How inclusive are we?

If a vegan is invited to a barbecue party, meat lovers are likely to keep a veg corner for the vegan. On the other hand, will a meat lover be invited to a vegan party and have an opportunity to eat meat? It's less likely; the vegans will not include a carnivore's requirements at the party at all.

So, are vegans more radical than carnivores or omnivores? Well, you could say so. If that is not exclusion, what is? Should not our tendency to overlook the needs and preferences of those who do not fit the majority or dominant group change?

Similarly, if we look at the infrastructure of Bangladesh, our physically disabled people absolutely do not have a chance to move around. Our streets and pavements are insanely restless and intolerably unfriendly to people with disabilities. 

Our houses, skyscraping workplaces, and shopping malls are designed and built from a majoritarian point of view. My family's residence is not accessible to a person moving in a wheelchair. We can only allow a person with a pair of crutches.

If that is our reality, have we, as a nation, failed to include a significant number of humans in the society we term civilised and smart?

I certainly think so. If that is not exclusion, what is?

That brings us to the question of the mental health conditions of a large section of our countrymates. How do we include people with psychological challenges in our families and society? We actually do not include them. If we did, we would have had a plan. Since we do not have a plan, it is easy to conclude that we do not care for persons with psychosocial struggles.

Persons with special needs must have separate schools and lifestyles. We understand that they cannot be included in regular schools, but why do only the parents of children with special needs have to initiate such schools? Where is the rest of society's smartness? Why don't we have an ample number of schools for these children?

Bangladesh is trying a lot to do on the financial inclusion frontier. However, we are yet to understand the meaning of such inclusion. It is still at the level of creating access to finance for people with no or limited financial access. It means something like this: 'We have the money; you must have the knowledge and the ability to utilise it'.

Can this model really include the entire population? It does not look so, at least for the have-nots. Should we consider a more innovative way to financially include them so they do not remain have-nots? While our financial inclusion efforts are commendable, they must address the root causes of economic disparity.

Our have-nots have poor health conditions. They do not have the money or health insurance to receive quality treatments for a serious illness. The classification of healthcare establishments does not speak of fair inclusion of the poor as they seek treatment. A mind-boggling number of people always remain excluded from our existing healthcare facilities.

We can do better than this.

Our inclusion journey is marked by significant challenges and paradoxes. As a society, our actions and inactions towards inclusion reflect a more profound need to reevaluate our understanding of what it means to be genuinely inclusive. 

This requires moving beyond tokenism or superficial measures to embrace comprehensive, empathetic, and innovative strategies that ensure no one is left behind. Only then can we aspire to build a genuinely smart and inclusive society.

Ekram Kabir is a storyteller and a communications professional.

Ekram Kabir is a storyteller and a communications professional. He is just an email away: ekabir@gmail.com.

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.