[Reader-list] Bill to disqualify Kashmiri women from remainingstate subjects

[S. Jabbar]

Please remember that J&K has a separate constitution from the Constitution
of India and that the bill has to do with the idea of the 'State subject,'
which, if I remember correctly was formulated in Maharaja Pratap Singh's
time to prevent wealthy and educated Punjabis from the plains from acquiring
land and government jobs.

 Since 1947 the idea of who is a 'State Subject' and who is not acquired
great political overtones.  For example, the newly elected Kashmir Assembly
wanted to preserve the status of refugees who fled the state in 1947 and
even today that person has the right to return.  However, unlike Punjab
where property on both sides of the border was declared 'enemy property' and
refugees rehabilitated after their claims were assessed, no such thing was
done in J&K.  Thousands of refugees from Mirpur and Muzaffarabad displaced
in 1947 still live in 'camps' in Jammu.  But their condition is better than
the terrible condition of the stateless refugees from say, Sialkot, who fled
to Jammu, which was closer than cities in Indian Punjab. These poor people
have been living in the most abject condition since 1947 without a strong
lobby in Delhi or Srinagar to support their basic rights as citizens of this
country.

Kamal, both Hindu and Muslim who choose to marry men who are not state
subjects will suffer and in this it controls the woman's choice.  KP women
who marry other KP women will not lose their status, but KP women who marry
Bengalis or men from Delhi or Chandigarh would.  Similarly, Muslim women who
choose to marry outside their community of Kashmiri Muslims would lose their
status and privileges.

Not surprisingly, in the most blatant display of chauvinism both Kashmiri
Muslim and Pandit men can marry whom they wish and retain their privileges
of state subject. 


> From: <kamalhak at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: <kamalhak at gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:00:48 +0000
> To: "S. Jabbar" <sonia.jabbar at gmail.com>, <reader-list-bounces at sarai.net>,
> Sarai <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Bill to disqualify Kashmiri women from
> remainingstate subjects
> 
> Hope the vigilante will not see an indian conspiracy in this. Apart from this
> there is nothing surprising in the bill. One needs to understand who all will
> be affected by this bill becoming a law. Though, it will be politically
> incorrect to say this, yet one can't deny the main sufferers will essentially
> be displaced Kashmiri Pandit  women. The bill is, therefore, a yet another
> step in the process of preventing the displaced Kashmiri Pandits from seeking
> their rightful place in the land of their ancestors.
> One also needs to look through the paradox of facilitating the return and
> settlement with honour  of wanna be militants on one side and preventing a
> rightful place to a Kashmiri women for her folly of marrying an Indian
> citizen. 
> Going through the events and politics of Kashmir during last two decades, one
> can safely predict a legislation the strips the displaced Kashmiri Pandits of
> their permanent residency in Kashmir because of their two decade old absence
> from the state.
> 
> Jai Ho!!!
> 
> Kamal Hak
> Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "S. Jabbar" <sonia.jabbar at gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:52:38
> To: Sarai<reader-list at sarai.net>
> Subject: [Reader-list] Bill to disqualify Kashmiri women from remaining
> state subjects
> 
> Shocker on Women¹s Day

PR  Bill again haunts govt
NC allows PDP bill for
> discussion

Rising Kashmir News
Jammu, March 8: A Bill moved by PDP legislator
> Murtaza Ahmad Khan to provide
for disqualification from being Permanent
> Resident (PR) of the State on
marriage of a female resident with a
> non-permanent resident was allowed in
the House unopposed.


The bill (LC
> Private Members Bill No 04 of 2010) moved by Khan was allowed
unopposed in the
> House. The Bill  favours disqualification from being
Permanent Resident of the
> State on marriage of a female permanent resident
with a non-permanent resident
> and on termination of marriage of a
non-resident female with a permanent
> resident husband.

The Bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly in March
> 2004. However,
Congress, which was then the coalition partner of PDP-Congress
> ruling
alliance voted against the bill in Legislative Assembly. The bill
> was
rejected by the House.

 NC had then supported the Bill but Congress was
> strongly opposed.

The PDP legislator Murtaza Khan also moved a Bill (LC
> Private Members Bill
No 01 of 2010)   to provide for effective protection of
> women from domestic
violence and for matters connected therewith was rejected
> by the House.

Earlier, the government had said that it will move a bill on
> Domestic
Violence in the Assembly.

''To empower the Jammu and Kashmir women
> so that they can fight for their
rights, the government is going to move a
> bill on Domestic Violence in the
ongoing session,'' Sakina Ittoo, Minister for
> Social Welfare had said.

She had said that the bill will soon be tabled in
> the Legislative Assembly.
³We are sure that the government will give green
> signal for its
implementation in the state.''

Sakina had said the complaints
> of domestic violence are rising in the
> state.

_________________________________________
reader-list: an open
> discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To
> subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in
> the subject header.
To unsubscribe:
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
List archive:
> &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>