360 information
360Info is an open access global information agency of journalists working with academics to address the world’s biggest challenges and provide practical solutions
Show more
Comment
Nepal’s approach to the protection of migrant workers does not have the nuances needed to seriously address abuse, writes Neetu Pokharel in part four of a series on migration. Read parts one, two and three.
Opinion: The devastating earthquake in Nepal of 2015 and the Covid-19 pandemic had something in common: both probably saw an increase in the migration of Nepalese sex workers.
Some did it because of human trafficking or forced migration, others chose sex work or the entertainment industry on a voluntary basis – there is no data telling us the extent of this migration.
The fact that policymakers do not know the difference means that both groups will continue to face harassment, torture, exploitation and discrimination. Without accurate data, the government is unable to protect them.
Many desperate Nepalese women seek a global market for their labor to enable them to send money back to financially struggling family members, in what has been called the “feminization of poverty”.
Of the more than 200,000 labor approval permits issued to female migrant workers in Nepal in July 2020, 80 per cent were for migration to Malaysia and the Gulf region. There are no exact data on women migrating to India – it has an open border with Nepal, which does not require a visa or a passport for entry. The government also does not have proper data on female workers migrating informally or unofficially to the other countries, especially the Gulf countries.
Concerned about human trafficking, abuse and sexual exploitation, the Nepalese government has gradually introduced several restrictive measures on female labor migrants.
Until 1997, Nepalese legislation required women to obtain the permission of their parents, husbands, or other close relatives to seek foreign employment. Women could then make their own decisions to travel for work, but this was short-lived: in 1998, the Nepalese government banned all foreign employment for women after the death of a Nepalese women migrant in Qatar, murdered after a sexual assault. assault. Instead of pressuring Qatar to investigate the killings, the government has created the narrative that women should be prevented from working abroad as they are vulnerable to sexual exploitation.
The ban on women looking for work abroad was lifted in November 2000, except in the Gulf countries. In the wake of criticism from civil rights organizations that pointed out that women travel to the Gulf states using illegal and unofficial routes, the government lifted the ban in 2003. From 2000 to 2003, women’s mobility for foreign work was completely restricted. In 2005, the government restricted women’s migration to Malaysia by imposing several conditions that were lifted later in 2007. Again in 2015 and 2017, female migrant workers under 24 were banned from looking for work in the Gulf countries.
All of this has proven to be ineffective in controlling human trafficking and protecting women from exploitation. In fact, the protectionist restrictions and regulations imposed tended to force women to migrate through unofficial channels – undocumented and with greater vulnerability. They became more susceptible to coercion, fraud and abuse.
Policymakers and civil society organizations still regard sex workers as victims of human trafficking, and the legal framework of human trafficking is mostly focused on sexual exploitation and prostitution.
In the case of human trafficking, victims prefer not to file complaints or come forward as witnesses because they are dependent on their dealers for work and housing. Some are forced into sex work after being forced to migrate to cities due to chronic poverty and unemployment. They fall for false work promises by family members and friends, but are eventually forced to engage in sex work for survival. These victims of human trafficking are reluctant to reveal their identity or seek justice because they fear social stigma.
But for women who choose sex work, the response remains focused on salvation and the provision of alternative jobs. The refusal to accept the sex worker’s occupation as labor means that they are restricted in accessing justice and claiming violation of labor rights or seeking redress for abuse and exploitation. Police do not believe a sex worker can be raped and treat them as criminals. This is why sex workers seek decriminalization of sex work and argue that they should be free to choose their profession.
The Nepalese government’s restrictions on female migrant workers follow a protectionist approach, violate their rights as workers and restrict their right to mobility. This raises questions about the government’s commitment to the Constitution of Nepal, the recognition of the right to employment and the right to live with dignity, as well as to international human rights obligations such as for the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It also shows the patriarchal mindset of the government and Nepalese society to treat women differently and as a vulnerable group through control mechanisms, rather than empowering them and opening the way for them to seek justice and equality. A strategic and coordinated effort is needed to protect the labor rights of female migrant sex workers and to prevent trafficking in them.
Neetu Pokharel is as a Women’s Rights Activist in Nepal. She is a Fellow of the Calcutta Research Group. Neetu holds her Master’s degree in Conflict, Peace and Development Studies from the University of Ruhuna in Sri Lanka. The author has not declared any conflict of interest with respect to this article.
This article is part of a Special Report on the ‘Changing Face of Migration’, produced in collaboration with the Calcutta Research Group.
Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info ™.