'Not all men?': Our silence will be our complicity

Has anyone told the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their chastity?

The male gaze, or rather their ogling: We have all seen it, even felt it on the back of our necks, even when it isn't directed towards us.

Whether on a stroll or just out and about with our partner, our niece, our sister, our mother or even our friend – the gaze follows, lecherous, judging, plotting and disturbing.

The gaze can also turn even nefarious within a moment's notice: a push, a shove, a brush or even a comment.

Your female companions can be wearing t-shirts or jeans, a salwar kameez with an orna or even a burqa – it wouldn't matter. Some will twist and turn their necks to find the right angle to take offence – only if caught in the act, of course.

Oftentimes, such interactions end before you can react, leaving behind a scar you relive throughout the day and often for days on end.

It can anger and it can humiliate. You play it back in your head, reimagining the thousand ways you could've dealt with it, but didn't.

If you react, all you can expect in return is more anger, humiliation, perhaps even a mob of men offended at a) either a woman daring to stand her ground or b) a man daring to protect an "indecent" woman. 

Or the worse option among the lot c) absolute denial of anything happened. "Let it go, he's mistaken," the crowd would chime.

Now we can say not all men, but even men know of this. And this is just a very brief thing for us. We can move on, be more aggressive the next time, or learn to turn a blind-eye: expect the oppression because it's the easier way out.

But imagine if all that was directed towards us, on a daily basis, at work, at home, outdoors, even on the internet. How easy would it be to turn a blind eye towards that oppression?

This feeling must now be back in full force, given the vitriol directed towards the Women's Affairs Reform Commission.

And this hate emerges from the usual suspects – certain groups who parrot a religious book, picking the parts most convenient for them -- along with some of those newly-minted, attempting to curry favour.   

While yesterday, the Hefazat-e-Islam was busy disparaging the commission and its recommendations, what was missing in the conversation was, this trifle of a thing – the male gaze, among many other important points.

During the discussion, Maulana Hazrat Anas, a nayeb-e-ameer of Hefazat, said, "The people who have prepared the report for women's reforms are mentally sick."

Maulana Abdul Awal, another nayeb-e-ameer of Hefazat, said, "We want to make our demand clear – the report published in the name of women's reform has to be thrown into the dustbin with its proponents."

What, perhaps, fits the dustbin better is a mentality befitting only a relic.

And what is sick is perhaps the hypocrisy which is ever so glaring. 

'Hypocrites encourage what is evil, forbid what is good'

On 3 November, 2018, Hefazat-e-Islam – fresh from its victory of securing recognition of the Dawra Degree degree of Qarmi madrasa as equivalent to a master's degree – geared for a massive celebration in Dhaka.

In front of a packed audience, Hefazat-e-Islam Ameer Shah Ahmad Shafi, leading a combine of Qawmi education boards, bestowed deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina with a new title: Mother of Qawmi.

It was a far cry from 2013, when the Hasina regime cracked down on Hefazat-e–Islam in what would come to be known as the Shapla Chattar protests. It is an event that the International Crimes Tribunal is still investigating, with Hasina, the so-called Mother of Qawmi, one of the main accused.

Yesterday, Hefazat once again packed Dhaka with its many followers.

This time, it wasn't to praise anyone, but rather to turn their ire towards a new enemy: the women's affairs reform commission.

One of the more popular attacking points was that related to the commission's recommendation of recognition of sex work: The report proposes recognising sex work as a legal profession.

For Hefazat, this is unacceptable.

While the party recognises the existence of sex work, they, however, take issue with legalising it.

The Constitution of Bangladesh discourages sex work, but Hefazat believes this is an Islamic country, which it isn't.

Another affront for them is the issue of equality – for Hefazat men and women can never be equal. Again, this is down to a careful selection of the Quran.

Equality, for the party, is another "Western" concept, giving the West another weapon for their arsenal when they preach "civilisation".

The revision of the inheritance law is perhaps where their biggest issue lies: They want the bigger portion of the property, for some divinely ordained right they claim.

The "My Body, My Choice" argument? Hefazat seems to believe they are also the proprietors of women's bodies.

But notice a pattern here? Not a single of their message is dictated towards the conduct of a man – and it was only men who joined their glorious rally, a call to restore patriarchy to its heights rather than one to ensure the following of any religion.

To isolate Hefazat, however, would also not be fair.

What about the National Citizen's Party?

NCP leader Hasnat Abdullah's attendance of the event could be seen as a tacit approval of Hefazat's demand.

In order to clarify his stance, he also gave an interview after the event.

He said that Hefazat had expressed concerns about the reforms, and he had asked for a discussion on them.

"We have cultural values, religious values…there is fear among people, it is of all religions... These issues should not be compromised, that's what I said."

He, however, said he never mentioned dropping the reform commission altogether.

When the women took to the streets during the July movement, often leading from the front, did it interfere with our cultural values? And if people from all religions are so concerned, why has the NCP not attempted to give a platform to their voices?

Maybe, this is also just posturing, empty gestures and words?

Meanwhile, this need to stick to a manufactured culture should raise more questions about what the Bangladeshi culture really is.

Then there is Jamaat-e-Islam, which also has similar objections to that of Hefazat.

The party has stuck to its guns on its position regarding marital rape: it doesn't exist and the women's commission is wrong to push for it.

"Rape is rape. It is between immoral men and women engaging in extramarital relations. That is called rape," Jamaat chief Shafiqur Rahman said a few days ago.

All these men talking about women's issues, demanding that women be silenced if they talk about their own issues.

So where does it end?

'Respond with peace'

The hanger-ons in yesterday's rally were approached by the media and asked which recommendations of the commission they had a problem with.

Many regurgitated information they did not understand. Some only chose the talking points: sex work bad, equality bad, etc.

What this demonstrated was that aside from the top leaders – if even that – most had little idea what they were congregating for.

To their credit, they knew it was an issue that mattered. But perhaps a little homework would have gone a long way.

While it is hard to change people's ways, it is easier to take a stand.

In this regard, we, as men, have a lot of work to do on ourselves.

Do we really believe in equality or is that a talking point for us when it is convenient?

Do we think something as simple as housework should be shared, or is that something we only say?

A lot more similar questions need to be asked.

This isn't for the sake of hijacking the conversation. But these issues – radical Islam in particular – is not concerning only for women, but for us as well.

This necessitates a thorough examination of where we could play a more proactive role.

Similarly, we must also lend our own vocal support to the women's reform commission or let our objections be known in a constructive manner.

These political parties do not speak for us. They do and never had the people's mandate.

Let their discussions be kept where they belong. This isn't about religion. 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.