& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

COLUMN MAMUN RASHID

Womenomics: The economic cost of discrimination against women
Last Saturday there was a dialogue on the economic impact of home violence. Incidentally the same economist who did her PhD research from the University of London on the economic impact of environmental degradation (popularly known as Green Accounting), led the study conducted by a popular advocacy and public policy dialogue organisation.
As usual, the study (although performed within a limited target market) revealed the ultimate cost of home violence, in the form of treatment for healing the wounds, consultancy costs for getting rid of the mental agonies, rehabilitation, separation expenses, etc. The governments' and political regime's help and assistances were also sought to reduce or eradicate the violence against women. Additionally, noted economist Professor Rehman Sobhan and the chief guest of the session, a female celebrity and a present government high-up, sought support from the media community to raise awareness against repression on women.
Usually these dialogues are meant for the civil society members, public representatives, social activists and relevant quarters and we get to know about these through print and electronic media (no wonder, why lately we get to see many of our economists putting more emphasis on media relations than the empirical research itself!) reports.
However, I had to toil to find out who did conduct the study in this respect, who presented the paper and what the paper or study really meant. I am convinced the other readers were also left feeling the same way. I am sure the donor agency, who supported the survey or study and the people who conducted the survey or put in some kind of statistical analysis did not only 'beg' for sympathy from the media people or political regime to be more 'caring' or 'softy' to women.
The underlying or broader issue around this is - the economic cost of discrimination against women or womenomics. With my limited knowledge in economics, I know for certain, poverty is the main culprit' for violence or repression against women and we have seen in many countries, many communities how reduction or eradication of poverty has contributed towards women empowerment and consequently helped reduction in violence against women. Added to this are of course moral values imparted by social and community organisations or the family itself, coupled with a standard of education.
However, what is even more disheartening is when we find this tendency to draw disparity in the most literate of people. We then begin questioning our basic human rights and the foundation of our learning. Another compelling but not much talked about topic is that of 'mistrust' between couples. Some studies done in the developed world reveals 'mistrust' between husband and wife, extra marital affairs and physical vulnerability of the women induce home violence or repression against women. Nothing newthough.
What has really annoyed me is- most of the newspapers or electronic channels did not mention the people who conducted the study, few of them though mentioned, did not carry any quote from them or picture of them or did not interview them. But had it involved a male personality (of course assuming same level of intellect or perhaps not even a mere competition), would the forum be publicised differently? Perhaps what we would have then seen is the airtime dedicated to showcasing the male individuals.
The present regime is being often said to be a civil society driven and one of the very 'influential' party of this regime- Mr. Mirza Aziz did mention to include more lady entrepreneurs, accountants or
economists into the decision making process of the state owned enterprises. Very well-intentioned. See, what happened till now? His ministry is finding it very tough to find suitable ladies while they do not mind giving those jobs to the same aged or even younger or less qualified male counterparts.
We keep on boasting about having two lady prime ministers in a predominantly Muslim country, but what happened to our qualified or working ladies? Were they integrated with the development process of the country? Could the present regime do much about effecting the women development policy? We are still listening to Professor Rehman Sobhan or Sultana Kamal's appeal to be more sympathetic to the women folks. Sympathy did not bring in anything in the past (though love and care contributed significantly towards building up mutual respect), nor stringent law could ensure reduction in home violence, it is the economic emancipation of the women, communities, societies, which can ensure eradication of the violence against women or home violence.
Most of the successful organisations in the world are diversity driven - encouraging more ladies to climb up the ladders, allowing them to create differences day in and day out-because they know diversity has brought them competitive advantages and progress for themselves. Increasing competitiveness also means investing in the women folks, mainstreaming them, giving them their dues. Not seminar or symposium to 'beg' sympathy. Professor Yunus and his colleagues have proven this to rest of the world, if not Bangladesh and the time has come for us all to rise above the upheavals and emulate the role models. It's a full blown journey, not a half hearted or half cooked one.
The writer is a banker and an economic analyst.