A Response to Minahil’s Post

The only thing that makes Godavri different from other stories is the gender of the author. However, it is not wise to take is as a differentiating point. I disagree over the point that there is a difference in perspectives between the stories of Manto and Riaz’s Godavri. When Manto was writing about “uneducated prostitutes”, his concern was to depict the marginalization faced by that particular section of the society. The story of Sultana is a perfect example of this case where we see her being disintegrated by the majority (society). Hence, Manto was not portraying women as uneducated prostitutes but rather he was criticizing the exclusion that a particular section of the society was facing. If Manto reduces a prostitute to the physical attributes of a body, this is simply how a prostitute is characterized or rather conceptualized. And we should note that Manto uses this approach to present the problems and issues of the excluded ones.

Secondly, I also disagree over the fact that woman has more agency in Godavri. For me, this agency is useless in the domestic setting of a family. Riaz has pointed towards a very similar and relevant issue of our society where women, despite having an agency in their domestic life, have to struggle to prevent the disintegration of the family setting. Ma faces the same problem. She is worried about Ba who has least interest in his wife and thus he romanticizes Usha. Agency is there but it can’t really be practiced.

I also found the characters of Bismillah and Ma to be similar, primarily because both of them are tired of the behaviors of men.  

Lastly, we should also note the fact that Fehmida Riaz was an activist so the stories she wrote purposely pointed towards the particular issues that women encounter. In the case of Manto, he was not writing Thanda Gosht or Hatak because he was running a feminist campaign!