Power Won, Patriarchy Unbroken
“The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me.”  -Ayn Rand
The fact that it is among the few regions of the globe where women have reached the top of the executive hierarchy, and the fact that it remains the area most stubbornly patriarchized, make the question of women’s leadership a paradox that defines the region itself. Whether in India and Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Sri Lanka, women have ruled states, led political parties, and defined the destiny of the nations. However, their power has rarely been treated as the norm. Instead, it remains the exception that has been policed.
In this paradox, Khaleda Zia, for example, illustrates how women’s empowerment is often concurrent with anti-woman sentiments at institutional levels in authoritarian societies. Unlike feminist movements in Western societies, which gradually incorporated women into their politics, women leaders in South Asia suddenly found themselves in positions of immense power that were otherwise dominated by men. The purpose of this article is to enhance the comparative analysis of Khaleda Zia’s leadership through the prism of gender by comparing her to other leading women figures in South Asia to explore how these women reacted to patriarchal opposition to their empowerment.


Khaleda Zia’s Rise: Transforming from Political Widowhood to Sovereign Power
“I am not what happened to me, I am what I choose to become.” – Carl Jung.
The political debut of Khaleda Zia followed a sad script well known in South Asian women politicians: coming to power after the political assassination of men in their lives. Like Benazir Bhutto, who took up politics after the execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and Chandrika Kumaratunga, who came to power after the assassination of her husband Vijaya Kumaratunga, Khaleda Zia was first positioned as a political heir rather than an autonomous political subject.
However, unlike the symbolic role of a leader in transforming governance, Khaleda Zia’s transformation took a drastically different turn. She reorganized the Bangladesh Nationalist Party into a well-disciplined political campaigning machine, which successfully won elections in 1991 and 2001, while reviving a democratic system of governance in the country after a long period of military rule. Khaleda Zia’s rise to power, unlike Indira Gandhi's, was based on a democratic platform.
Her rise to power proved a typical South Asian truth: women may gain access through claims of family legitimacy but they must quickly build their own political strength to survive.


Women at the Helm in South Asia: A Comparative Analysis
“Well-behaved women seldom make history.” — Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
South Asia has an unparalleled track record of women leaders. Indira Gandhi ruled India for almost sixteen years, Benazir Bhutto served twice as Prime Minister of Pakistan, Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina Wajed ruled in turn for several decades, and Sri Lanka saw Sirimavo Bandaranaike and Chandrika Kumaratunga. However, the differences when compared become striking similarities. All leaders were portrayed by association with feminine roles: daughter, widow, and mother, rather than their political tenets. Indira Gandhi was called an authoritarian as she centralized power. However, her Indian male counterparts, acting no differently, were called assertive. Benazir Bhutto was repeatedly portrayed as “unprepared,” even as she ruled amid threats from the military. Khaleda Zia was portrayed as “confrontational,” while her male counterparts from the opposition were more disruptive. In that region, women leaders were never leaders; they were exceptions that had to be justified at every turn.


The Gendered Burden of Authority: Scrutiny, Stereotypes, and Silence
“A woman needs money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction.” —Virginia Woolf
The gendered politics of leadership appears most clearly in the criteria set for women rulers. The leadership style of Khaleda Zia was assessed not just on her performance as an administrator, but also on her disposition, style, and emotional interpretation. This was true of Benazir Bhutto, whose clothing and lifestyle choices were discussed in the Pakistani press, and Chandrika Kumaratunga, whose tough stand was construed as vindictiveness.
Khaleda Zia’s situation in Bangladesh was one in which the press culture pathologized women's assertiveness. Weakness was silence, while negotiating was to surrender. Male leaders enjoyed a more charitable interpretive regime. This double bind being penalized for weakness and weakness in a stronger form—lays bare a patriarchal politics of surveillance of female power in a framed narrative.


