lable at ScienceDirect

Habitat International 48 (2015) 113e121

Contents lists avai

Habitat International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/habitat int

Ultra-poor char people's rights to development and accessibility topublic services: A case of Bangladesh

Shankor Paul a, M. Rezaul Islam b, c, *

a Concern Universal Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladeshb Institute of Social Welfare & Research, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladeshc Department of Social Administration & Justice, University of Malaya, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 27 December 2014Received in revised form18 February 2015Accepted 26 March 2015Available online

Keywords:RightsAccessibilityUltra-poorVulnerable peopleChar landViolation of rightsBangladesh

* Corresponding author. Department of Social Admsity of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia.

E-mail addresses: shankor.paul@concern-universgmail.com, rezaul@um.edu.my (M.R. Islam).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.03.0180197-3975/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

This study featured the ultra-poor char people's rights to development and accessibility to public servicesin char land areas at the Sirajganj district in Bangladesh. The study applied a mixed method approach,where quantitative data was collected from 255 households using a structured interview schedule andqualitative data using focus group discussions (FGD), participant observation, participatory ruralappraisal (PRA), key informants interviews (KII), and in-depth case studies. The findings revealed thatmost of the ultra-poor people did not know their rights and half of them, particularly women, werefound silent in sharing their experiences of the violations of rights. These violations are rarely reported tothe respective authorities (e.g., village court, police station or court). It was noted that a significantnumber of the ultra-poor noticed that they often visited local services institutions, and their satisfactionlevel was very low. The findings would be an important guideline to the governmental and non-governmental organizations (GOs and NGOs) to formulate development policies for the ultra-poorpeople in Bangladesh.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The char lands in Bangladesh are often perceived as a zone ofmultiple vulnerabilities. These areas are the sandbars that emergeas islands within the river channel or as attached land to the riv-erbanks as a result of the dynamics of erosion and accretion in therivers. Both islands and bars are known as chars. Here, the newlands are formed through the continual process of erosion anddeposition by the country's major rivers. Thewhole area is unstableand prone to annual flooding. The chars are home to some of thepoorest and most vulnerable people in Bangladesh. According toEGIS statistics (2000), 5% of the total area (approximately7200 km2) in Bangladesh is chars, where 6.5million people (around5% of the Bangladeshi population) live. Kelly and Chowdhury(2002) noted that over 5 million people live in these areas. Themajor physical risks are associated with these char-dwellers are

inistration & Justice, Univer-

al.org (S. Paul), rezauldu@

marginalization from the benefits of the mainland because of thepoor communication networks (Thompson, 2000).

People in the chars undergo several rounds of displacement dueto climatic shocks in their lifetime (Unnayan Onneshan, n.d.). Astudy on the char people living in the Brahmaputra River (north-west Bangladesh) indicated that 25% of families migrated threetimes over the last ten years (CARE-Bangladesh and DFID-B., 2002).Sarker, Iffat, and Mustafa (2003) found that the char people havelow levels of understanding about their rights and they face diffi-culties accessing social services because of an extremely dynamicenvironment. Rapid population growth and slow economic growthhave increased risky for human habituation in newly emergingchars (Hossain, 2011: 91). Supports from the government and otherorganizations are very insufficient compared to the char people'sminimum needs. Illiteracy, lack of social awareness, and lack ofcommunication and transportations among char people are verycommon in Bangladesh. Though, by signing and ratifying variousrights instruments, the State of Bangladesh has committed itself topursuing socio-economic policies in a way that would promote itspeople's right to development. This is understood as an integratedrealization of the whole range of rights including economic, social

S. Paul, M.R. Islam / Habitat International 48 (2015) 113e121114

and cultural rights on the one hand and civil and political rights onthe other (Osmani, 2010:. 25). This paper explored the situation ofthe right to development and accessibility to public services in 15char-based Unions at the Sirajganj District in Bangladesh usingmixed method approach. The main purpose was to extract an un-derstanding of the ultra-poor people's rights to development andaccessibility to public services.

2. Literature review

The study examined several concepts i.e. char land, ultra-poor,vulnerable people, rights, accessibility, and violation of rights inour paper. Chowdhury (2008: 119) classified the chars in fourdifferent ways on the basis of its structure, size, type, and stability:as newly raised char land; as old and permanent char land; as a charwith human habitation; or as a char not yet inhabited. We definethe char land on the basis of location, char lands are isolated fromthe mainland or located on a riverbed or river basin (river bank).The term ‘poverty’ has been used as ultra poor, extreme poor,hardcore poor, etc. in the literature. Globally, the ultra-poor aredefined as those living on $1.25 per day or less. Khandker, Khalily,and Samad (2010: 10) used the term ‘ultra-poor’ in their studywhose (i) households have strictly less than 50 decimals of land; (ii)household per capita monthly income does not exceed Tk1,500(US$25); and (iii) one household member is a daily wage worker.We defined ultra poor as those who were daily wage workers andwho had very limited physical, human, and financial assets andsocial networks to draw on tomobilize and leverage household andcommunity resources or external assistance. Vulnerability can bedefined as the diminished capacity of an individual or group toanticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of naturalor man-made hazards (International Federation of Red Cross andRed Crescent Societies, n.d.). Vulnerability in this context is mostoften associated with poverty, but it can also arise when people areisolated, insecure and defenseless in the face of risk, shock or stress.We used rights as the fundamentalnormative rules that are allowedor owed to people, according to some legal system, social conven-tion, or ethical theory. Rights dominate modern understandings ofwhat actions are permissible and which institutions are just. On theother hand, accessibility refers to the quality of being availablewhen needed. We viewed accessibility as the ‘ability to access’ andbenefit from some structure or entity. In our study, we measuredthe rights and accessibility including basic needs and services, in-formation services, and participation in the local institutions andactivities.

