Nusrat Tayba Mim :
In the juncture of language justice, we are witnessing an evolution of language use. This evolution is evident not only in English but in many languages around the world as well. Recently Utah (a state of the United States) appeared on their ballot to replace gender languages from their Constitution to make it a gender-neutral one with the aims to uphold Gender Equality. What about our Constitution? Whereas our Constitution has Gender Neutral and Gender Biased terms at the same time, a question arises: does our Constitution need a Constitutional language amendment like Utah? If yes then why? Let’s assess.
The Constitution of The People’s Republic of Bangladesh recognizes the need to decrease gender discrimination, inequality between men and women, promote women’s participation in every sector of national life [article 10 of the constitution] which has conferred favourably and gender-friendly governance institutions for all Bangladeshi in general and women in particular. Provisions of Bangladesh Constitution such as articles 19 (3), 28(1), 28(2), 28 (3), 29(1), 29(2), etc cover all aspects of equal rights of women with men in state and public life, equal opportunity for all citizens irrespective of men and women.
Generally, the Constitution of Bangladesh is engendered because it explicitly prescribes the incorporation of reserved seats for women in parliament [clause 3 of article 65 of the constitution] to integrate women’s rights as in the other countries like South Africa, Argentina, Uganda, etc. Bangladesh’s Constitution is engendered and has the potential for differential impacts on both women and men due to the incorporation of gender-neutral language and masculine gender-biased language at the same time. Gender-neutral language or a language like ‘persons’ and ‘citizen’ [i.e., clause 1&2 of article 21 of the Constitution], seeks to avoid distinguishing roles of male and female also to avoid discrimination, however, these words are not gender-sensitive in respect of providing equal rights and opportunity in the public sector [i.e., articles 19(1), 19(2), 15, 29(1), etc of the constitution]
However, gender-neutral language is a common term used to describe the use of non-sexist, inclusive, or gender-fair language. The purpose of using gender-neutral language is to prevent choices of terms that can be viewed as biased, sexist, or demeaning by suggesting that the default is one’s sex or social gender. It also helps minimize gender stereotyping, facilitates social change, and leads to the achievement of gender equality in society.
In the context of equal rights and opportunity of women, the simultaneous use of the gender-neutral term and gender-biased term in the constitution is one of the major shortcomings as the content of gender-neutral language tends to privilege men and discriminates against women because the inadvertent use of gender-neutral language in our Constitution like the word ‘person’ coupled with the masculine gender-biased term ‘he’ actually reinforces its gender favouritism towards a specific gender and encumbering the purpose of using such gender-neutral language which is creating a possibility for women to be deprived of the rights provided by the constitution itself. Thus gender-neutral languages are not serving its purposes and do not promote gender equality in every possible aspect.
Besides, in our Constitution, there are uses of ‘him’ 27 times, ‘his’ 18 times, ‘man’ 4 times but opposed to ‘her’ for not a single time, and ‘woman’ 8 times though. The use of masculine gendered language like ‘he’, ‘him’, ‘man’ in the constitution, implicitly negates the literal existence of women and does not promote gender equality in society.
According to article-48(2), The Constitution stipulates that men and women have equal opportunities to run for the President’s office. However, the inadvertent use of ‘he’ in this article, glaring the instances of masculine or gender-biased language and article-57 (Prime Minister’s resignation from vacation) has the same. Our Lawmakers have not considered these issues yet as it is done by the South African Legislature in their Constitution which has already been revised from gender perspectives whereby instead of ‘he’ ceases to be qualified was used.
To make the socio-economic sector an exploitation-free community, the constitution framers had emotions to guarantee equality. But because of their patriarchal mindset, they were not gender-sensitive and that is why in ‘eliminating socioeconomic inequality’ and ‘freedom from exploitation’, our constitution has masculine languages ‘men and men’ (Article 19.2) and ‘man by man’ (article 10) respectively.
Linguistically, General Clauses Act, 1847 clarify this as “words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females” [section 13(1)] which can be stated as, ‘HE includes SHE’ however if a gender-specific term such as, ‘men’ use explicitly and ‘women’ use implicitly, that not decrease gender favouritism rather creates possibilities to increase this. Hence, to confirm equal opportunity, rights, necessities of life, words like “men and women” need to be incorporated in the Constitution instead of only ‘he’, ‘men’ etc or all existing gender languages need to be amended as gender-neutral language.
Thus, the legally skewed masculine gender languages are expressly opposed to women’s rights and privileges. Moreover, the inadvertent use of gender-neutral language with masculine gender-biased language is not serving its aim rather explicitly creating a bar for promoting women’s rights and privileges in our society. In reality, there are still instances of inequality between men and women and the abuse of women by men. Hence, for promoting gender equality in our society, we need to enhance the languages of the Supreme Law so that gender equality can flourish its purposes and help to ensure an exploitation free society for everyone.
