The Economics of the Domesticity and the Spheres of Woman (A Khirad centered Analysis)

The Economics of  Domesticity and the Spheres of Woman (A Khirad centered Analysis)

My main argument in this post will be to show how the economics of domesticity works out and how this is related to the public and the private sphere. Humsafar was unbelievably successful In my opinion, one of the main reasons for this (apart from the gorgeous Fawad Khan) seems to be the portrayal as protagonist of Khirad, who at the beginning of the drama is shown to us as a truly domestic woman with all the qualities that are cherished by the majority of the proletariazed class and as Baseerat would say, “achi fitrat, saadgi, khuddari aur massomiyat”. Cognizant of her duty towards her mother, Khirad is more or less always involved in domestic activity, not just out of a lack of anything else to do but of her sense of duty towards her mother, herself a woman working hard for economic survival as a teacher. The Hyderabadi family of Khirad and her mother seems to reside in a society of independent women, who discuss things like “Haleem” and “bachon ki copiyan” and for whom the private sphere is not necessarily work-free. The need to make ends meet forces them to give tuitions and in a sense, transform the house in a quasi-workplace. The public and the private hence intermingle and the nature of the work undertaken makes it perfectly acceptable. However, if one analyzes the economics of the matter, a few interesting observations can be made. Khirad, her mother and Batool Apa all teach in various capacities (whether at a school or at home). Teaching, historically, has been a key feature of the literary portrayal of women in Urdu literature. We see this portrayal in novels as old as Mirat-ul-Uroos (Asghari’s teaching) to recent works like “Udaas Naslen” (Abdullah Hussein). Why has teaching always been the acceptable way of going about earning one’s living particularly when it does involve some exposure to gher-mehrams? In my opinion, this is because teaching is not a profession suited to social mobility and it is rare to make a lot of money out of this activity. Hence, teaching as a profession does not attack the lifestyle of the woman concerned. Having established this, it is easy to extend this to the argument that teaching would preserve the “domesticity” of these working and middle-class women. In the drama itself, Khirad’s domesticity is never threatened particularly when she goes to college before the timeline of the drama begins. It is jeopardized, however, when she is in a stronger economic position and her “lifestyle” has begun to change. Once goes the poor’s lifestyle, so does the domesticity. Domesticity is not just something that is desirable. It is essential. The public and the private must not intermingle for it to remain until out of extreme need because the realization of that extreme need keeps a woman tethered to her domesticity. To ground this analysis, the fact that Sarah dares to venture out into the public space even when not required strips her of her domesticity and makes her automatically, the most “awaara” of all the characters. She would be the perfect antagonist even if she was to be less crazy than she turned out to be.