In Bangladesh, the research on char land is mainly focused onhuman livelihoods and socio-cultural perspectives (Mahmud, 2011:5). Most of these are published as reports and covered poverty,natural disasters, climate change, and displacement of the charpeople, but rarely discussed about their rights to development andaccessibility to public services. Chowdhury (2008) mentioned thatthe chars are home to some of the poorest and most vulnerablecommunities in Bangladesh. Islam, Singh, Shaheed, and Wei (2010)found that the char people and their settlements in Bangladeshchannels are under threat due to floods and associated river bankerosion. Excess of water occurs during themonsoon season becauseof widespread flooding that damages char-land settlements, agri-cultural crops, infrastructures, and communication networks.

A number of studies analyzed the socio-economic issues, andenvironmental hazards of the char people in Bangladesh. Forexample, Adnan and Monsoor (1976) conducted a study on thedynamics of power in a char land in a remote village in the Barisalregion. Currey (1979) examined survival strategies during theperiod of food shortage in char areas. Haque (1989) conducted astudy to see the human adjustment strategies to cope with river

bank erosion hazard among inhabitants of the Jamuna floodplain ofBangladesh. Sarker et al., (2003) found that people displaced by charerosion have no other alternative than to settle on accreting charland elsewhere, creating a typical social and economic char envi-ronment. Life for all char people is dependent on ‘influential others’who dispatch the vulnerable to assemble char lands in a culturally,politically, and meteorologically tumultuous environment. Thecomplicity of rural bureaucrats, political parties, and officials can bepassive or active. Feldman and Geisler (2012) argued that littlethought is given to the displacement of the conditions, increasinglycorrupted and dismembered by elite profiteering from the regionand beyond.

Mahmud (2011) found that due to less productive use of landresources, frequent victimization of natural calamities, and limitedscope of off farm income generating activities have created sea-sonal migration and higher dependency on traditional moneylenders for accessing credit supply, which bind them to fall into thevicious cycle of debt and poverty. In absence of technical supportand inability of NGOs to reach these people, the food security, andincome and assets generation level of the project intervention areahave not brought significant change compared to their counter-parts. Ann and Hobley (2003) found that the deep structural bar-riers prevent the exercise of voice of the extreme poor at char areasin the Northern part of Bangladesh. In contrary, Islam and Hossain(2014) recently conducted a study in the char areas in the threeNorthern Districts (Nilphamari, Lalmonirhat and Pabna) inBangladesh. They found positives in a number of areas i.e.governmental and non-governmental organizations' services andawareness about disaster and vulnerability and coping strategiescompared to baseline data. Haque and Zaman (1989) found that asignificant number (27%) of char people were dissatisfied by thechar livelihood programs, because the livestock and poultry couldnot survive due to the extreme environment.

The above discussions show that there is a knowledge gap in theliterature about the ultra-poor people's rights to development andaccessibility to public services. Very few studies somewhat coveredthe components of the rights to development and accessibility topublic services. This study attempted to fill up this knowledge gapand provided an understanding of the ultra-poor people's rights,their experiences of the violations of rights, and their rights todevelopment and accessibility to public services.

3. Context and study area

The char land is geographically isolated, underprivileged, anddefrauded from basic rights and services (e.g., health, educationand protection by laws) in Bangladesh. The major characteristics ofthe char land people are their settlement patterns, way of living,professional disturbances due to absence of principle occupation,coping strategies against the social and natural hazards such asuneven mobility pattern due to river erosion (Zaman, 1989: 3). Thechar people are known as tough and daring as they face manynatural and social hazards. More than 6.5 million people of the charland struggle for a living without access to proper sanitation, pri-mary healthcare and education, basic infrastructure, and protectionfrom the law. The reality of inhabitants of char-land is that about80% of them are ultra-poor and have no land of their own. They livein leased land, led by the others who exploit them in various ways.Further, the char people are being excluded from the state initia-tives and institutional services (e.g., legal aid, health, education,livelihoods, safety net, village court and formal judiciary). Mostoften, the people in char land have to go to upazila and districtheadquarters, crossing the river by engine-boat or on foot whichtakes 2e3 h. It is a very tragic fact that the pregnant mothers,disabled people or persons face tremendous trouble on the way

S. Paul, M.R. Islam / Habitat International 48 (2015) 113e121 115

towards the nearest health clinic or hospital. Another reality is thatthe women face various forms of violence, but they do not feelenough confidence (as victims) to report their complaints to theauthorities due to a lack of their legal knowledge and proceduralcomplexities to seek protection by laws.

