It is natural for human beings to flee the place where they feel threatened or persecuted in search of more secure safe havens. But it is highly unusual for those who have fled a place as victims of exploitation and abuse to want to go back. Yet this is exactly what most of the 37 Nepali female migrant workers stranded in Beirut, Lebanon who were brought back to Kathmandu on Monday want. Most of them were fleeing either unbearable house owners who subjected them to constant physical and/or physiological torture, or equally commonly, paid far less than was initially promised. Interestingly, it was only in 2010 that the government lifted a 12-year-ban on employment of Nepali women in Gulf countries. But it was again forced into a rethink when incidents of physical and sexual exploitation of young Nepali women working abroad started to go up dramatically. It then settled on a novel idea: why not bar all Nepali women under 30 from working as domestic workers in destinations with bad records for protection of women’s rights like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and UAE? The hope was that older women would be less likely to be sexually exploited, and ‘mature’ women more amenable to making judicious employment decisions.

 

Yet the picture was far too complicated for the feasibility of such a seemingly straight forward solution. Women rights activists immediately started lobbying for lifting of the ‘arbitrary’ 30-year rule. They do have a strong point when they argue that most of the ‘underage’ women who want to work abroad do so anyway, by sneaking into India and from then to various Gulf destinations with the help of unscrupulous middlemen who charge high rates. Nor is it clear that imposing the age bar has had any kind of significant impact on lowering instances of sexual exploitation of Nepali women abroad. The age ban makes even less sense when one considers that the majority of birth dates mentioned in passports are faked anyway, arranged just so that the workers fall within the ideal age bracket of would-be employers. Moreover, there is a strong moral question too: if there are no restrictions on men, why shackle the equally capable women with onerous rules?

 

It is indeed very hard for a state that fails to provide meaningful employment to the vast majority of its youth to make a case that the unemployed or semi-employed that struggle even to make their ends meet stay put. As the 37 repatriated women are questioning: Can the government provide them gainful employment and guarantee them enough to be able to properly look after their families? As things stand, the government is in no position to make any such commitment. Its manufacturing base, the main engine for economic growth and job creation, has been constantly shrinking; it cannot even ensure basics like potable water and electricity for its citizens. The question these ‘rescued’ women have raised is pertinent. Does someone have a credible answer that can persuade these women on empty tummies to stay back in their home country?