Women’s Affairs Reform: A step towards ending gender discrimination but implementation a tall order

In its report submitted to Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus on Saturday, the Women's Affairs Reform Commission included 433 recommendations.  

The report, titled 'Identifying Steps to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women', spans legal, social and institutional reforms. Key recommendations include creating an optional uniform family law, criminalising marital rape, banning misogynistic rhetoric, reserving 300 parliament seats for women, ensuring 33% women's participation in political party committees, and ratifying Articles 189 and 190 of the International Labour Organization (ILO). 

The proposals also challenge long-standing taboos, advocating for decriminalised sex work, paid parental leave and workplace childcare.

At its core, the report presents a radical yet pragmatic vision: equality cannot be incremental. By linking women's economic autonomy with political empowerment and legal protections, the commission reframes gender justice as the foundation of national progress. 

However, some recommendations may be harder to implement than others, and the debate surrounding the recommendations are likely to dominate our public discourse in the coming days. 

The question of a uniform family law 

According to a 2014 study presented by UPL and Wave Foundation, 70% of Bangladeshi women do not own any property. Even among those who inherit land, customary practices, dowry exchange, male-centric guardianship, and pressure from brothers or in-laws often deprive them of actual control over their shares. Only 29% gain access to assets through inheritance​. 

In Muslim personal law, daughters inherit half the share of sons; in Hindu law, daughters' inheritance rights are even more restricted or nearly non-existent.

This systematic marginalisation not only reinforces economic dependency but also undermines women's bargaining power within the household and community. Without land ownership, women have less access to credit, agricultural inputs, and legal recognition as farmers or entrepreneurs.

For this, the commission's recommendation is a good start. 

In addition to advocating for a uniform family law to guarantee equal rights for women across all religions in matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and maintenance, the Women's Affairs Reform Commission has proposed that the law initially be implemented as an optional measure for all communities. 

While political parties have often hesitated to pursue such bold reforms due to vested interests, the current interim government faces no such political constraints. This unique position allows it to take decisive action and implement the commission's recommendations without delay.

Notably, the commission recommends making the law optional in its initial phase to mitigate resistance, particularly from conservative religious quarters​. 

Yet, this caution — while pragmatic — raises a key question: Can equality be meaningfully achieved through optional justice? 

If patriarchal customs embedded in personal laws are the problem, then offering a liberal civil code as an "option" risks reproducing inequality for those women who are unable, due to community pressure, to opt out of discriminatory frameworks. This approach also inadvertently legitimises the idea that equality before the law is negotiable, context-dependent, and relative to belief systems.

In this light, the optional nature of the proposed law could be read not as a cop-out but as a transitional mechanism — an invitation for communities to embrace reform voluntarily.

"There has been a mass uprising to eliminate discrimination. We need to eliminate discrimination among various communities as well. Our family laws are different for different communities and in the majority of cases, women are discriminated against. So, if we want to ensure fairness to the women, we should give the recommendations a thought also."

Sara Hossain, executive director, Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust and member, Women's Affairs Reform Commission

On the one hand, there is a universalist framework that sees women's rights as inalienable and indivisible. On the other hand, there is the argument that human rights must be contextualised within cultural and religious frameworks. Bangladesh's dilemma is not unique. 

India, too, continues to grapple with personal law reform, despite decades of activism. Tunisia and Morocco have reformed Muslim family laws through reinterpretation of Islamic principles. These examples show that reform need not be anti-religious, as some quarters may argue. 

Barrister Sara Hossain, executive director of the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) said, "In many Muslim-majority countries, personal/ family laws have been reformed over time, given social changes" 

The resistance to family law reform in Bangladesh is less about theology and more about power. Religious personal laws, particularly in Muslim and Hindu contexts, serve as instruments through which male guardianship and patriarchy are maintained.

"The July Uprising's main slogan was eliminating discrimination," she added, " we need to eliminate discrimination between different communities, and between men and women. Under our existing laws, rights within the family may be different for different communities, and in the majority of the cases, women face discrimination as against men, and also with respect to women from different communities. To ensure justice and equality for women, these recommendations need to be taken into consideration." 

Rezaur Rahman Lenin, a human rights activist and academic, said, "We, the moderate secular rights organisations, need to assess whether our legal system can handle this issue. We have long demanded an optional system. However, the problem lies in the political discussions surrounding the topic. It needs to be addressed comprehensively. Both sides continually argue their points in separate forums but should come together to find a solution. 

"How would we harmonise the separate systems? Can we finance it? Also, there is not much written discussion about these topics. We need more open dialogues," he added. 

Marital rape: The law is silent 

Under Section 375 of the Penal Code, rape is criminalised only when the victim is not the wife of the perpetrator — or when the wife is under 13. This archaic clause, a colonial legacy, effectively legalises non-consensual sex within marriage, reducing a wife's bodily autonomy to a conjugal duty.

This legal void ignores alarming statistics. 

The Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics found in 2011 that 87% of married women had faced some form of domestic abuse from their husbands, with a significant portion experiencing forced sex. Yet, survivors of marital rape are left without legal recourse, often trapped in abusive marriages due to economic dependence and social stigma.

Philosophically, this exemption rests on the outdated belief that marriage entails perpetual consent. It contradicts the fundamental principles of bodily integrity, human dignity and the idea that consent must be ongoing and revocable. 

More than 100 countries worldwide have criminalised marital rape. Recognising marital rape not only affirms a woman's right to say no but also confronts the institution of marriage as a potential site of violence. It challenges the conservative notion that regulating spousal relations amounts to meddling in 'private' affairs. Laws that shield private violence under the veil of tradition undermine the very foundations of democratic citizenship.

Additionally, the reform commission's report advocates for banning misogynistic language and imagery in public communications and launching social awareness programmes to promote respectful and dignified attitudes toward women. These steps aim to dismantle systemic discrimination and foster a more inclusive society.

Reserving 300 seats for women in parliament

The commission recommends reserving one of two seats in each of the 300 parliamentary constituencies exclusively for women, with both seats filled through direct elections. 

For the proposed upper house, it suggests a zipper system — requiring parties to nominate male and female candidates alternately — to ensure 50% female representation. Additionally, half the upper house seats should be allocated to diverse social groups, with at least five reserved for women's organisations.

Barrister Sara Hossain said, "We need reserved female seats in parliament to move towards equality in public participation. But we need more clarity on whether the number should be as high as 300." 

The report also advocates for a "no" vote option in elections and stricter enforcement of the Representation of the People Order (RPO), mandating 33% women in all party committees. To prevent entrenched leadership, it proposes limiting individuals to two terms in any party position. Now, it can be argued that such a quota system may hinder meritocracy. 

Barrister Sara Hossain said, "Many political parties have pledged to end discrimination. How would they do that in their parties unless they promote equal participation for women members?"

Rezaur Rahman Lenin said, "It is the first time since 5 August that we have heard about 600 parliamentary seats. They want to stimulate discussion about this, but positive discrimination should not allocate 50% of the seats. Otherwise, it will lead to a new form of discrimination."