This study was carried out in a total of 15 char-based unions offive upazilas (Kazipur, Shahjadpur, Sirajgonj sadar, Chowhali andBelkuchi) in the Sirajganj district (See Fig. 1). Sirajgonj is a district ofnorthern part of Bangladesh, lying west of the Brahmaputra riverand beside the Jamuna river, about 110 kms northwest of Dhaka.The district is located in the Rajshahi Division. The total populationof this district is 3,097,489. The female population is 1,546,121, or40% (123,899) of the people that live in the char land areas. They aresurviving with extreme levels of poverty. The areas have a lowereducation rate and limited access to information on healthcare,employment, legal aid, and other public services.

4. Study objective and methodology

4.1. Objectives

The overall objective of this study was to extract the ultra-poorpeople's perception to development and accessibility to publicservices in selected char-land areas at the Sirajganj district in

Fig. 1. Study location.

Bangladesh. To achieve this overall objective, the study defined thefollowing specific objectives:

i) To extract an understanding of the ultra-poor char people andtheir rights and their experiences of the violations of rights, and

ii) To assess ultra-poor people's rights to development and acces-sibility to public services.

4.2. Methodology

4.2.1. Research methodThe study used a mixed method approach concurrently con-

sisting of both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Islamand Hossain (2014) used this mixed method approach in char landareas with the related topic. The fundamental rationale behind thismethod is to combine the strengths of qualitative research with thestrengths of quantitative research. It was that we could learn moreabout our research problem and its contextual value i.e. char peo-ple's rights to development and accessibility to public services. Wewanted to reduce ‘gaps’, to have greater validity, and to ensure thatour pre-existing assumptions (e.g., from our empirical experienceor other study findings) are less likely. The overall purpose andcentral premise of mixed methods is that the use of this combi-nation would provide us a better understanding of the complexphenomena than either approach alone (Azorin & Cameron, 2010:95). In additions, as researchers, within this mixed methodapproach there was an opportunity to verify our investigation fromontological and epistemological points of view (Sale, Lohfeld, &Brazil, 2002).

4.2.2. Data collection methodsWe collected quantitative data by using the semi-structured

interview method. We used focus group discussions (FGD),participant observation, participatory rural appraisal (PRA), keyinformants interviews (KII), and in-depth case studies for qualita-tive data. The qualitative data helped to extract ground informationon the experiences of the ultra-poor people. This also contributedin assessing causal links and people's satisfactions towards localpublic services. In addition, the study reviewed a number of rele-vant documents for developing a better understanding about theconcepts and to develop a conceptual framework for the study.

4.2.3. Sampling: selection of chars and respondentsThe quantitative data were collected from 255 households. We

selected this sample size through random sampling. The size (n) ofthe sample (255 households) was determined by using systematicstatistical equation, on conditions that the sample would be 95%likely to yield an estimate with a given level of precision. Regardingthis, the study randomly selected 15 unions out of 30 char-basedunions from five upazillas (Kazipur, Shahjadpur, Sirajgonj sadar,Chowhali and Belkuchi) in the Sirajganj district, and systematicallyselected 17 sample respondents ultra-poor HHs (households) fromeach selected char-based Union. The households were the cases andupazilas were the unit of analysis. We found that the male efemaleratio was 60:40. Qualitative data was collected from the ultra-poorchar people, community leaders, Union Parishad (UP) representa-tives, and local police officials.

4.2.4. Data collection instrumentsWe developed a semi-structured interview schedule in order to

collect quantitative data from the sampled households. We alsodeveloped separate guidelines and checklists for FGD, participantobservation, PRA, KII, in-depth case studies, and documentationsurvey.

Fig. 3. Nature of physical violence in study area.

S. Paul, M.R. Islam / Habitat International 48 (2015) 113e121116

4.2.5. Data analysis techniqueThe data and information collected on specific areas were stored

in a separate file with a code number and then compiled andtriangulated properly according to the nature, type and character-istics of data/information. A standard data editing modus operandiwas used to scrutinize all sorts of data and information that werecollected from primary and secondary sources. Finally, a simplestatistical techniquewas applied to present the findings in differentdimensions.

5. Results

5.1. Community understanding about their rights

The findings revealed that none of the participants fully un-derstood their rights fully. Data showed that the category ‘did notknow about their rights’ was the highest in all five upazilas: 79% inKazipur, 84% in Shahzadpur, 62% in Sirajgonj Sadar, 80% in Belkuchi,and 90% in Chowhali (Fig. 2). The highest numbers of people, whowere aware of their rights, was found in nearby districts and lowestnumbers were in the remote upazilas.

