Afroza Begum

Afroza Begum is Professor of Economics at Dr. Malika University College, Dhaka. She is attached to a number of voluntary and professional organizations in different capacities.

Prof. Afroza is the Treasurer of Bangladesh Economics Teachers Association (BETA) and member of the World Federation of Teachers Union (WFTU). She is the Publication Secretary of Bangladesh College University Teachers Association and life member of Dhaka University Economics Department Alumni Association.

She is the General Secretary of “Centre For Transportation Studies and Development Research” (CTSDR). She is life member of the executive committee of Bangladesh Paribesh Andolon (BAPA), and Member Secretary of Indoor Pollution Committee of BAPA.

She has published a good number of research papers in national and international journals and seminar proceedings, on environment, society, economics, gender equity and women empowerment related topics.

She is also a successful business entrepreneur currently holding the Chair of the Board of Directors of a reputed trading house in Bangladesh.

Prof. Afroza Begum is freelance contributor of analytical commentaries in national and international print media on different socio-economic and political events and issues.

Afroza Begum's Essays

In Bangladesh, traditionally the women have been advised, "Songsar Sukher Hoi Romonir Gune". If we translate it to English it should mean, "Women's virtues make a family happy." The dictum is specific to women, apparently it is meant, only women's virtues can bring happiness to the family, implying the priority of the role of women in the family for happiness. Although happiness in the family may not rest entirely on the virtuous role of women but a lot more on the morality of care and understanding of the men including other family members. However, the background in which this dictum is originated and its implication to the rural society of Bangladesh at the present socio-economic realities, may be studied.

Bangladesh is traditionally an agrarian society. The rural women in Bangladesh, not only remains at the center of the family, from child birth to child caring, preparing the food for the family members, feeding the children, but also often found to carry heavy workload in the agriculture sector. Rural women participate in horticulture, livestock husbandry, paddy boiling, husking and drying; rearing cows, goats, chickens, ducks, fishing and carrying fresh water, milking, collecting eggs etc. If all these works are well done how miserable the workload may be, then definitely the women would be virtuous and making the family happy and that is in general all about the morality to make a woman virtuous.

Above all of those virtues of our rural woman going along and in addition to undertake and perform the jobs of house-keeping and agriculture, a little list of which is already furnished in the foregoing, the best and crowning all of them is, "THEY EAT LEAST AND THE LAST". Ironically, these are all together the virtues considered for women in rural Bangladesh where 90 % of our population live. In the domain of these families truly that manifests in reality where men live but the women just survive.

I do not want to go now into comparing the share of the labour the rural women are shouldering with the men in the family, and to make any comment on just and equitable distribution of work load within the family of rural Bangladesh, because that issue and the subject of morality concerning the parity in gender relation with respect to distribution of labour needs to be rectified no doubt, but the greater danger is poised in the most disturbing issue and the subject where the sense of morality goes with the women to make her the most virtuous when she "eats least and the last". Because, indeed this particular virtue begets severe vice to our society as a whole by far the most degrading, but unfortunately, which neither men nor women in general would/could understand.

Women being at the center of the family undertaking the reproductive task of bearing and caring the child and at the same time undertaking all other laborious tasks those come with the production process of agriculture, but when that further goes alongwith with the culture of "eating the least and the last" begets the vices of ill health, weak motherhood, increased rate of deaths of mother from complications of pregnancy, reproductive tract infections, fetal deaths, accidental abortions, undernourished newborns, weak child health etc. The virtue of "eating least and the last" is therefore seen as patriarchal imposition and in many case self-imposition from values of love and care for other members of the family inherent in women characteristics derived from being at the center of the caring for the family begets the vice of ultimate non-entitlement-based disempowerment of the society which is evident from the fact that women of Bangladesh suffer from vicious cycle of malnutrition. Almost all low income pregnant women weighs less than 50 Kg. This condition leads to fragile health structure, miscarriage, high morbidity, and shorten women's lives, hence passing over ill health to future generation through reproduction of weak underweight newborns.

