The field of international migration (from Bangladesh) is becoming increasingly complex. A most culpable reason behind the sufferings, and eventually a status of rightslessness, of Bangladeshi migrant workers working abroad is high recruitment costs, often unlawfully charged by the private recruiters. Another factor that pushes their plights to a level of sheer inhumaneness, is the condition of no or very minimum law enforcement in the countries of employment.

I often wonder whether the foreign employers of the Bangladeshi migrant workers or their local agents – the recruiting agents – could be compelled to bear the transportation cost to and from the country of employment. While this is possible and some companies in effect do bear the workers’ transportation cost, at least the cost of traveling from and to the airports, you never know what evil consequences this burden-shifting might invite. Maybe, this will culminate in the further subservience of them, kind of a position that one may equate to slavery, or the hidden charges demanded by the recruiting agents will increase further.

Let me explain why, despite modern laws, many Bangladeshi migrant workers (whom we call short term contract worker; thanks to all actors concerned that the words labour/labourer are losing usage) continue to suffer and languish in slavish conditions of life overseas.

Even after the abolition of slavery in British India, free Indians employed in many parts of other British colonies, with the status of “indentured labourer” indeed were being treated as slaves. The very term “indentured” gives an indication of commoditization of human lives. An author (G. Findlay Shirras) writes: “In February, 1910, in the Indian Legislative Council, the late G. K. Gokhale of the Servants of India Society moved the following resolution: “That this Council recommends that the Governor-General in Council should be empowered to prohibit the recruitment of indentured labour in India for the Colony of Natal.”

The recruitment of indentured labour from India was banned in the Defence of India Act 1915 and later in the Emigration Act 1922, which allowed migration of unskilled workers only to Sri Lanka and Malaya. To see that the filth of the indenture system spilled over to the modern times, let us look into what this system actually implies.  The just-mentioned author wrote in 1930:

Under the system of indenture the laborer was bound to the master since, in consideration of the cost of his passage and a wage, he undertook to engage himself for a fixed period, which varied from one month to five years, according to the colony. On the expiration of this period the laborer could renew his contract; or settle in the country and work as he pleased; or, after 1857 (except in Mauritius), return to his home at the expense of the colony which had imported him. The employer tried, in short, to secure a sufficient supply of labor at a minimum cost for a maximum period. Laissez-faire up to 1908, discouraged the fixing of the minimum wage or, as in Fiji and elsewhere, of the ratio of the sexes among emigrants, the absence of a proper ratio leading, of course, to crime and immorality.

The above shows how, through the system of paying for the transportation of the worker, the employer could establish a strong grip of dominance and ‘ownership‘ over the worker he employed.

Has this indentured labour system (which is indeed the system of bonded labour) become extinct? In some Middle-East countries and also in a few Asian countries in which Bangladeshi migrants are working, the workers cannot change the employer even for the most reasonable or/humane reasons. This is called the kafala system (sponsorship), and, in most cases, the contract period is for longer than a year.  These countries are virtually beyond any international check and they have not been parties to the International Convention on the Rights of the Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families 1990. The only weapon that seems to be left at the hand of the Government of Bangladesh to protect its nationals overseas seems to be ‘persuasion‘ and, of course, an aggressive policy of labour diplomacy (can diplomacy be aggressive at any rate?).

At the end of this side, some of the recruiting agents that recruit Bangladeshi workers for overseas jobs are also the agents of this abusive system. The old, colonial time Act of 1922, which at that time liberalised the system of indentured labour, was in force in Bangladesh until 1982 when the Emigration Ordinance 1982 was enacted, with the objectives of regulating the recruiting agents and protecting the migrant workers to the extent possible. To make the legal regime even more performing and protective, the new migration law of 2013, the Overseas Employment and Migrants Act 2013 has been legislated. It now remains to be seen whether, or to what extent this legislation would succeed in removing those colonial-era civic and social evils that penetrated into, and took a deep root in, the international labour migration governance in Bangladesh.

Let there be light and let freedom prevail in the rather dark world of Bangladesh’s migrant workers.

 

Citations:

Ridwanul Hoque, “On the Limits of Law: The Plight of Bangladesh’s Migrant Workers Overseas” (DHLR Blog, 27 October 2014) http://www.dhakalawreview.org/blog/2014/10/plight-of-bangladeshs-migrant-workers-overseas-454

Contributor
People reacted to this story.
Show comments Hide comments
Comments to: On the Limits of Law: The Plight of Bangladesh’s Migrant Workers Overseas
  • March 20, 2016

    To be honest any legal measures taken by the government would just be curtailed or subverted by the Gulf authorities. Simply put — it’s an issue of economics. Dirt cheap Bangladeshi labour is why they come to this region in the first place. None of these situations for Bangladeshi workers will change until we have a better economic situation for workers at home. They will have alternative employment, and what opportunities WILL exist in the Gulf will move up the value chain i.e. more skilled professionals. This would increase remittances [from increased remuneration] and ensure that working conditions for those in the Gulf improved. There is a very sharp distinction in the Gulf between skilled expatriates, and those who are given construction/menial tasks. Ultimately, like so many things, the situation will not improve until WE improve it for ourselves.

    Reply

Write a response

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *