One day Humayun, Jamuna’s second husband, asks his meal, but Jamuna stays unmoving. We could observe the following dialogue thus:
Humayun asks, "Give me rice."
I said, "I didn't cook."
"What?"
"I didn't cook means I didn't cook."
"Why?"
"I did not want to."(29)
The above converse involving Jamuna and Humayun may have the manifestation of a domestic fight, but it inaugurates a discourse for women that the conventional episteme has not allowed so far. Neither does a woman respond to the inequality in the domestic setting with such simple but bold language against convention. In other words, Taslima puts new words in the married woman’s mouth that is purported to unsettle the sign of marriage which signifies that woman’s desires are subservient to that of man. The renunciation of female desire is the prerequisite for a successful marriage. In her anger, she realizes that the Bengali word for husband also means god, a transcendental signifier. Humayun is a "shaami," not a friend and, therefore, is hierarchically superior to her. Such a position forecloses the possibility of equality between them. …show more content…
But such a proposal undermines Saber’s authority, becomes counter to Jamuna’s dependent status which is a precondition of marital happiness.
In the perspective of Jamuna’s predicament, what then are Jamuna’s rights regarding her income? The marriage contract has no guidelines for that. When Jamuna claims the right to her income, Saber considers such a demand on her part equivalent to her committing adultery, and tries to circulate the story that Jamuna has an illicit affair with his friend which may disqualify her to remain his wife.
At this vital stage, a scene follows in which Jamuna witnesses Saber’s return with a new wife for whom she had to yield her own marital bed. Saber’s polygamous marriage duly prepares the scene afterwards for Jamuna’s forced
Humayun asks, "Give me rice."
I said, "I didn't cook."
"What?"
"I didn't cook means I didn't cook."
"Why?"
"I did not want to."(29)
The above converse involving Jamuna and Humayun may have the manifestation of a domestic fight, but it inaugurates a discourse for women that the conventional episteme has not allowed so far. Neither does a woman respond to the inequality in the domestic setting with such simple but bold language against convention. In other words, Taslima puts new words in the married woman’s mouth that is purported to unsettle the sign of marriage which signifies that woman’s desires are subservient to that of man. The renunciation of female desire is the prerequisite for a successful marriage. In her anger, she realizes that the Bengali word for husband also means god, a transcendental signifier. Humayun is a "shaami," not a friend and, therefore, is hierarchically superior to her. Such a position forecloses the possibility of equality between them. …show more content…
But such a proposal undermines Saber’s authority, becomes counter to Jamuna’s dependent status which is a precondition of marital happiness.
In the perspective of Jamuna’s predicament, what then are Jamuna’s rights regarding her income? The marriage contract has no guidelines for that. When Jamuna claims the right to her income, Saber considers such a demand on her part equivalent to her committing adultery, and tries to circulate the story that Jamuna has an illicit affair with his friend which may disqualify her to remain his wife.
At this vital stage, a scene follows in which Jamuna witnesses Saber’s return with a new wife for whom she had to yield her own marital bed. Saber’s polygamous marriage duly prepares the scene afterwards for Jamuna’s forced