Son preference in Bangladesh is widespread. Women are still pressed to give birth to a son. Often, they have to go through several pregnancies in order to try to produce one, draining their bodies of nutrition and strength. On the other hand from one pregnancy to other she may never receive medical care. In rural Bangladesh, majority of people is ignorant of the fact that it is the male genes, which determines the sex of the child, and if a young woman cannot produce a son, various forms of punishment await for her. She is either ill- treated, divorced or finds herself sharing kitchen with a co-wife. If the young woman cannot give birth to a son more adversely to a child then she is one to be blamed without any medical investigation of the husband.

Recently in a survey conducted among urban poor a quite important data have been identified. This data relates to the female wage labourers of the construction industries, textiles, garments, seafood and packing industries who live hurled in very unhealthy conditions in the slum areas in the urban areas. While they work almost 12 hours a day, but in an average spend only Taka 500/- for their monthly fooding. Taking the prices of most essential food items in the urban areas and according to what they are found to consume, it is rather observed their average calorie intake cannot be more than 1600 Kcal/day which is even less by 200 Kcal/day rate measured to determine head count living below hard-core poverty line. When queries were made to them, they preferred to respond with great sense of extreme love and care for empowering the poverty stricken family they left at the village home to help them with their saving so that her family can escape the vicious cycle of debt trap and ultimately may find ways and means to create source of sustainable income for herself with the family.

Often, I have pointed out while discussing on issues concerning gender relations that, "men do not understand". In fact men do not understand what is good for men and women, as well as "men do not understand" what is meant in being born as "women". Let it be imposition of patriarchy or self-imposition from values of care, that the tradition and culture of women "eating less and at the last" after the families are fed properly, is not a "virtue" but it begets the "vice" when it is bound to bring results worse than good for both men and women.

Because of deprivation particularly that of food generating out of all these values of preference of son over a daughter, malnutrition of a girl child starts from infancy through childhood and continue upto the later years. Poverty is not the only cause of it. Social prejudice, which prevails in this respect, must be removed and as early as possible. When men becomes too concerned when the milk- giving cow are not properly fed, they are found to be least concerned to find their girls or womenfolk are eating least and at the last.

In the poverty stricken families the men also would/could fail to understand that the disempowerment process of women but who are at the center of the family taking care of the family at home if neglected for food as well will make perpetual affect in deteriorating the poverty situation of the family through the continued process of exclusion adds to shortened life expectancy and ill health ultimately causing future generations inheriting ill health from childhood becoming the cause for further exclusion of the excluded. This is how poverty generates more poverty.

Women and child health in Bangladesh is a major area of neglect. Lack of access to timely and effective basic child and maternal health related awareness and interventional programmes in the areas of nutritional, pregnancies, childcare etc. remains inadequate. And then men continue to glorify women with dictums, "Songsar Sukher Hoi Romonir Gune" and women continue to crown the "virtue' of eating least and the last, to deteriorate the perpetual process of disempowerment through exclusion of the excluded, deteriorating the society with curse of increased rate of incidence of poverty.

To eradicate the curse of these false, artificial and unfounded sense of values and moralities, let us keep on hoping that all the proponents and the protagonists of the society including the religious clerics irrespective of religious beliefs will make themselves and the males in general to understand that it shall be just and the best for all including the families including those of the poorest of the poor to share the food they earn for the day equitably, and the husband insist that her women and the girls with the boy children all sit together when they bring all the food in front of them that the family could earn and take them by the share and the amount by far never less adequate particularly for the women and the girl child no less than he will prefer for his sons and himself.

Afroza Begum Dhaka, June 29, 2004.

I shall extend my thanks to Mr. S. A. Hannan to post the commentary "The Feminist Debate Over Hijab" authored by Ms. Anne Sofie Roald, Ph.D written on the topic of Hijab, [Ref: http://www.messageonline.org/2004febmarch/cover2_opt.pdf ], in his message of Dahuk Forum [Ref: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dahuk/message/3569].

