December 9 was 145th birth and 93rd death anniversary of the iconic Begum Rokeya Sakhawat Hossain. She had emerged in the 19th century to revolutionize the concept of womanhood, feminine power, and fighting for women’s rights. Begum Rokeya, a Bengali speaking feminist is a powerful symbol of women’s emancipation. In 1905, she wrote about subjugation and Islamic patriarchy in her novella Sultana’s Dream. She was born in 1888 as Rokeya Khatun, into a prominent traditional Zamindar Muslim family in the village of Pariabondh, Rangpur, East Bengal. She had fought for the advancement of women, when women in the sub-continent were kept in the Purdah system. At the time, the life of a Muslim woman was very restricted and repressive. Purdah was a way of life for them.
We the women in the Indian subcontinent feel that Begum Rokeya always is a blessing to thank God for. She pioneered and relentlessly campaigned for women’s education, and empowerment. Rokeya is mostly viewed as a social reformer, prolific writer, and a pioneer of feminist movement in the sub-continental India. Begum Rokeya supposedly wrote Sultana’s Dream in English to “impress” her husband. It was a time when a Muslim woman was only allowed to learn Arabic and Urdu beyond one’s native Indian language. Girls who belonged to the “upper class” could learn Farsi as well. One of Rokeya’s elder brothers encouraged her to read in Bengali and English. Sultana’s Dream was first published in a Madras based magazine called Indian Ladies Magazine. The novella is considered a classic of feminist Utopian fiction.
In the story, Begum Rokeya creates a futuristic ideal world, a “feminist utopia” for the women where they are out of the segregated Zenana (Purdah). In Sultana’s Dream, the narrator of the story wanders into a dream city called the Lady Land that is devoid of war and violence. Women of course, run everything and men are secluded in quarters called Mardana. “The queen of this kingdom explains how women won and kept their peace against men and their war-like ways.” The paradox used here is: “if you lock up someone for their protection from yourself, shouldn’t you be the one who’s locked up?” When Sultana’s Dream was published, the biographical note in the edition described her husband’s reaction after reading the story as “A splendid revenge.”
Begum Rokeya was sixteen years old when she was married off to an Urdu speaking Magistrate Sayed Shakhawat Hossain, a widower in his mid-thirties. It is a given that during that time period Rokeya would not have been able to write without her husband’s encouragement. A much older man with a very young wife was bound to have some influence on her. Thankfully, for Begum Rokeya, her husband was a like-minded person, a progressive man. He thought women should come out of illiteracy. Shakhwat Hossain also supported his wife’s quest for education. A number of articles claim that Shakhwat cheered her on to write about women’s issues that were not talked about—at that time most Muslim women in the Indian subcontinent were suffocating in the purdah system. It severely restricted women’s participation in the outside world. In traditional Muslim families girls/women of good social standing were forbidden to leave the andarmahal (domain of domesticity).
Rokeya with her husband’s support decided to break those barriers. I am not questioning here Sakhwat Hossain’s sincerity, and contribution to help Rokeya get out of the dark society of illiteracy. My objections can be fast-forwarded to one hundred and ten years later. In recent years, I have seen male authors or opinion writers in South Asia, particularly in Bangladesh, who choose to write about Begum Rokeya on “Rokeya Day” or any other time, go out of their way to praise Sakhwat Hossain. He gets the most credits for Rokeya having achieved so much without a formal education in colonial time. They unfailingly say Rokeya’s husband “allowed” her to go after her dream of writing a novel, essays, and countless articles to emphasize girl’s education and women power.
I cannot think of anything more insulting than showering a husband unabashedly with all the praises for his wife’s accomplishments. Rokeya wrote the book in English, her fifth language, without attending a college. Until 1939, there were no colleges for Muslim women in British India. Rokeya’s writing demonstrated a confident woman with talents and knowledge. Begum Rokeya should get the sole credit for attaining impossibility. But the male columnists while introducing Rokeya continuously emphasize how her husband “allowed” her to go after her dreams.
Is a wife a husband’s property that he has the right to “allow” or “disallow” his wife to do something great, pursue her dreams? When I read something like this, I have to step back, and take a moment for myself. Sultana’s Dream is a part of Anglophone history and the credit belongs to Begum Rokeya only.
Do such male writers actually believe that women’s identities can simply be absorbed into that of their husbands? In that case, with these types of comments some celebrated opinion writers in South Asia are no better in their outlooks than the orthodox men in Saudi Arabia.