5.2. Experiences and status of complain reporting about theviolation of rights against women

The study explored the physical, psychological, and sexual vio-lations at family and community levels. Most of the men reportedbeating their wives and were not aware that this was not a viola-tion. The situation was defined as extreme in Sirajgonj Sadar area,where more than 81% of respondents were involved in physicalviolence. A portion of participants, particularly males, were insilence. No evidence was found on forced labor, acid throwing,murder, missing or kidnapping issues. In average, only 47% ofpeople responded on experiences with physical violence, but theremaining 53% of people did not provide a response (Fig. 3).

The female participants mostly recognized that early marriage,pressure for dowry, not allowing free movement and intimidationwere major factors contributing to psychological violence. It isunderstandably clear that women of the implementation areasuffered from early marriage, intimidation and tortured for dowry(Table 1). However, response in this area was very limited in con-tent. Apart from this, the study did not find any response frommenand women group on divorce or threat to divorce, eve-teasing,trafficking, rebuking, not allowing girls' education, extra-maritalaffairs, and denying maintenance cost for wives.

The male participants were almost silent. Compared with themale participants, women were found more vocal in raisingconcern about their issues, but it was still considerably low. It wasthrough FGD's and in-depth case studies with the women, that welearned this was because of a lack of confidence and understanding.Regarding compliant reporting, some women and girls reported:

Fig. 2. Level of understanding about rights.

“We don't have scope to report our incidents to the police sta-tion, because it is located 10e15 kms from our village, so wehave to depend on the ‘local Salish’ to resolve our problems. Aswe are not well aware and we don't have enough money, thedecision of local Salish often goes in favour of powerful or richpeople. We usually don't file any complaints against our familymembers. If the situation is out of our highest tolerance, thenwecomplain to local Chairman or UP member for its resolution.”

During KII on the experiences of the violation of rights againstwomen, a woman school teacher noted:

“As women we have to hear pressurized talking from ourcounterparts, even as a working woman I have to pay fullattention to take care of all of my family members includingcooking and caring of my children. Sometimes if I am delayed toserve food, I have to hear some unnecessary shouting orrevoking that often undermines my contribution and recogni-tion in the family.”

The finding of sexual violation revealed that a limited propor-tion of the participants, particularly women in Kazipur and Bel-kuchi areas responded on the issue of polygamy. Regarding this, themale participants did notmake any response. The trend of responsemeant that the participants were not willing to explore their ex-periences of sexual incidences.

5.3. Accessibility of the char people to local services

5.3.1. Status of accessibilityOnly 38% of the ultra-poor people had information about the

public services and 62% indicated that they did not have any in-formation about this. The status revealed that the ultra-poor peo-ple's limited access to information on services often resulted in alack of access to public services (Fig. 4). Data showed that 32% of theultra-poor people visited the health and family planning in-stitutions for seeking services, followed by educational institutions26%, and land institutions 25%. However, Union Parishad (UP) wasnot found as a high demandable institution to the local people,although it is considered as the most useful and powerful publicinstitution at the local level. 50% of the ultra-poor acknowledgedthat they did not know about the provisions of public services. Thisindicates that there is a lack of information flow about the publicservices to the char people.

5.3.2. Accessibility to Union Parishad (UP) servicesWe received diverse opinions among the five upazilas and

among males and females about the public services provided by UP

Table 1Nature of psychological violence in study area.

Nature of mental abuse Kazipur (%) Shahzadpur (%) S. Sadar (%) Belkuchi (%) Chowhali (%)

M F M F M F M F M F

Intimidation e 5.9 25.0 11.1 31.6 4.2Dowry/Pressure for dowry 21.2 10.5 18.8Divorce or threat to divorce 9.1 23.5Threat for court/police cases 23.5 6.3Early marriage 24.2 35.3 17.6 12.5 26.3 27.1Teasing or rebuking 6.1Not allowing free movement 31.3 15.2Extra-marital affairs 12.1No response 68.7 12.1 76.5 35.3 82.4 56.3 88.9 21.1 100 50.0

Fig. 4. Types of government services searched by the char poor.

S. Paul, M.R. Islam / Habitat International 48 (2015) 113e121 117

(Table 2). In Shahzadpur upazila, the highest 82% had access to ruralinfrastructure, followed by birth and death registration 76%, andwater supply and sanitation 62%. The resolution of family conflict(through Salish) was also strongly acknowledged by the partici-pants (61%) of Kazipur areas, followed by 55% to social welfare anddisaster management and 52% to water supply and sanitation. Only24% of people in Belkuchi knew about the social welfare anddisaster management services compared to the knowledge about

Table 2Accessibility of ultra-poor to UP services.

