Bangladesh's central monetary authority, Bangladesh Bank (BB), issued a dress code for its employees on July 21, which was withdrawn on July 24 amid criticism over social media after it became public.
On that withdrawn dress code, BB asked its employees to dress professionally and modestly.
For female employees, BB asked to avoid short sleeves, short dresses, leggings, and non-traditional attire, while recommending saris or salwar-kameezes with scarves (orna) in "professional colours." Hijabs were permitted, though not required.
Male employees, by contrast, were instructed to avoid jeans or gabardine pants and instead wear formal shirts, trousers, and dress shoes.
Failure to comply would be treated as a disciplinary offence.
While the policy appears on the surface to promote uniformity and professional decorum, a deeper question arises about whether it was deeply embedded in gendered and cultural power structures.
Gendered contradictions in dress regulation
The most striking feature of the policy was its gender asymmetry. Women were explicitly restricted from wearing Western clothing styles and are instead encouraged to adopt traditional South Asian attire.
Men, on the other hand, were required to wear Western-style formal clothing, shirts, and trousers while being banned from casual styles like jeans.
This contradiction laid bare a cultural logic that ascribes tradition to women and modernity to men.
Anthropologist Sherry Ortner's seminal essay "Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?" is highly instructive here. Ortner argues that across societies, women are symbolically associated with "nature," that they are emotional and reproductive, while men are aligned with "culture". Men occupy the domain of reason, power, and public life.
The BB's dress code echoed this binary opposition that women were visually and morally anchored to the traditional, while men were allowed and expected to embody the rational, disciplined image of bureaucratic modernity.
Ortner challenged this construction by showing that such associations are not natural or biologically inevitable, but culturally produced and ideologically reinforced mechanisms through which gender hierarchies are maintained and legitimised across time and institutions.
It is a common perception in our society that traditional attire for women serves not only as a cultural expression but also as a moral boundary, one that defines who is respectable, controlled, and eligible to participate in institutional life.
And by wearing traditional attire, BB represented Bengali Muslim culture as the norm, although, according to the 2022 census, Bangladesh is home to more than 50 ethnic communities, accounting for more than one and a half million people.
Furthermore, according to the census, Bangladesh has a non-Muslim population of just under 15 million. Isn't it a shame that the country's central bank can't be inclusive of all citizens, regardless of religion or ethnicity? If sarees were permitted, why not a pinon-hadi?
The policy, however, does not include Bengali Muslim men's traditional dress, such as the lungi, much less other ethnic minorities' traditional attire. The bank does not want men to perform cultural identities; instead, they have to stick to the current Western norm of professionalism. This sends a clear message that men at this institution symbolise authority and modernism, while women represent morality and cultural rootedness.
Cultural symbolism of clothing, morality, and power
The BB dress code also functioned symbolically to indicate boundaries between purity and danger, modesty and indecency.
Female clothing becomes a moral signifier of that policy. Short sleeves or leggings are not merely unprofessional but inappropriate, "polluting" the institution's image.
In contrast, men's clothing was treated primarily as an issue of decorum, not morality.
The policy's emphasis on "professional colours" and "decent" attire for women reflects a deeply gendered moral logic.
The institutional space becomes one where female presence must be visually sanitised to avoid sexualisation, distraction, or cultural discomfort. It's an irony that in that very official letter, BB talked about the sexual harassment of women while asking women to dress "appropriately".
This type of moral policing is not new; rather, it is a continuation of patriarchal codes where women's bodies are viewed as inherently dangerous unless disciplined.
In this case, women in the workforce are expected to visually signal their modesty, piety, and femininity to fit within institutional respectability. This reflects a broader societal tendency in Bangladesh, where working women are constantly navigating the double burden of professionalism and morality.
The illusion of choice
In its public justification, BB clarified that the hijab was not mandatory but permitted for those who choose to wear it. This echoes feminist anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod's critiques of both Western liberal feminism and Islamic modesty discourses.
In her essay "Do Muslim Women Need Saving?", Abu-Lughod warns against treating modesty as either inherently oppressive or liberating. The key issue, she argues, is who defines the terms of modesty and under what power structures.
While the BB claims to offer employees' freedom of dress "within organisational norms", this freedom is conditional. Women are discouraged from wearing Western clothes but allowed to wear the hijab within approved simple designs. What is being granted here is not freedom of religious or cultural expression, but a controlled visibility of religiosity within an already moralised framework.
Just like Abu-Lughod, we would like to ask: Why are women's clothing choices the focal point of professional ethics and institutional image? Why must women perform cultural authenticity to access professional legitimacy, while men are allowed to perform bureaucratic rationality without cultural performance?
Who gets to define 'modest' attire
Mirza Taslima Sultana, professor of anthropology at Jahangirnagar University, raised a fundamental question when talking about the matter with Dhaka Stream: Who gets to define what counts as 'modest' attire?
She said the imposition of dress codes in public institutions reflects a colonial legacy. "While former colonisers have evolved beyond many of their outdated norms, we, in contrast, have held on to them."
Reflecting on her early days as a faculty member, she recalled: "In universities, certain dress codes have long existed informally as social norms, even if not officially mandated. But many of us resisted those norms, wearing jeans on campus, for example, even when sarees were considered the expected choice. Whether it's a guideline or a formal circular, the difference often feels superficial."
On the recent withdrawal of a proposed dress code advisory at BB, Sultana noted, "We still don't know the real reason behind it. Was it a reaction to social media backlash?"
She also pointed to the nature of the current administration: "The interim government doesn't operate under a singular ideology. It includes people from across the spectrum, including conservatives."
Noting a shift in the public discourse, she added, "We have noticed voices that once advocated for women's rights now seem notably absent while being part of the current government."
"It's unclear whether the dress code advisory was withdrawn due to public pressure, or whether such policies may return shortly," she said.
According to Sultana, similar attempts to influence public perception through social media narratives were seen under previous regimes.
"One may ask: What's so problematic about modest clothing?" she said. "But the deeper issue lies in the possibility that such directives, whether subtle or official, could reemerge from the corridors of power at any time."
Clothing as a cultural battleground
The BB's withdrawn dress code is not just an internal policy but a cultural document. By enforcing traditional modesty for women and Western modernity for men, the policy perpetuates a gendered order in which women are expected to embody morality and tradition. In contrast, men are free to represent professionalism and authority.
In a country negotiating between global modernity and traditional values, clothing becomes a battleground for competing values. Dress codes shape how we perceive gender, culture, and, most importantly, who gets to belong in the space of power and on what terms.
Comments