Tahsiba Hritam

As the election approaches, it appears that not only the fate of the country is going to be changed, but also that of the women. In recent times, Jamaat-e-Islami party’s Ameer Shafiqur Rahman, while speaking at the Coalition of Bangladeshi American Association, has stated that if they come to power, the working hours will be reduced to 5 hours. Ameer emphasised reducing the hours, especially for working mothers. As soon as the statement reached the people, a debate started. While some appreciated it, others opposed.

Bangladesh does not have any specific policy based on gender; the working hours for both male and female employees are determined to be 8 hours a day and 48 hours a week. The only special facility received in this field is that women have the scope to take maternity leave for 6 months, which may be extended in exceptional cases.

The payment is determined by the effort an individual puts into their assigned task within an organisation and the designation for which they are hired. In a country where we speak about equality in terms of opinion and opportunities, a question comes up naturally: why would an organisation pay the same amount to a female if her working hours and work output are being drastically reduced? Will not it affect both the personal and the overall economy of the country?

As a working woman myself, what concerns me is why my working hours are being made a toy of politics. From my own personal view, if I am choosing to work in a corporate field, I am well aware of the requirements and responsibilities. Likewise, I am also aware of the working hours and how much time would be required for me to complete the assigned task. Additionally, I find no reason for an organisation to pay me more or even an equal amount of salary that a male employee gets if I am unable to carry out the assigned tasks? I will find myself lagging in terms of career progress, as well as losing my enthusiasm for my work.

While the proposal sounds considerate, the word “mother” was rather used as an emotional tool so that it sounds more gender friendly. Not all women work to support their families or themselves; many women work to hold their own identity, and they work because they enjoy working and the freedom that comes with it. And if the policy is specifically in favour of mothers, how long will this be in practice? If mothers are the only concern, then incorporating day-care facilities must also be ensured in larger organisations. Ultimately, the generalisation creates a rather chaotic fear of women’s freedom being snatched away. Thus, the questions stand there still: is this just another strategy of keeping women suppressed by limiting their professional engagement? Or, are these the words that are just emotionally weaponised, designed to elicit sympathy rather than providing genuine support?
___________________________________
The writer is a journalist at Daily Sun