Major UP services Kazipur (%) Shahzadpur (

M F (%) Av (%) M F (%

Tax identification & collection 37.5 37.5Education, health & family planning 31.25 6.06 18.66Agriculture, fisheries & others 6.25 6.25Rural infrastructure development 6.25 57.58 31.91 82.35Law and order 6.25 6.25Birth & death registration 18.75 45.45 32.10 52.94 100Water supply & sanitation 51.52 51.52 61.76Social welfare and disaster management 54.55 54.55Environment development & plantation 0.00Resolution of family conflicts, women &

child welfare -Salish60.61 60.61 44.12

Information (e-service) 31.25 45.45 38.35Certificates 42.42 42.42

other services of government. Regarding tax identification andcollection services, only 38% of men knew about it in the Kazipurareas, while no female respondents claim to know about it of anyfive upazilas. According to 38% of men and women, e-services wereaccessible in Kazipur, 6% in Sirajgonj Sadar and only 3% in Belkuchi;zero responses were found in Shahzadpur and Chowhali. However,no outcome was found for Chowhali upazila to determine whether

%) Sirajgonj sadar (%) Belkuchi (%) Total Av (%)

) Av (%) M (%) F (%) Av (%) M F Av (%)

37.518.666.25

82.35 11.76 6.25 9.01 41.096.25

76.48 35.29 50 42.65 50.4161.76 23.53 21.88 22.70 5.26 5.26 35.31

23.68 23.68 39.1112.50 12.50 5.26 5.26 8.88

44.12 23.53 23.53 42.75

6.25 6.25 2.63 2.63 15.746.25 6.25 24.34

S. Paul, M.R. Islam / Habitat International 48 (2015) 113e121118

they either did not know about public services or were deprivedfrom their entitlement in their own area.

We talked with the UP representatives and local communityleaders about the availability of public services in our FGD, in-depthcase study and KII. During in-depth-interview, a UP Chairmanmentioned:

“Char people have very limited scope to visit services providedby the public institutions like hospitals, because all public ser-vice institutions are located in upazila headquarter, which is10e15 kms from our char land. Within our limited budget, weare trying to do something, but comparing to local needs it isnothing”.

Fig. 6. Mobility and accessibility of the char people to local institutions.

5.3.3. Status of people's satisfactionThe findings revealed that only 6% of people were ‘fully satisfied’

with UP public services, followed by 51% ‘partially satisfied’, and43% ‘not satisfied’. We got more qualitative information aboutsatisfaction levels through FGD and KII sessions; responsesincluded the lack of commitment, support, education and skills ofUP representatives, planning and budgeting, resources, leadership,and negotiation, and the presence of corruption. Most of the localrepresentatives mentioned that lack of commitment and inabilityof negotiation with the government are the reasons for discon-tentment. A small number of them stated that the lack of the UPplanning and budgeting, and government assistance, bothaccounted for their disappointment on UP services. During FGDsessions, some ultra-poor people mentioned:

“We want to pay regular tax to UP if they promise us that theywill invest it for our priority works”.

5.3.4. Performance of UP in service deliveriesBoth men and women ranked UP's deliveries with the scale of

1e10 (1 being highly dissatisfactory and 10 being outstanding). Inresponse, participants of Kazipur and Sirajgonj sadar agreed to give6 to the UP service deliveries, in contrast Shahzadpur and Belkuchipeople marked 4 upon the performance of UP. Correspondingly, thepeople in Chowhali ranked only 4 to the performances saying that

Fig. 5. Weighted scale on the UP service delivery.

they were comparatively disappointed on the performances of UP(Fig. 5).

During discussion on the mobility and accessibility of ultra-poorwomen and men to local public service institutions, the responsewas diverse (Fig. 6). It was noted that they often move to localschools, where they get easy access for educating their children. Inothers cases, they moved as per their needs and requirements, butgained limited access to attain their support/services. The findingsof a cobweb analysis have been presented in Table 3. The diagramincluded all major services (e.g., school, UP, upazila, local bazaar,bank, social welfare office, agricultural office, livestock office, hos-pital, NGO office, and police station/thana). The status reveals thatmobility is greater than accessibility in all cases. This means thatthe ultra-poor people have limited access to local institutionalservices (for detail, see Table 3).

5.4. Participation of the ultra-poor to local governance

We observed through our qualitative investigation that a largesection of ultra-poor people in char land areas are not aware aboutthe UP services though it is the lowest public administrative tier ofthe government. Through quantitative analysis we found that only8% of char people usually participate in the UP (Fig. 7). The level oftheir participation is comparatively better in Belkuchi areas, andworst in the Shahzadopur and Chowhali areas.

During FGD and in-depth case study discussions, a number ofpeople noticed that due to their dissatisfaction with UP service,they did not participate in any event. Regarding participation ofpeople in UP affairs, a group of vulnerable women claimed:

“We want to participate in WARD Shava (meeting) to share ourneeds and priorities in UP planning, but it is not usuallyhappened”.

We made an effort through our qualitative investigation to un-derstand the participation of the ultra-poor in social actions. A verysmall number of them stated that they sometimes participated insocial actions as response to incidents against women and girls,while a significant number of participants did not respond. Theresult revealed the lack of leadership and poor responsivenessamong ultra-poor people as factors of the violation of rights. Let uslook into Helena's case:

Table 3The explanation of Cobweb diagram.

Service institutions Mobility Accessibility Explanation

Schools 10 10 Ultra-poor peoplfor children's ad

Union Parishad 8 4 As per needs, ultget required serv

Upazila Parishad 4 2 Ultra-poor peopl(not around 2e3

Local bazar 6 4 Most don't havemen went to baz

Bank 2 2 Ultra-poor peoplsection never vis

Social welfare office 0 0 Ultra-poor peoplnever went ther

Agricultural office 3 2 Most of ultra-pogo to this office.