Empowerment Without Emancipation: The Limits of Symbolic Progress
“The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” — Audre Lorde
Even with women holding the most senior positions in politics, the South Asian political system remained male-dominated. Women leaders such as Khaleda Zia worked within a political framework dominated by men, both in policymaking positions and in the security apparatus. The same could be said of Indira Gandhi and the resistance Benazir Bhutto faced from the military.
Symbolic empowerment, whereby women were represented as heads of state, did not mean feminist governance or politics. Women leaders were expected to manage, not transform, these states. Agendas of feminism were pushed aside because they were considered "secondary," which reinforced the idea that women could be leaders of states without affecting gender relations. Khaleda Zia's experience and many more like hers make it clear that representation by itself will not lead.


Criminalization and Control When Gender Meets Authoritarianism
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." — Martin Luther King Jr.
The most alarming trend in South Asia is the prosecution of women leaders after they have lost power. Benazir Bhutto was hounded by charges of corruption and forced into exile; Chandrika Kumaratunga was sued after leaving office; and the arrest of India Gandhi was during the aftermath of the Emergency.
Khaleda Zia’s arrest, persecution through the judicial system, and deprivation of proper medical treatment conform to this trend—but with a special emphasis on gender-related malice. Her arrest was mere politics, but it was also a form of moral instruction: no woman should defy the system. In authoritarianism combined with patriarchy, women leaders are particularly severely dealt with in terms of oppression through dress-code legislation.

 

Two Women, Two Paths: Remembering Khaleda Zia in the Shadow of Sheikh Hasina
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” — Martin Luther King Jr.
The political narrative in the last thirty years in Bangladesh has everything to do with the defining contradiction embodied in the two most dominant women, Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina, and their rivalry that traversed personal, political, and partisan boundaries, as well as ideological, institutional, and symbolic ones.
Both leaders grew up in a background of political trauma: Khaleda Zia following the assassination of President Ziaur Rahman, Sheikh Hasina following the killing of her father, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and most of her family. However, they generated stories that were oddly different. Khaleda Zia’s career was rooted in the logic of competitive pluralism and adversarial democracy, whereby legitimacy was constantly sought through elections, coalitions, and the constitution, often at the expense of her personal well-being. Sheikh Hasina’s administration, on the other hand, shifted towards greater centralization, overcoming dominance and an interpenetrated party, state, and security sector, thereby transforming stability into permanence.
This led to the emergence of two different approaches to leadership. Khaleda Zia represents the politics of humility, akin to the politics of rigidity but grounded in the denial of the legitimacy of shortcuts in authoritarian politics. Khaleda Zia used the language of morality in its democratic forms, including freedom of elections, the rule of law, and liberties. Sheikh Hasina, by contrast, represents the politics of development, continuity, and ordering, which subordinates democratic politics to the politics of control.
This rivalry also highlighted the gender paradox in Bangladesh's politics. A country ruled by women leaders for most of its period since 1990 is not characterized by feminine politics. Rather, feminine politics is marked by more personalized politics. “The Battle of the Begums” may simplistically capture this duel between these two women but misses an important point that this is not a duel between two women but between two concepts of a state, one that is willing to coexist with uncertainty in the name of democracy, and the other that seeks to reduce uncertainty in favor of governance.
In the historical record, the Sheikh Hasina reign will be remembered in the language of infrastructure, economic development, and geopolitical identity. Khaleda Zia’s, on the other hand, will probably register in the different language of resistance, a record of what was resisted, rather than what was accumulated. One of these women is remembered as the apotheosis of power, the other as the price of its refusal.
In the larger discourse on women and South Asian politics, this contradiction holds important meanings. It confirms that women leaders are diverse and not necessarily liberatory and authoritarian by definition. They have choices to make, and Khaleda Zia's trajectory of sacrifice and exclusion reminds one of the key thrust of this paper that merely shattering ceilings does not necessarily assure freedoms beneath them, and that carrying burdens may be the cost of prioritizing democratic pride over dominion in politics. In the end, Bangladesh will remember these two women not only for their rivalry but also for representing two differing responses to the same question posed throughout history: How can power be exercised, and what will be the moral toll?