I strongly believe that, Mr. S. A. Hannan is aware of Begum Rokeya Sakhawat Hossain, who is regarded as the pioneer of "Muslim Feminism" in our part of the World. Indeed we are indebted to Begum Rokeya alongwith her co-travelers who dedicated their lives during the early part of the Twentieth Century to emancipate the Muslim Women from the claws of "Purdah System" imposed by the aristocratic Muslims leaders of India for centuries to keep the women confined to indoor domestic peripheries. As the result of Feminist movements initiated by Begum Rokeya and others the Muslim Women could gradually begin to break the barrier of "Purdah System" and grab the opportunity to become educated and to seize the opportunity to enter into participating in the Public life.

It is always the trend of the orthodox Islamists to be critical about Feminism be it either Muslim Feminism, when the Muslim Feminists have always strived to point out the discriminating attitude of the patriarchy which originates in the misleading interpretations of the tenets of Islam. Due to their misleading propaganda, the Muslim Feminists always had been subject to undue criticisms. The orthodox Islamists are, out and out patriarchal, as they represent the vested interest and are looking at the World through their distorted lens of patriarchy, where on the other hand Islam has clearly pointed out to set the direction to end it. Also, at a date as early as in the 7th Century of the Roman calendar.

In this respect indeed which the Muslim orthodoxy further failed to realize that the steps which were necessary to emancipate and empower the women relative to the times of the early Caliphate which were prescribed at those times were not meant to be the end of it, but that only the beginning of it. Ms. Anne is a Muslim women, educated, living in Sweden and by profession an Associate professor at Malmo University in Sweden. May be she is not aware of what Begum Rokeya Shakhawat Hosaain wrote back in the early twentieth century. Modern Sweden is a country in Western Europe known as to be the most free country as regards to sex, which Muslim Feminist will be critical about. But, it will be difficult to be critical with regard to gender relations in Sweden. Because, not only considering the dignity and respect which prevails in the mutual gender relationships in that country but according to the available statistics also they have been able to establish by far one of the foremost society in which the women enjoy the most equitable opportunity and participation in almost all of the public spheres of life and contributing extensively for the equitable development of the society.

Ms. Anne in her book, "Women In Islam: The Western Experience." commented, "A Christian nun wearing a veil might be seen as image of sincerity, religiosity, purity and peace, whereas a Muslim women wearing a veil is likely to be seen as a symbol of the oppression of women and as making a political-religious statement."

Ms. Anne wears a headscarf as she has informed in her writings and obviously she preferred to practice that. But definitely she is not living the life similar to a "Christian Nun", and if she did then also she may be questioned on the practice of "Clergy System" which Islam does not encourage. The dress of Christian Nun definitely is making a "religious" statement of its Clergy System in which a Nun has a complete set of code of different life style of living and livelihood from that of an ordinary Christian believing woman. Therefore, her analogy made in this respect is definitely is a case of failed substitution, misplaced as well as misjudged, hence may be termed by some also as a misleading propaganda. I have no reason to defend or criticize the dress of a Christian Nun because they are practicing that out of their own faith of Clergy System, which is rather not present in the religious belief system of Islam.

Firstly, Ms. Anne has pointed out that, the argument of Muslim Feminists on the question of "Hijab" suffers from "selectivity" in drawing reference from the scriptures. Secondly, she further questions why the practice of "Headscarf" is termed by the Muslim Feminists not applicable for the women in general when; "Khimar" (24:30-31) and "Jilbab" (33:59) are ordained for all women. Thirdly, she also questions: why the Muslim Feminists look at wearing a "Headscarf" as if it was meant for socio-political or religious activism?

We all know, there is no dispute or misunderstanding with practicing a "Khimar' or "Jilbab", because those do not include any kind of "Headgear" at all and the dresses which are being commonly used by Muslim women are definitely modest attires covering the parts of the body as ordained in those verses of the Holy Quor'an.

