government, people also witnessed similar scenes of those women being beaten with batons.

In recent days, relentless rain has drenched the city. When stray dogs sought shelter on our staircases, tenants drove them away with sticks. The brutal killing of Tofazzal, who was beaten to death at Dhaka University after being fed rice, shows how mentally sick this nation has become. Many among us are like Netanyahu when it comes to beating people to death — bloodthirsty. Just as Netanyahu must be condemned for his brutality, so too must Bangladesh’s murderers. Discrimination even exists among dogs — some people dislike black ones. The same goes for humans; people are deeply biased about skin colour. Even among those who led the anti-discrimination movement, many grooms still prefer fair-skinned brides.

In its higher form, socialism—communism—once offered a system to eradicate inequality, but Gorbachev and America destroyed it. Discrimination also exists in our Constitution, where declaring “Islam” as the state religion has institutionalised inequality. The interim government has no authority to change that. Clerics once raised their five unequal fingers to demonstrate the futility of egalitarianism. The JASAD party once demanded a 500-seat parliament based on occupation, but Mahmudur Rahman Manna discovered discrimination even within that and left JASAD, declaring near Baitul Mukarram mosque that such a system was impractical. He argued that even a permanent labourer cannot tolerate a temporary one, so if every divided group within each profession required separate representation, the parliament would need thousands of seats. This divided professional reality itself mirrors the true face of discrimination.

To eliminate these countless inequalities, the only solution would be for the interim government to press a “reset button” and erase the word discrimination from the dictionary — or else, to reintroduce the quota system to combat it.

Zeauddin Ahmed is a former Executive Director of Bangladesh Bank