PDP Does A Volte Face On Women’s Right

By: Yamini Kaul
Brings in Controversial PRD Bill After Praising 33% Political Reservation for Women
Just a few days after the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) chief Mehbooba Mufti hailed the passage of the women reservation bill in the Rajya Sabha, her party tabled the controversial Permanent Resident Disqualification Bill in the J&K Assembly on March 12, 2010. In the recent times, one has hardly come across such a volte face committed by a party that claims to be a representative of the aspirations of millions of people in the state.
It took Mufti less than a week from celebrating the success of 33% reservation for women in the political arena to closing the door of their home-state on their faces, were they to marry a man who is not a State Subject of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Bill was tabled earlier in 2004 and had the support of both the National Conference (then in the Opposition) and the PDP (part of the ruling conglomerate with the Congress). However, thankfully the Bill was stone-walled in the Legislative Council and opposed even by the Congress party, with the whole nation joining in the following outcry.
The fact that both the parties, NC and PDP, were political arch rivals at that time, and still are, did not deter either of the leadership to join ranks to disallow the women of the State any right to state subjectship, own property or even voting rights.In a way, this Bill stands quite opposite to the 33% political reservation bill for women passed in the Upper House of the Parliament and it remains to be seen how the Congress and the NC will react to it this time. However, one thing which is clear in this scenario is that neither of the political parties in the State are really a friend of the 50% population.
If this wouldn’t have been true, would the PDP not have thought of those women, who are already married to men who are non-State Subjects of J&K. Did Mufti, or others of her ilk, give a single thought to the eventuality where any of these women gets divorced or widowed. What would such a women do in the situation, where she couldn’t even come back to her own home state to seek a grip on her crumbling life? Perhaps the Bill holds an answer to that or perhaps it doesn’t.
Let us hear out what some common people have to say about the Bill and its discriminatory nature.
Mrs. Renu Nanda, noted social activist and academician, who is married to a Punjabi, says that she would lose her state subjectship as well as her right to own a property or even vote in the State elections, if the Bill was passed.
She was vociferous while opining, "I will not get jobs. It is inequality. It means double standards."
Though not as vociferous, but equally miffed at the development is another young man from Kashmir, whose two sisters are married outside the State, in fact, outside the country as well. Jamal Ahmed, whose two sisters are married to a Pakistani and a Bangladeshi, is worried about the unintentional effect of such legislation.
He asks, "God forbid, if tomorrow any of my sisters gets divorced from her husband, would that mean that she has no one to turn to in her parents’ family. Does it mean that she has no choice but to slug it out in a foreign country, among her in laws, instead of coming back to her home state, where she would be more welcome?"
While the PDP, or any of the other parties have come clear on any of these questions, the Bill awaits discussion in the State Assembly.