Livestock office 4 2 Few ultra-poor poffice for vaccine

Hospital 5 3 A section of ultraillness, mostly fo

NGO office 7 5 Ultra-poor peoplat all time. But th

Police station/Thana 5 2 A section of ultrabut police are un

Case: “Helena is a victim of dowry and does not know about

her rights”

Helena Begum (35) was the youngest among her siblings

and grew up in poverty. A man, who was the son of a

powerful family from the same village, targeted her and

made a fake relationship and ended up marrying her. They

were together for 10 years and during this time, they had

three children. But all of a sudden, Helena's parents-in-law

demanded a dowry from her. Helena's father was unable

to give money to them due to his poverty. Helena's parents-in-law then started both physical and mental torture to-

wards her. Helena's husband moved to another char as part

of his parents' plan to exclude her and thus torture her

more. When she lived in her village, she could get support

from her father, but later she became helpless when more

torture was inflicted her. Afterwards, she returned to her

father's home with the three children, but was stressed out

on how to get justice for the domestic violence instigated by

her in-laws. She wondered how she would manage finan-

cial support to care for herself and her children. The situa-

tion became worse when she heard that her husband

married a second time without informing her. Meanwhile,

her father, unable to help his daughter in her misery, died of

a stroke. She requested a village leader to talk to her hus-

band and his parents about the possibility of a merger, but

this did not work. Later she placed a case with the court but

since her husband's family was rich and powerful, they

dismissed the case by paying huge amounts of bribe

money. ‘No skill, no money, and no justice’ made Helena a

burden along with her children to her brothers. Her elder

son left school after fifth grade to help her. Later Helena

started stitching kantha, and working in other homes as a

domestic to manage family expenditures. She has been

searching for justice and expected she would get help from

the society, community, and elite people, to no avail.

S. Paul, M.R. Islam / Habitat International 48 (2015) 113e121 119

6. Discussion

The case study above shows the ultra-poor char people's lack ofrights to development and accessibility to public services in charland areas at the Sirajganj district in Bangladesh using mixedmethod approach. A number of limitations were faced by the re-searchers in conducting this study. The components of rights todevelopment and accessibility to public services are complex andrelated with many socio-economic, political, cultural and institu-tional issues. The lack of time, remoteness of the study areas, andlocal power structure of the char areaswere also barriers during thedata collection period. Despite some limitations, the finding of thisstudy still presented a rich preliminary picture about the ultra-poorpeople's rights to development and accessibility to public services.The study found that the understanding of rights among the charpeople was very low. The study also found that the tortures andviolations of rights were found very common in the char land areas.The males did not treat physical torture as a violation of rights. Theresearchers found that more often the male respondents were si-lent on issues surrounding domestic violence and hence their inputwas limited. The females more readily recognized early marriage,pressure for dowry, lack of free movement, and intimidation asphysical violence. Both types of data confirmed us that due to thelack of confidence and fear, the women did not raise their voicesagainst this violence, and they could not complain against theirexploitation. This study finding can be compared with a number ofstudies i.e. Abdullah (1974), Akkas (2014), and Monsoor (1999).They mentioned that a girl in the char area is considered as aburden compared to a boy, who is considered the perpetuator ofthe paternal line. Char people are accustomed to getting theirdaughter married at a very early age because of community pres-sures (Akkas, 2014). We found that men decided almost all aspectsof women's lives. These conditions isolated women from their localcommunity; prevented them from acquiring knowledge and skills,and, thereby, from contributing to development. Ikeda (2009)found similar finding in the chars of the Gaibandha district inBangladesh that some fundamental concerns in the specific socio-economic context of the char area were not articulated bywomen, such as access to livelihood resources and control of theirown marital status. These concerns are directly related to powerrelations and they are the root causes of vulnerability.

e frequently visit the primary schools and mostly they get accessmission and other ceremonies.ra-poor visits the UPs for seeking their services but they don'tices at all time, they visited.e move to Upazila Parishad in few cases though it is farkm) from their locations.enough money to go to local bazar for daily meal; usuallyar for emergency but women never.e rarely visit the government bank for transaction. A largeits the Bank.e didn't hear about the name of social welfare office, so theye.or don't have land, so they told that they do not feel need toOnly few visited the office for fertilizer or seeds.eople had poultry and therefore they need to visit livestocks and other support.-poor people visited the local health center for maternal case and otherr children.e often visited the NGO office but they did not get their expected servicese service was comparatively easy accessible.-poor people, particularly men visited the police station to report their problem,willing to care about them.

