|
|
Women
in Kashmir
Citizens at Last
Until now, the women of Jammu
and Kashmir were living under an archaic law that denied them equality and
justice. Overturning this, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court recently
pronounced a historic verdict - after 25 years of argument - that women
marrying outsiders did not stand to lose their right to resident status,
work, education and inheritance.
The impugned law that governed 'permanent resident status' in J&K stated
that a woman ceased to be a subject of the state if she married a non-J&K
resident. What this meant was that she would then lose her right to obtain
or continue in a government job, own land and property, pursue higher
education, contest or vote in municipal and state elections.
However, non-J&K resident wives of J&K men automatically became state
subjects. But there was a condition even for this: "A wife or a widow of a
state subject of any class shall acquire the status of her husband as
state subject of the same class as her husband, so long as she resides in
the
state and does not leave the state for permanent residence outside the
state."
Henna, daughter of former Chief Minister, Faroukh Abdullah, ceased to be a
state subject when she married a South African settled in London.
(Ironically, the non-J&K residents whom her father and brother married
became entitled to resident status.)
Some of the other prominent women who suffered because of this
discriminatory law include Dogri poetess Padma Sachdev; former Maharaja
Karan Singh's daughter Jyoti Singh; former state prime minister Bakshi
Gulam Mohd's granddaughter, Dr Ruby; Rashmi Singh, daughter of late Om
Mehta, a former union minister; and Dr Posh Charak, daughter of the first
Member of Parliament from J&K, Thakur Lachhman Singh Charak.
This law concerning 'state subjects' was enforced in J&K on April 20,
1927, when Kashmir's then ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, first promulgated it
to prevent rich foreigners from purchasing land, and to protect the
interests of the peasantry. The law was later adopted by the state's
democratically
elected government.
The law continued till 1957, when the new constitution of J&K was
introduced and 'state subject' was changed to 'permanent resident'.
Permanent Resident Status (PRS) was accorded to those who had been living
in the state for at least 10 years before 14 May 1954. This PRS was
permanent and non-discriminatory.
However, on March 25, 1969, the government issued a circular of
instructions to all state deputy commissioners, asking them to issue
permanent resident certificates to unmarried girls. These would be valid
only up to their weddings "so that her status (could be) re-examined and
defined on the basis of the status of her husband".
Thus, women residents of J&K had to apply for a fresh certificate at the
time of their wedding, explaining the status of their husbands. While
marriage could strip women of their citizenship rights, the regulation not
only allowed men to retain the benefits of residency even if they migrated
to a foreign land but conferred such benefits to their children even if
they were born abroad. Some members of the State Legislative Assembly did
make several unsuccessful attempts to seek abolition of this
discriminatory law but those of the political class who supported it
largely outnumbered them.
The various reasons trotted out in support were - "to safeguard our state
from going the way of Assam, where the original residents are now in a
minority"; "the legislation is in the best interests of the special status
of the state"; and "because it is very important to ensure the purity of
our progeny"!
Imrana Siddiqui, editor of an Urdu daily, said, "Women's groups have for
long ridiculed such claims and are conscious of the fact that there is a
deliberate campaign by the men in power to link a women's issue with
sensitive ones like `special status of Jammu and Kashmir'." She also
maintained that women's groups across the country empathized with the
cause but were prevented from taking up the issue, as it was sub-judice.
The legal battle started in 1978 when Amarjeet Kaur of Chogal village in
Kupwara district sought to acquire her share of property. Amarjeet and her
sister were married in Punjab to non-J&K residents, and their brother
claimed that they were no longer residents and therefore could not get
possession of the property. Amarjeet went on to win the case and inspired
many more similarly affected women. Rubina Nasarrullah (daughter-in-law of
former Punjab Governor Surinder Nath) challenged the law when she was
denied admission to pursue post-graduate studies in medicine after
marrying an 'outsider'.
The October 2002 judgement - by a full bench of the High Court - is the
result of the concerted effort of 12 petitioners. Overruling an earlier
judgement that referred to a case in which a woman of the state, on
marrying an outsider, acquired the domicile of her husband, the judge
concluded, "The judgement no longer holds the field and is overruled
because it relied on section 10 of the British Law which had itself been
amended."
The judgement has wider implications. Apart from women, celebrating this
historic judgement are over 200,000 refugees who came to J&K from the
Pakistani side at the time of Partition in 1947. They had been demanding
PRS since then and it is now that they have achieved their goal.
– Pamela Bhagat
December 15, 2002
Top
By arrangement with
Womens Feature Service
|
|