Living On: The Legacy of Khaleda Zia as a Feminist Political Leader

"Do not judge me by my success; judge me by how many times I fell down and got back up again." – Nelson Mandela.
Khaleda Zia never formulated a feminist ideology, but her biography is a feminist political text in its own right. Women leaders such as Indira Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto demonstrated that women are capable of wielding mass politics without defying restraints or institutionalized credibility.
Her defiance of a quiet departure from politics, even when facing repression, inspires the South Asian region as a badge of honor. For women of Bangladesh and elsewhere, her legacy proves that one need not emulate masculinity in leadership but rather mimic endurance.
Regional Salute: South Asia Arrives in Dhaka
To be honored by one’s peers is the truest measure of a life lived in public service.”— Hannah Arendt
The attendance of senior political figures and official delegations from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives at the funeral of Khaleda Zia marks an unprecedented event in the history of Bangladesh since its independence. Prior to this, the death of an opposition politician or, rather, an ex-premier who was not at the helm of the ruling administration at the time of the event has certainly not attracted such an extensive high-level delegation of the wider region to the event.
In South Asian diplomatic circles, funerals have been more than personal fare; recognition, acknowledgment, and historical importance have long been embedded in these events. The presence of regional leaders at these events implies that Khaleda Zia was more than a national leader; she was an important woman in South Asian politics, as her life and politics were part and parcel of regional discourse on democracy, statehood, and pluralism, despite her politics possibly diverging at various points in time with those of her regional counterparts.
This regional tribute takes on an even more nuanced meaning within the context of the often-complicated politics between nations in South Asia. It says much in itself that leaders of nations with complicated bilateral ties decided to come together for this tribute in Dhaka. It proves that Khaleda Zia's legacy has not been forgotten within the context of country politics, but rather in the context of South Asian politics in general.
However, what perhaps carries an equally strong historical resonance is that this instance of defiance occurs at a time when the region’s treatment of opposition leaders has a legacy of its own. In a subcontinent where being defeated in politics often leads to exile, effacement, and demonization, this confluence of South Asian opposition leaders attending Khaleda Zia’s funeral bears a profound significance in restoring a balance in moral terms.
Within the wider discourse that this article represents, such unprecedented attendance at the regional level further buttresses the proposition that Khaleda Zia’s politics of dignity, although costly within the national setting, was respected internationally. Although her opposition to Sheikh Hasina Wajed has characterized domestic political discourse, this act is rather indicative that Khaleda Zia must be remembered as a former head of government who was elected through legitimate means while resisting the forces of authoritarian transformation.
History will be filled with numerous arguments over policies, elections, and administrations. However, the picture of South Asian leaders standing in a line in Dhaka, offering their final respects, shall remain a defining conclusion to this episode, ensuring Khaleda Zia’s position in Bangladesh's politics and the collective soul of South Asia.


Conclusion: Remembering the Women Who Paid the Price of Power
“History has shown us that courage is contagious.” — Michelle Obama
Khaleda Zia’s political career provides an important insight into the unfinished agenda of women’s empowerment in South Asia. It has broken the glass ceiling—but not the structure that causes women to bleed when they break through.
Positioning herself alongside women like Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Sheikh Hasina, and Chandrika Kumaratunga, Khaleda Zia represents a generation of women who ruled a country rather than patriarchy itself. The existence of such women in South Asia and beyond beckons a call to excellence in politics by women, in a manner in which ruling becomes a right and a duty, and not a miracle, or a reason to be punished.
As South Asia recalls Khaleda Zia, the region is reminded of more-than-symbolic questions about whether it can support women as leaders, or whether the culture of politics will allow them to do so on an equal footing.