Author: R Jagannathan
Publication: Firstpost.com
Date: December 2, 2013
URL: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/omar-should-check-why-nc-backed-biased-bill-against-jk-women-1262095.html

Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah blasted Narendra Modi for his comment at a Jammu public meeting yesterday (1 December) that women marrying outside the state did not have equal rights. He said Modi either “lies or is ill-informed.”

The truth is probably closer to the latter – Modi may have been marginally ill-informed about recent developments – but the broader issue of the state denying equal status to women was literally true till a few years ago. And the discriminatory rules are still on government websites. (Read here and here).

The discrimination is supposed to have ended when a court threw out a discriminatory law. Omar’s National Conference was, in fact, in cahoots with the then government to overturn the court judgment – but luckily that law too did not pass finally.

Here’s the real dope. The fact is Kashmir discriminates against all Indians from outside the state if they marry Kashmiris. An article by Rekha Chowdhary in DNA in April 2010 gives us the background to the specific discrimination against women, and how it was finally the high court that outlawed the illegal law.

According to Chowdhary, in notifications issued as far back as 1927 and 1932, the state created various categories of residents – with some being called permanent residents (PRs) with special rights. Though the law did not discriminate between female and male PRs, an administrative rule – thanks to in-built patriarchy or misogyny – made it clear that women could remain PRs only till marriage. After that they had to seek a fresh right to remain PRs. And if a woman married someone who wasn’t a Kashmiri PR, she automatically lost her own PR status.

This is what possibly Modi was referring to, but this law got challenged in court and soon the illegality of the official fiat was recognised for what it was worth and struck down.

Wrote Chowdhary: “In 2004, the state high court, in the case of State of J&K vs Sheela Sawhney, declared that there was no provision in the existing law dealing with the status of a female PR who married a non-resident. The provision of women losing their PR status after marrying outside the state, therefore, did not have any legal basis. This decision was historic because it corrected an administrative anomaly and brought relief to women who married outside the state.”

However, the story does not end here – as patriarchy does not give up without a fight. On the argument that a “woman follows the domicile of her husband”, a Progressive Democratic Party government, led ironically by a woman, Mehbooba Mufti, passed a law to overturn the court judgment by introducing a Bill styled “Permanent Residents (Disqualification) Bill, 2004’.

And what did the Bill seek to do? It specifically said that if a woman married a non-resident (married  outside the state, that is) she would lose her own permanent residency status. And here’s the interesting part. This was not Mufti’s solo effort. Omar Abdullah’s party, the National Conference, backed this Bill and got it passed in the assembly. But it did not ultimately see the light of day for various reasons.

Not one to give up early, a PDP member in 2010 brought another bill of the same kind – but it failed to pass muster.

So, yes, Modi did get a part of his statement wrong, but he is not wrong on the fact that Kashmir has repeatedly been trying to restore a discriminatory law against women marrying outside the state. Even as late as 2010, efforts were being made to legislate the discrimination.

Perhaps, Omar Abdullah should check his own party’s role in legislating the previously abortive effort to deny Kashmiri women permanent residents their right to equality.