But, the Arabic word "Hijab" (33:53) means physically a "curtain" or "barrier" to be used by the Prophet's wives while meeting with men who were strangers or distantly related. But then why the very word "Hijab" is being used commonly to mean the "Headscarf"? If misnomer of "Headscarf" is created to simile with "Hijab" then it was the "Islamists" rather than the Muslim Feminists created that misnomer. But, was it made inadvertently, or a distortion made intentionally, or there is a plausible intention and explanation behind the creation of this particular misnomer? If there is one plausible intention or explanation in favour of it then I hope such explanation should come from the "Islamists" to corroborate it with the relevant references of scriptures to clear the misunderstanding created by the misnomer, rather than falsely criticizing the Muslim Feminists of being "selective" in making references.

I believe Ms Anne is fully aware of the fact that the Muslim Feminists in general are concerned about gender relations in the Muslim society, particularly in those respects where the women are oppressed, discriminated or segregated in the society. The objective of a Muslim Feminist is to make the Muslim women aware and conscious about their problems with particular emphasis to the social impediments persisting with respect to freedom for education, marriage, child birth, family planning, mother and child health care, gender violations, employment and any other impediments which put a curb to enjoy their freedom of speech including other socio-political and economic rights necessary to achieve and attain fair and equitable treatment in their private and public life.

The Muslim Feminists pursue to attain these objectives not as ends by themselves but by far with all fair intentions so that women in general can become able to attain a congenial social environment including at the grassroots of the society to undertake all necessary and appropriate steps by themselves to solve all these problems confronting them. Because only in doing so they shall be able to ensure fair and equitable treatment for them in their private and public life. The Muslim Feminists believe that, it is necessary to create the social environment for the Muslim women which is congenial to provide equal opportunity and justice for women, hence it becomes necessary to emancipate the Muslim women from all kinds of male dominant postures and positions existing in the Muslim societies.

We also know that, modesty and modest dress are issues and the subjects applicable for both men and women in a Muslim society. Hence the arguments favouring the practice of "Headscarf" by Muslim women offering explanations of complying with Quora'nic injunctions, or in the premises to gain socio-economic advantage are both wrong as seen by the Muslim Feminists. Because, neither it is complying with the Quor'anic injunctions nor it can help to gain any socio-economic or political advantage except deteriorating the situation in generating social tension through segregation in gender relations. As long as the practice of "Headscarf" attributes to "Hijab" which means "Purdah" and definitely "segregation", which is definitely an imposition of patriarchy.

We cannot build a coherent society and aspire to make it harmonious, vibrant and strong, with bifurcations created in gender relations in private and public life. Islam and The Holy Prophet of Islam never wished to see a society as a whole with bifurcated and segregated gender relations. And, it is not difficult for one dedicated believer to understand it, if he or she shall try to interpret the Holy Quor'an and the Traditions of Holy Prophet without making any distortion. But, unfortunately, often and historically the distorted interpretations of the Holy scriptures have been made to serve the ill-motive of the vested interest groups who wished to further the male dominant patriarchal Muslim society merely to satisfy themselves by treating women in subjugation with ultimate goal of reducing the sphere of women into the private places of domestic house keeping and sexual objectification.

The value and sense of moral standard are created in human minds through educative learning and intellectual refinement with humane understanding of a coherent and disciplined social life, but in which both men and women must participate with equal access to education and knowledge for proper learning of these standards. Above all, wisdom is the most important element of human intellectual virtues, which men and women should be able to equally acquire. Wisdom accumulates from the knowledge gathered through perpetual application of physical and mental faculties into the spiritual as well as worldly affairs. Then how women would be able to acquire the virtues of wisdom unless they are allowed to become able to enter freely and exercise their independent minds into their day to day problems which they are confronting in their private and public lives in relation to the society, the nation and the contemporary world in which she is born?

