Author: Muzamil Jaleem
Publication: www.expressindia.com
Date: November 16, 1998
URL: http://www.expressindia.com/ie/daily/19981116/32050264.html
Henna Abdullah, daughter of the
Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, is no longer a Kashmiri. Under the
law, she cannot buy an inch of land in the state nor can she get employment
or pursue her education in government institutions here any more. For,
last fortnight, she married a non-Kashmiri (a South African based in London),
losing her status of ``permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir'' automatically.
In contrast, her father Farooq Abdullah,
who also married a non-Kashmiri (a Briton), not only retains his permanent
residentship but his wife also is entitled to it.
This gender-discriminating law has
been applicable in the state since April 20, 1927, when former Dogra ruler
Maharaja Hari Singh first promulgated it. Later, the law was adopted by
the state's democratic government. Under this legislation, a woman resident
of Jammu and Kashmir loses her right to permanent residentship of the state
when she marries an outsider. The law does not apply to a man doing the
same; in fact, his wife automatically becomes a permanent resident herself.
But there is a condition for even
this. According to the rule, ``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.''
A women's rights activist in Srinagar
describes the Act as unfair. ``First of all, there should have been no
difference in treatment of men and women who marry outside the state, and
at least a woman should not be deprived the right she already has,'' she
says.
But Minister for Revenue Ali Mohammed
Naik disputes the claim that the law is discriminatory. He says the legislation
is in the best interest of the state and is also the policy of his party,
the ruling National Conference. ``This law safeguards our state from going
the Sindh or the Assam way, where the original residents are now in a minority,''
feels Naik.
He adds that the law can be relaxed
incases where the Government deems such an exception essential, but refuses
to comment on what should be the criteria to determine these cases.
Additional Secretary, Revenue, Mohammed
Aslam, too feels the law is essential to prevent any demographic change
in the state. He even adds: ``It is also very important to save the purity
of our progeny.''
The issue of permanent resident
certificates has always been a matter of concern for the state Government.
Till the '60s, a certificate with life-long validity was issued to both
males and females. There was no change in status if one married a non-state
subject.
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
which 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 Jammu and Kashmir have to apply for a freshcertificate
at the time of their wedding, explaining the status of their husbands.
The women who have been the victims
of the law refuse to believe arguments that it is in the state's ``best
interest''. One of them is a medical student, Waheeda, who recently married
an engineer from Bangalore. ``If they want outsiders out,'' she asks, ``why
is there not a similar ban on men also? Why are men allowed to marry outside
the state and not only retain their status but also get the same for their
wives?''
Waheeda and her husband have had
just the opposite experience. Her husband works in a private company and
has already been transferred to Srinagar. They had hopes of settling down
in the state. But Waheeda says: ``It seems impossible. They (the Government)
are not allowing me to even apply for post-graduation or for a job as I
am no longer a state subject.'' She is not too hopeful about retaining
her permanent residentship either.
While there have been others who
have raised their voice against the law, onlya few have actually fought
against it. One of them is Dr Rubina Malhotra, the granddaughter of former
Jammu and Kashmir prime minister Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammad, who moved the
high court after she lost her permanant residentship soon after she married
``outsider'' Ranjeet Malhotra. Rubina herself was debarred from taking
up a post-graduation course in medicine in the state.
There haven't been many exceptions
to the rule, though at least two cases are known in its long history. In
1973, Simroo of Pangrain village in Jammu's Hira Nagar tehsil was allowed
to keep her permanent resident status even after she married a non-state
subject, Dharam Chand. Her area's deputy commissioner issued her the certificate
on the ground that except for occasional visits to her husband's house,
Simroo lived in her ancestral village. Though the order was challenged
before the then revenue minister, he upheld it.
The other case was that of Nuzhat
Parveen, who married Mehmood-Ur-Rehman (now the Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh
MuslimUniversity) in the '60s. As per Revenue Ministry records, Parveen
was allowed to retain her permanent resident certificate and the last paragraph
of the order in her case read: ``The daughter of a state subject is as
good a descendent as a son under the Constitution, no discrimination can
be made on the grounds of sex.'' Promising as it was, the order offered
only brief hope. On September 25, 1974, the Government issued an order
saying the above two exceptions could not be treated as precedents in future
cases.