Such obsolete thoughts should remain in the Old Testament where a woman is considered a man’s property. It reminds me of what British actor Helen Mirren said a few years ago in an interview about men putting their arms around women while in public. Helen said, when she sees men with an arm slung around women’s shoulders, it feels like ownership.
If showering a husband for his wife’s accomplishments is not considered sexist, then I do not know what is! Mind you, some of these writers consider themselves as “feminist writers” who, of course, support women’s causes and understand their grievances. They write powerful columns supporting the death penalty for rapists. Some of them I had observed are capable of writing exclusively from the female perspective if they choose to. I am known for reading between the lines. And I can smell a fake from ten miles away.
Quite a few of these “modern minded” writers are a see through. They are only trying to be a part of the “in – crowd” through their support of the poor women. They know an outdated mindset in regard to women will make them very unpopular in the eyes of both male and female readers. Therefore, they do not want to risk the possibility of losing readership. An accidental slip of tongue — a husband “allowed” his wife to write is a deadly clue. By writing in this manner, such men undermine women that they are individuals in their own right. Are we to believe the tradition of men’s ownership of women does continue to date?
When we are at the dawn of 22nd century, if men with such decadent and oppressive views continue to put women down then South Asian women do not have a good chance of calling them equal to men. Men need to step out of the 1800s outlook. Nothing infuriates me more than sexist double standards.
Let me reiterate again that by writing this way, such men writers undermine women that they are individuals in their own right. In a male centered culture, I keep seeing this pattern, and there needs to be a case study on this. Sexism and strongly “delineated” gender roles do not help anyone. These types of highly “social conservative” men with equally toxic masculine attitudes do not really believe in women’s rights. It perhaps feels cool to be considered members of The Liberated Man Club. Thankfully, such men are not high in numbers. But enough and cannot be discounted. They have the mighty pen in their hands. More often than not, such two-faced people use it to their advantage.
Such male writers have been relying on clichés like “damsel in distress,” “dream girl,” while writing about women or female characters. As I stated earlier, a lot of them pretend to be “feminist” guys. How many of these men actually want women to be treated the same way they are by society? That is one poignant question l would like to ask them. They claim to be feminists only when it suits them, playacting to listen to women’s concerns, and so forth. Sooner or later they tend to fall short, especially when writing about female attractiveness. The disguise comes off.
Those men who are feminist types also often talk about women’s attraction; her almond shaped deep set brown eyes, a perfectly formed mouth when writing about a woman character or even when complimenting a woman. To be fair – I think it is not entirely their fault – society sexualizes women to a point where one has to believe a woman’s “beauty” is the most important thing about her. If they really support feminist views – how do they do it? It boggles my mind.
Women everywhere need to be mindful of such misogynists. But unfortunately, they ignore the warning signs. Some of the so-called progressive male writers masquerading as “feminists” are very powerful about respecting diverse women’s experiences. And women fall for it thinking it as genuine concerns. Only after a man comes to the rescue, a lot of the women start to realize their full potential, not before that. Therefore, women are not entirely blameless here. Oftentimes, women with low self-esteem need men to “validate” them.
Such men writers, I think, mostly read books and columns by other male writers. They think (based on personal experience) women writers are usually subjective, and only write about feelings and go on and on about it. They do not necessarily believe that women can be objective, can write in a realistic, and thorough style. They are perhaps surprised to see a woman’s story actually has a plot, real characters that developed into a meaningful story. They are ashamed to display any book by a woman author in their bookcases. I know a couple of such authors. You will not see them writing a tribute to a great woman either. Only once l spotted a work of fiction in a male author’s bookcase by a woman writer. She is S.E. Hinton (Susan Eloise Hinton), the author of The Outsiders. Her publisher convinced her to use her initials for business purposes. Ah, how endearing!
Another statement (perhaps written by a man) that l find very offensive: “behind every successful man there is a woman.” Have you ever heard that “behind every successful woman there is a man?” Now that l let it out I feel better.
Contrary to many peoples’ belief that Begum Rokeya’s relentless fight for women’s education and women empowerment progress has taken place – I tend to disagree. I am not saying her contribution is insignificant, far from it. Last I checked a couple of years back, the literacy rate of women was 78% in the Global Gender Gap Index1 for Bangladesh. It was only for Primary and Secondary School level. 80% of Bangladesh is rural. Girls’ ability to continue and complete education is very challenging for the poor families across Bangladesh. With no prospect for a better life, their parents choose early marriage for their daughters. Sadly, the families with daughters do not follow the government mandated minimum legal age for marriage which is 18. Last I heard the previous AL government was thinking of amending the law by lowering the marriage age from 18-16. As a result, more and more girls would have become sacrificial lambs in the marriage market.