Therefore, on the other hand, if one aspires to achieve these goals merely concentrating all her/his mind and exhausting all energy in mere symbolic practice of "Headscarf" for women, in that situation rather one is found to do nothing but exactly that, ignorantly furthering "Hijab" or "Purdah" or "Segregation' in the society. Which is indeed originating from ethos of imagery "Feel Good" attitude of being participant in orthodox patriarchal version of Islamic socio- political and religious activism.

With improper perspective of learning of worldly affairs as ordained, if the women find them living in the nightmare of this World where Islam gets reduced to closed and captivated state of the mind and the brain, into a mere "piece of cloth" then Muslim Feminists should oppose it by all means and shall continue to do so for the furtherance of the righteous path of Islam. Because, the women are definitely co-traveler of the men in this path at the end of which men and women shall be treated equally for their deeds in the matter of final justice with the equitable verdict of Allah, and because, Allah knows the best!

Afroza Begum Dhaka, June 10, 2004 --------------------------------- Verses From Quor'an referring `Hijab':

33:53 O ye who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses, - until leave is given you, - for a meal, not to wait for its preparation: but when ye are invited, enter; and when ye have taken your meal, disperse, without seeking familiar talk. Such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet: he is ashamed to dismiss you, but Allah is not ashamed (to tell you) the truth. And when ye ask his ladies anything, ask them from behind a HIJAAB: that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs. Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah's Messenger, or that ye should marry his widows after him at any time. Truly such a thing is in Allah's sight an enormity.

7:46- between them is a HIJAAB (barrier).

17:45-And when you recite the Qur'an, We place between you and those who do not believe in the hereafter a hidden HIJAAB. (barrier)

19:17-she (Maryam) took a HIJAAB (barrier) apart from them (her women folk)

38:32- and the sun was hidden behind a HIJAAB (barrier)

41:5- between us and you is a HIJAAB (barrier)

42:51- God does not speak to anyone except from behind a HIJAAB (barrier)

George Bush apparently was not happy with the abuse and humiliation of Iraqi POWs those went by the American soldiers against all human values and the Geneva Convention. In fact he was not happy the way the reports caught him in surprise. The way the reports grabbed America and the entire World. He felt worst when he realized his right to know those reports ahead of everybody had been denied, and this was the fault of Donald Ramsfield, who got the rebuke, but saved his post.

ICRC representative in Iraq, who also made his routine visits to the prison at Abu Ghareb, including other prisons as duty bound to monitor according to Geneva Convention, claimed that, although these are official secrets and he cannot divulge the dates or detail contents of the reports, but they had been regularly sending reports to their headquarters which included abuses occurred at Abu Ghareb. What happened to those reports then? Did those reports never meet the eyes of Donald Ramsfield? Definitely those did. That was obvious for him at that time to take the reports then as part of the "softening" campaign of the POWs took by the US Army. But, as the press was adamant and the World reacted. Reacted the sensible Americans. Now Donald Ramsfield, cannot hide them anymore, and his President has to say, "sorry".

ICRC representative comments, "Those members of the Army are trained personnel including officers of the Armed Force. It is part of their training to know what Geneva Convention is all about." George Bush says, "The investigation will not only find truth, and those violating laws shall be punished. But the investigation will also find out what went wrong in the system?" Does that mean that, the President of the United States of America only satisfied to suspect that there are flaws even in the system of command and control in the US Army vis-ŕ-vis their obligation to abide by the Geneva Convention? Is it new for him to know what the US Army do when they are sent abroad for combat or control?

How much they care about human rights or human moral values other than their sense of being "untouchables" that dominate their minds for being the members of the most powerful Army in the World? The World knows.

Is it only Abu Ghareb? How many Abu Gharebs in the World the US Army has written in their history, no doubt shall be documented, and the World Humanity shall act upon those, when the day will come of another trial of "Nuremberg". The history does not end here, and George Bush is not the last Emperor. Sooner is the better for the citizens of USA start reading the history of past glorious Empires, because when the days will come, Hiroshima and Nagasaki will also not get out of context.

Afroza Begum May 7, 2004

Last updated: October 2004