S. Paul, M.R. Islam / Habitat International 48 (2015) 113e121120

The study showed that the char people did not get informationabout the services, which are locally available for them. Avery smallnumber of people know about the major UP services i.e. law andorder, agriculture and fisheries, welfare services, etc. The satisfac-tion level of the services was also very low thosewhowere aware ofthem. Due to their high frequency of relocation from one char toanother, the access to those services further downgraded. All therespondents were likely for low levels of participation in UP affairs.Our epistemological view was that the physical, economic, andsocial vulnerabilities suffered by the char people cause persistentpoverty. We can compare this finding with Chowdhury (2008). Hefound that a key aspect of the difficult physical environment is itsisolation and its poor communications network, which cuts themoff from the mainland and results in little or no access to govern-ment and NGO services. Although NGOs do work in some charareas, by their own estimation they are covering not more than 30%of the total area. The main constraints on the lives of char dwellerswere lack of secure livelihoods, lack of social and political aware-ness, absence of alternative life-sustaining means, and frequentenvironmental hazards. These factors created the conditions fortheir social, economic, and political exclusion and powerlessness.According to the UN (2004), poverty not only arises from the lack ofresources, it may also arise from a lack of access to resources, op-portunities, power and mobility. Our findings reflected this sce-nario. Akkas (2014) found that only 10% of the participants felt freeto express their opinions regarding local and national issues ingeneral formal meetings and informal group discussions. 50%women mentioned that the local government and communityleaders did not count their voices at all and 63%women replied thatthey did not participate in Salish. Hashmi (2000) found that theinstitution is elite-dominated and passes informal judgments thatseek compromised solutions in village-level disputes on mattersrelating to property, family, marriage, divorce, factional strife andpatronage Women do not have opportunities to play a role in thistype of Salish, except as victims or witnesses. Our Helena's case wasa good example to support this fact. Chowdhury (2007), and Ikeda(2009) also found similar findings in their studies. They found thatthe biggest problemwas resistance from traditional leaders (imam,matabbar). Our qualitative analysis showed that they tried to stopwomen going out to attend group meetings, training, even to theshelters during floods. Many aged people complained that thosewomen's forming groups were destroying religion, because theywere not wearing suitable Islamic attire (i.e. hijab/scarf).

The causes of poverty were found as multi-layered and linkedwith economic and social phenomena. The problems were rootedin violation of rights, inaccessibility, communication gap, and pooreducation, as for example 71 per-cent had no living assets i.e.medical facilities, agricultural services, schooling, and economicalopportunities. The findings can be compared with Mahmud (2011)and Osmani (2010). For example, Mahmud mentioned that due toshortages of livelihood assets, the char people fall into the vicious

Fig. 7. Status of participation in revenue generation process.

cycle of debt and poverty. This is the same as what we discovered inour study. In this regard, found that poverty is a chronic andcomplex problem for Bangladesh and women are severely affectedby it due to lack of access to resources, income generating activities,decision-making process, and political participation. We wouldargue that Bangladesh has not formulated any development pol-icies in the light of poor people's rights to development andaccessibility to public services. In this regard, Osmani (2010: 84)mentioned that the right to development is not just about out-comes, but also about the process of development. One of these isencompassed by the notion of the right to development and theright of individuals to participate in decision-making processes thatlead to the policies and programmes designed for promotingdevelopment. Bangladesh has been sorely lacking in this regard.

7. Conclusions

The case studywas conducted in 30 unions of five upazilas in theSirajgonj district with a view to define the prevailing nature andextent the violation of rights, and inaccessibility on local publicservices. The finding showed the predominant nature of physical,mental and sexual violence, and discrimination against women.However, all these have a strong linkage with economic, social andtraditional phenomena of the targeted char land communities thatoften created a vulnerable space for poverty and violence againstwomen at the local level. The illiteracy, early marriage, poverty andfinancial dependency, lack of knowledge, lack of information andawareness are treated as the main reasons of the violation of rights.Inadequate social services and limited access to the public servicesthus reluctant trend is defined amongultra-poor in notparticipatingin the UP activities. In absence of an appropriate care and supportmechanism in the respective areas, a large section is forcibly copingwith insecurity, vulnerability, and discourtesy in the families aswellas in the communities. The confidence level of the local communityis quite low, due to their illiteracy, and lack of information andawareness. The low level of understanding about their rights makesthem unable to get access to the local public services.

The findings have direct links with a number of national policyagendas, such as poverty alleviation, development of the ultra-poor, and char livelihood project (CLP), and special support forthe socially excluded people. The Bangladesh Government agreesthat the poor groups of the population are severely disadvantagedin terms of ownership of assets and has inadequate access toinstitutional finances as well as to basic services, including qualityeducation, healthcare, water and sanitation (GoB, 2010). Thesepeople, especially women and children, are also disproportionatelyaffected by natural disasters and adverse effects of climate change.Despite expansions, publicly supported mitigating measures in theform of social protection programs are still inadequate. In this link,the present government's long-term development planning andpolicies recognize that Bangladesh is still a low income countrywith substantial poverty, inequality and deprivation. An estimated47 million people are living below the poverty line, with a signifi-cant proportion living in households which are female headed, inremote areas, and consisting of socially excluded and othervulnerable people (GoB, 2010). No doubt, a significant of number ofthese vulnerable people living in the char lands. The findings of ourresearch can contribute to these ongoing and/or future governmentinitiatives.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the financial contribution of EIDHR program ofthe European Union as integral part of the PRADG project, jointlyimplementing by Concern Universal, Bangladesh andManabMukti.