To this date “66 percent of the Bangladesh rural girls are married before the age of 18, and over one-third girls are married before the age of 15.” According to a recent UNICEF report, almost 50 percent of the rural girls are married by age 15, and sixty percent become mothers by age 19. When that happens a woman cannot become a productive member of a society. Without education they cannot generate any income, and become a liability in most households. Even though Islam is very clear on women’s position, they are often discriminated against.
Do we even need to ask the question whether women have truly become empowered in societies dominated by men? Since Begum Rokeya’s emergence, what has really changed? Nothing significant! Because of primitive beliefs and established social norms women in developing countries such as Bangladesh accept their inferior status. If they do not submit to societal demands they are victimized and abused by men. They are sexually harassed and prevented from getting gainful employment. The renowned Begum Rokeya Sakhawat Hossain who had initiated girls’ education, and fought for gender equality must be turning in her grave right about now.
Rokeya from early on realized that to be emancipated, a woman must be educated first. So she began her life’s work. She was a lone voice who was fighting for the freedom for intellectual advancement of the Muslim women in the sub-continental India so many years ago. She writes, “We constitute half of the society. If we remain backward can the society move forward? If somebody’s legs are bound up how far can she walk? Indeed, the interests of women and men are not different. Their goal in life and ours are the same.” With those powerful words Begum Rokeya set the tone for feminist movement. Because of her thinking, now urban women are seeking equal rights and helping in the development process of our nation.
Begum Rokeya’s famous words: “What we want is neither alms nor a gift of favor. It is our inborn right. Our claim is not more than Islam gave women 1,300 years ago.”
Begum Rokeya’s last essay titled The Rights of Women remains unfinished.
Rokeya broke all barriers, struggled throughout her life for a better society for women who had no voice. She led the way to empowering and enlightening women. With her realization that in order to be independent women need to be educated first– she led this one woman campaign against tradition, prejudice, and laws of the land, sexuality, and a whole lot more. When a woman becomes educated, they do not depend on the fathers, brothers or the husbands. Over and over she had to send this message out. Her writings were mainly based on that premise. In order to gain economic freedom she also encouraged women to revive craft industries. In that sense she also paved the way for small scale industries for women.
Begum Rokeya founded the Sakhawat Memorial Girls’ School in Calcutta when Muslim girls did not go to school. She went from door to door to convince parents of the need for education for a Muslim girl. At first, only five families were persuaded and the number of students was only 5.
It has been more than a century since the publication of Sultana’s Dream. Yet, the prospect of education for girls in rural Bangladesh is still a dream. With all the books that are written about gender and development, the fact remains that the majority of rural girls in Bangladesh remain uneducated. In rural areas the beauty parlors have sprung up but not much emphasis is given to education beyond primary school. A girl is still getting prepped at age 13/14 for marriage. In the absence of girls’ schools in rural Bangladesh most guardians (who are basically illiterate) have no desire to send their daughters to a coed school.
This is nothing new. Throughout history, cultural barriers and stigma have excluded women from receiving education or earning equal pay to men. It may be viewed as: “a weapon to keep the girls in a relegated state so that it is possible to establish a male-dominated society and women are consigned to domestic work only.”
To transform a society from centuries old barriers takes time. In the case of Bangladesh, it is taking too much time. In recent years, school enrollment for rural girls has improved in Bangladesh, but they are forced to drop out as soon as a marriage proposal comes along. They have to enter into an early marriage.
After one hundred and twenty years of Sultan’s Dream, it is way past time to make an accurate analysis as a nation how much have we achieved what Begum Rokeya set forth for our women. Past AL government had taken some of the measures that Begum Rokeya urged were necessary for women empowerment.
The current caretaker government with Mohammad Yunus at the helm, along with his about twenty male and measly 3/4 female advisers, should embrace more aggressive policies regarding compulsory education for girls, gender equality, and equal pay which will bring in a big return in enhancing social and economic development in our impoverished land. Only then Bangladeshi women can be truly free. Is this hoping for too much or we should think it ain’t going to happen?
Therefore, we would like Mohammad Yunus to deliver on his promise that he made in 2021. He said he could bring change in Bangladesh by empowering women. His exact words: “If 10 million women can be made entrepreneurs then it can lead to the overall development of society.”
One can dream for a just society where men and women feel they are equal. If Begum Rokeya could dream of a Universalist society in 1905 for women’s journeys towards emancipation, why can’t we do the same in 2025? Are we to conclude Begum Rokeya’s dream book Sultana’s Dream still remains a distant utopia?
Zeenat Khan writes from Maryland, USA
