Valley between sexes

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 state8217;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 automaticallybecomes a permanent resident herself.

But there is a condition for even this. According to the rule, 8220;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.8221;

A women8217;s rights activist in Srinagar describes the Act as unfair. 8220;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,8221; 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. 8220;This law safeguards our state from going the Sindh or the Assam way, where the original residents are now in a minority,8221; 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: 8220;It is also very important to save the purity of our progeny.8221;

The issue of permanent resident certificates has always been a matter of concern for the state Government. Till the 8217;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 8220;so that her status could be re-examined and defined on the basis of the status of her husband8221;. 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 state8217;s 8220;best interest8221;. One of them is a medical student, Waheeda, who recently married an engineer from Bangalore. 8220;If they want outsiders out,8221; she asks, 8220;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?8221;

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: 8220;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.8221; 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 8220;outsider8221; Ranjeet Malhotra. Rubina herself was debarred from taking up a post-graduation course in medicine in the state.

There haven8217;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 Jammu8217;s Hira Nagar tehsil was allowed to keep her permanent resident status even after she married a non-state subject, Dharam Chand. Her area8217;s deputy commissioner issued her the certificate on the ground that except for occasional visits to her husband8217;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 8217;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: 8220;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.8221;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.