In the juncture of language justice, we are witnessing an evolution of language use. This evolution is evident not only in English but in many languages around the world as well. Recently Utah (a state of the United States) appeared on their ballot to replace gender languages from their Constitution to make it a gender-neutral one with the aims to uphold Gender Equality. What about our Constitution? Whereas our Constitution has Gender Neutral and Gender Biased terms at the same time, a question arises: does our Constitution need a Constitutional language amendment like Utah? If yes then why? Let’s assess.
The Constitution of The People’s Republic of Bangladesh recognizes the need to decrease gender discrimination, inequality between men and women, promote women’s participation in every sector of national life [article 10 of the constitution] which has conferred favourably and gender-friendly governance institutions for all Bangladeshi in general and women in particular. Provisions of Bangladesh Constitution such as articles 19 (3), 28(1), 28(2), 28 (3), 29(1), 29(2), etc cover all aspects of equal rights of women with men in state and public life, equal opportunity for all citizens irrespective of men and women.
Generally, the Constitution of Bangladesh is engendered because it explicitly prescribes the incorporation of reserved seats for women in parliament [clause 3 of article 65 of the constitution] to integrate women’s rights as in the other countries like South Africa, Argentina, Uganda, etc. Bangladesh’s Constitution is engendered and has the potential for differential impacts on both women and men due to the incorporation of gender-neutral language and masculine gender-biased language at the same time. Gender-neutral language or a language like ‘persons’ and ‘citizen’ [i.e., clause 1&2 of article 21 of the Constitution], seeks to avoid distinguishing roles of male and female also to avoid discrimination, however, these words are not gender-sensitive in respect of providing equal rights and opportunity in the public sector [i.e., articles 19(1), 19(2), 15, 29(1), etc of the constitution]
However, gender-neutral language is a common term used to describe the use of non-sexist, inclusive, or gender-fair language. The purpose of using gender-neutral language is to prevent choices of terms that can be viewed as biased, sexist, or demeaning by suggesting that the default is one’s sex or social gender. It also helps minimize gender stereotyping, facilitates social change, and leads to the achievement of gender equality in society.
In the context of equal rights and opportunity of women, the simultaneous use of the gender-neutral term and gender-biased term in the constitution is one of the major shortcomings as the content of gender-neutral language tends to privilege men and discriminates against women because the inadvertent use of gender-neutral language in our Constitution like the word ‘person’ coupled with the masculine gender-biased term ‘he’ actually reinforces its gender favouritism towards a specific gender and encumbering the purpose of using such gender-neutral language which is creating a possibility for women to be deprived of the rights provided by the constitution itself. Thus gender-neutral languages are not serving its purposes and do not promote gender equality in every possible aspect.
Besides, in our Constitution, there are uses of ‘him’ 27 times, ‘his’ 18 times, ‘man’ 4 times but opposed to ‘her’ for not a single time, and ‘woman’ 8 times though. The use of masculine gendered language like ‘he’, ‘him’, ‘man’ in the constitution, implicitly negates the literal existence of women and does not promote gender equality in society.
According to article-48(2), The Constitution stipulates that men and women have equal opportunities to run for the President’s office. However, the inadvertent use of ‘he’ in this article, glaring the instances of masculine or gender-biased language and article-57 (Prime Minister’s resignation from vacation) has the same. Our Lawmakers have not considered these issues yet as it is done by the South African Legislature in their Constitution which has already been revised from gender perspectives whereby instead of ‘he’ ceases to be qualified was used.
To make the socio-economic sector an exploitation-free community, the constitution framers had emotions to guarantee equality. But because of their patriarchal mindset, they were not gender-sensitive and that is why in ‘eliminating socioeconomic inequality’ and ‘freedom from exploitation’, our constitution has masculine languages ‘men and men’ (Article 19.2) and ‘man by man’ (article 10) respectively.
Linguistically, General Clauses Act, 1847 clarify this as “words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females” [section 13(1)] which can be stated as, ‘HE includes SHE’ however if a gender-specific term such as, ‘men’ use explicitly and ‘women’ use implicitly, that not decrease gender favouritism rather creates possibilities to increase this. Hence, to confirm equal opportunity, rights, necessities of life, words like “men and women” need to be incorporated in the Constitution instead of only ‘he’, ‘men’ etc or all existing gender languages need to be amended as gender-neutral language.
Thus, the legally skewed masculine gender languages are expressly opposed to women’s rights and privileges. Moreover, the inadvertent use of gender-neutral language with masculine gender-biased language is not serving its aim rather explicitly creating a bar for promoting women’s rights and privileges in our society. In reality, there are still instances of inequality between men and women and the abuse of women by men. Hence, for promoting gender equality in our society, we need to enhance the languages of the Supreme Law so that gender equality can flourish its purposes and help to ensure an exploitation free society for everyone.
(Ms. Nusrat is pursuing LLB at the University of Asia Pacific. Email: [email protected])
