Two Bangladeshi nationals working in Saudi Arabia have been executed for what the Saudi authorities are calling an immoral act committed within mosque premises.
A variety of narratives are circulating about the alleged transgression of the two, with some claiming they were caught while exchanging a kiss.
But let’s assume they were involved in something far more intimate than just a kiss, and since the act was done in a place of worship, sacrilege was committed.
However, executing them for moral transgression appears to be disproportionate when a prison sentence, public chastising, plus a return ticket home would have been enough.
The facts surrounding the incarceration of the two persons, a man and a woman, their trial and, eventually, the execution are still very sketchy because, reportedly, the Saudi government did not inform Bangladesh that two of its citizens had breached a moral code for which the punishment can be death.
Clearing the smoke and mirrors over the whole issue
When the news of the execution filtered to Bangladesh, the initial feeling of disbelief was followed by an outrage as to why no diplomatic effort was made to provide consular services to the two arrested persons. From what we know, the diplomatic circle was totally in the dark, and the ministry here in Bangladesh wasn’t given any ‘demarche’ on the issue. The question: did the Saudi government want to hush it up?
The second point is the assessment of possible repercussions over an action taken on citizens belonging to another country. If the decision was to execute the two in secret, the Saudi authorities must have weighed in the reaction and a possible fallout. Since Bangladesh is still deemed a third-world developing nation, maybe they felt the reaction would be muted. Sadly, so far, they have been correct.
Whatever the crime of an overseas worker, it’s the responsibility of the host country to inform the government from which the accused worker(s) hail.
If we take the narrative that Bangladesh was not informed to be accurate, then there’s only one possible answer: the Saudis simply did not feel the necessity to follow diplomatic protocols.
Reportedly, the family of the executed had no idea as to the reasons for imprisonment and the charges against the two, indicating that there was a lot of ‘cloak and dagger’ involved in the whole matter.
The ‘immoral act’ presented to justify execution
Without doubt, becoming physically intimate at places of worship is frowned upon in most countries, but in the case of Saudi Arabia, which we all know as a country enforcing a strict interpretation of the Shariah, this is regarded as a cardinal sin.
Some accounts say that the two were engaged in an immoral act, which needs further clarification because copulation between two adults, if they are not married, is no longer regarded as a major sin in most parts of the world. However, since it’s Saudi Arabia, we can accept the rigid social mores.
Common sense states that even in an ultra-conservative nation, executing two overseas nationals for an ‘immoral act’ must have involved something deviant. Reportedly, the intimate moments between the two were recorded by someone else and handed over to the Saudi authorities as proof.
Let’s assume that the two may have been engaged in something far more aberrant than just physical intimacy, plus using the premises of a mosque was desecration. Therefore, safe to say moral transgression and mosque defilement were possibly the charges.
But in a court, the accused, since not Saudi nationals, should have had the right to present their versions of what happened with the provision for a general pardon as both were from another nation.
If the matter had been informed to Bangladesh and the two workers sent back after imprisonment and a strict reprimand, Saudi Arabia would have set a humane example.
The abuse and exploitation faced by Bangladeshi workers
Against the breach of moral conduct by the two executed persons put forward along with the abasement of a mosque, there is the silent plight of many Bangladeshi women coming back with harrowing tales of sexual abuse, which cannot be swept under the carpet.
Female workers returning from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have tales of torture, covered by the media almost regularly. Many workers have alleged that some of the demands are downright deviant, with several women sent back to Bangladesh after being impregnated by their Saudi masters. The tales of woe are endless, the dimensions of physical exploitation chillingly varied.
Is the Saudi authority just as alert and vigilant in safeguarding women workers from Bangladesh?
One wonders if the man and the woman would face execution if they had been from a developed nation. Everything said and done, if the crimes committed by overseas workers are grave, then the law has to take its course, but the home country of the workers ought to be informed. Thinking objectively, even if the two Bangladeshi citizens had done something that wades into perversion, heresy or apostasy, their country has the right to know.
A firm written statement by Bangladesh about diplomatic rules and norms becomes essential concerning the two executions instead of some perfunctorily made observations.
No country can claim to be perfect, no matter what sort of law it enforces, and no national of a country should be alone in a foreign court, whatever the charges.
The writer is the Current Affairs Editor, Daily TIMES of Bangladesh