S. Paul, M.R. Islam / Habitat International 48 (2015) 113e121 121

We also acknowledge the informative support of the char-basedultra-poor people. The study was undertaken with the financialsupport of EIDHR Program of the European Union.

References

Abdullah, T. A. (1974). Village women as I saw them. Dacca: The Ford Foundation.Adnan, S., & Monsoor, A. H. (1976). Land, power and violence in some Barisal villages.

Dhaka: Village Study Group, University of Dhaka.Akkas, Z. (2014). Women's participation in communal activities in rural Bangladesh.

Local Government Studies, 40(4), 495e517.Ann, M., & Hobley, M. (2003). The practice of design: developing the chars liveli-

hoods programme in Bangladesh. Journal of International Development, 15(7),893e909.

Azorin, J. M., & Cameron, R. (2010). The application of mixed methods in organi-zational research: a literature review. The Electronic Journal of Business ResearchMethods, 8(2), 95e105.

CARE-Bangladesh and DFID-B. (2002). The findings of the northwest rural livelihoodsbaseline. Dhaka: CARE-Bangladesh and DFID-B.

Chowdhury, M. A. N. (2007). Women's participation in flood preparedness in char ofGaibandha, Bangladesh. Tokyo: International Society for Gender Studies.

Chowdhury, N. J. (2008). A journey towards development: the impact of local NGOprogrammes on women living in the char lands of Bangladesh. Development inPractice, 18(10), 117e124.

Currey, B. (1979). Mapping areas liable to famine in Bangladesh. Hawaii: University ofHawaii.

Environment and GIS (EGIS). (2000). Riverine chars in Bangladesh environmentaldynamics and management issues. EGIS: University Press Limited.

Feldman, S., & Geisler, C. (2012). Land expropriation and displacement inBangladesh. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3e4), 971e993.

Government of Bangladesh (GoB). (2010). Sixth five year plan 2011-2015. Dhaka:GoB.

Haque, C. E. (1989). Coping with river bank erosion and hazard and displacement inBangladesh. Survival strategies and adjustments. Disasters, 13(4), 300e314.

Haque, C. E., & Zaman, M. Q. (1989). Coping with riverbank erosion hazard anddisplacement in Bangladesh: survival strategies and adjustments. Disasters,13(4), 300e314.

Hashmi, T. I. (2000). Women and Islam in Bangladesh: Beyond subjection and tyranny.Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Hossain, M. F. (2011). Disaster management in Bangladesh: regulatory and socialwork perspectives. Journal of Comparative Social Welfare, 27(1), 91e101.

Ikeda, K. (2009). How women's concerns are shaped in community-based disasterrisk management in Bangladesh. Contemporary South Asia, 17(1), 65e78.

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (n.d). What isvulnerability. http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/about-disasters/what-is-a-disaster/what-is-vulnerability/.

Islam, M. R., & Hossain, D. (2014). Island char resources mobilization (ICRM):changes of livelihoods of vulnerable people in Bangladesh. Social IndicatorsResearch, 117(3), 1033e1054.

Islam, S. N., Singh, S., Shaheed, H., & Wei, S. (2010). Settlement relocations in thechar-lands of Padma river basin in Ganges delta, Bangladesh. Frontiers on EarthScience in China, 4(4), 393e402.

Kelly, C., & Chowdhury, M. H. K. (2002). Poverty, disasters and the environment inBangladesh: A quantitative qualitative assessment of causal linkages. Dhaka: DFID.

Khandker, S. R., Khalily, M. A. B., & Samad, H. A. (2010). Seasonal and extreme povertyin Bangladesh evaluating an ultra-poor microfinance project. Washington D.C.:World Bank.

Mahmud, M. S. (2011). Intervention of char development and settlement project: Doesit make a difference in people's livelihood at Boyer Char in Bangladesh. Dhaka:Department of General and Continuing Education and North South University,Bangladesh.

Monsoor, T. (1999). From patriarchy to gender equity: Family law and its impact onwomen in Bangladesh. Dhaka: University Press Limited.

Osmani, S. R. (2010). Realising the right to development in Bangladesh: progressand challenges. The Bangladesh Development Studies, XXXIII(1 & 2), 25e90.

Sale, J. E. M., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative- quali-tative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and Quantity,36, 43e53.

Sarker, M. H., Iffat, H., & Mustafa, A. (2003). Rivers, chars and char people ofBangladesh.

Thompson, P. M. (2000). Bangladesh char lands: A review of assets and change.Dhaka: International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management(ICLARM).

United Nations. (2004). Human rights and poverty reduction a conceptual framework.New York and Geneva: United Nations.

Unnayan Onneshan (n.d.). Climate change, vulnerability and livelihood possibilitiesand prospect of the char lands of Bangladesh. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/9738_PaperforESD.pdf.

Zaman, M. Q. (1989). The social and political context of adjustment to riverbankerosion hazards and population resettlement in Bangladesh. Human Organiza-tion, 48(4), 195e205.