news details |
|
|
| Moves once again afoot to humiliate Daughters of J&K | | Permanent Resident (Disqualification) BILL - I | |
RUSTAM
EARLYTIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Mar 9: Moves are again afoot to humiliate the daughters of J&K and re-impose curbs on their fundamental rights. What is disturbing is the day the anti-daughters forces in the state chose to humiliate and disgrace the daughters of J&K. What is even more disturbing is the fact that the Congress allowed this to happen. The anti-daughters forces chose March 8 to humiliate the daughters of the state, when the whole world was observing the same as International Women's Day.
In fact, one of the PDP members in the Legislative Council, Murtaza Khan, introduced a Private Member's Bill seeking to deprive the daughters of J&K of their natural right to marry persons of their choice and snatch their right to own immovable property in the state or obtain a job under the state government in case they would marry persons other than the State Subjects. The Bill seeks restoration of the pre-October 7, 2002 position. The Bill is nothing but a barbarous onslaught on the women's rights.
It needs to be underlined that the 53-years-old Jammu & Kashmir Constitution contains umpteen archaic laws which discriminate against women of the state. Some of them are so improper and humiliating that they deprive a woman resident of Jammu & Kashmir of her elementary citizenship rights. And some of them are so invidious that they lay down that the "State Subject Certificate" (SSC) issued to a woman citizen of the State shall remain "valid till marriage" and that a fresh SSC will be issued to her only if she proves that she has married a "State Subject". The SSC is a mandatory document for acquiring "immovable property in J&K", or obtaining jobs under the State Government.
Take, for instance, the provisions as enumerated in Part-III of the J&K Constitution enforced on January 26, 1957. These are based wholly on the State Notification NoI-L/84 or the State Subject Laws (SSL) promulgated by Maharaja Hari Singh on April 20, 1927, to appease those advocating the 'son of the soil' theory and debar the "non-State Subjects" from acquiring any immovable property in the J&K territories or getting jobs in the government. Part III lays down that a woman citizen of J&K marrying someone from some other state of the Union, will not only forfeit her right to be called the 'daughter of the soil', but also the right to get a job under the State Government, secure admission in the J&K Government-run educational, technical and professional institutions and acquire and own any immovable property anywhere in the State.
It also unequivocally says that if a male citizen of J&K marries even a foreigner, the spouse will automatically become a citizen of the State.
The authorities in Srinagar had been enforcing these outdated laws with utmost vigour quirt ruthlessly, particularly since 1956, and subjecting women citizens of J&K to some of the worst kinds of inequities. Even a casual scrutiny of the kind of treatment meted out to the Director of the All Indian Radio, Leh, Tsering Angmo, former J&K Prime Minister Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad's grand-daughter and former Punjab Governor Surinder Nath's daughter-in-law, Rubina Malhotra, and Amarjeet Kaur of Baramulla, would be enough to determine the extent to which the basic citizenship rights of women in the State were trampled upon by the authorities. A brief elucidation in this regard would be in order.
"Firebrand" crusader Tsering Angmo, who hails from Ladakh and was "involved in all major social and political struggles of the 70s in J&K", engineered to "inspire" women, fought relentlessly and valiantly but lost her own personal battle-battle for the restoration of her fundamental citizenship rights, including the one to "own a house legally in her native place". What turned out to be the prime cause of her failure was her marriage with an "outsider" from Uttar Pradesh.
Likewise, the gynecologist and well-connected Rubina Malhotra, who had done her MBBS from the State Medical College, moved heaven and earth in the early 50s to get admission in the Post-Graduate course in medicine in J&K. But all her efforts failed to carry conviction with the biased authorities. Her only fault: She, like Tsering Angmo, had married a "non-State Subject" Punjabi.
Convinced that the rulers in Srinagar would not scrap that anti-women SSLs on their own, Rubina ultimately challenged their constitutional validity in the J&K Court.
The story of Amarjeet Kaur of Kashmir was no different. She too had to approach the J&K High Court for justice when her "relatives" tried to usurp her "ancestral property" on the ground that she had married an "outsider" from Punjab. And, her petition, like several other similar cases, including that of Rubina Malhotra awaiting judgment by the High Court for nearly two decades. It was only on October 7, 2002 that the Full Bench of J&K High Court gave its judgment upholding the plea of Rubina Malhotra.
The women of J&K had -- apart from taking their cases to the highest court of the State - protested from time to time against the menace of gender bias, discrimination and exploitation, but without achieving any breakthrough despite that fact that certain elements in the administration did publicly admit that the "State apparatus is disproportionately tilted in favour of the masculine gender". (To be continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
