Press : Shri J.P. Nadda on rebuttal to Omar’s tweet

Bharatiya Janata Party, Jammu & Kashmir
Pt. Premnath Dogra Bhawan, Kachi Chawni, Jammu

PRESS RELEASE

Nadda’s rebuttal to Omar’s tweet

In a strong, evidence based rebuttal to Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah's tweet in response to Shri Narendra Modi's reference at Jammu's "Lalkaar" rally , to gender discrimination against women being exercised by the J&K Government, the BJP National General Secretary and MP, Shri J.P. Nadda today produced before the media a sequential evidence based on a series of facts which has led to the present predicament depriving the women of J&K from enjoying the same rights as enjoyed by womenfolk in the rest of India.

Shri J.P. Nadda said, what Shri Narendra Modi said was absolutely correct in saying that J&K Government was guilty of practising gender bias and he has very rightly initiated a debate to discuss whether Article-370 has been of any advantage to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

What Shri Modi said was absolutely reasonable and in the general interest, Nadda added and said if Omar Abdullah was reacting in an unwarranted manner, it only showed that he was unnerved by the tremendous public response to Shri Modi’s rally in Jammu.

He said, instead of putting up an argument, if any, based on facts, Omar has resorted to childish acts of rejoinder which betray his either being too naive or too ignorant.

J&K High Court Verdict

The case, titled State of J&K versus Dr Susheela Sawhney (LPA 29/279), wherein several LPAs, OWPs and SWPs were clubbed, went on, and on, and on, till October 2002, when a verdict was announced by a three-judge Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

The three judges on the Bench were Acting Chief Justice Vijay Kumar Jhanji, Justice T S Doabia and Justice Muzaffar Jan. On October 7, 2002, the Bench headed by Justice Jhanji announced that the ``daughter of a permanent resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will not lose status as a permanent resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on her marriage with a person, who is not a permanent resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir’’.

This view was endorsed by Justice T S Doabia who concurred with the opinion expressed by Mr Justice Jhanji

Mufti Mohammed Sayeed’s government tried to overturn in March 2004 when it brought it in the infamous Bill named ``The Jammu and Kashmir Permanent Resident (Disqualification) Bill 2004¹’’. It bears mention here that the Bill was brought in using the powers of the Legislature under Section 8 of Part III of the State Constitution.

The Bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly unanimously within six minutes of being moved by Law Minister Muzaffar Hussein Beigh of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), a reputed lawyer and a legal luminary in his own right. Two main political parties of the State, who pursue Kashmir-centric policies with a vengeance, and are virtually sworn enemies and arch rivals, the PDP and the National Conference (NC) voted together on this Bill.

The aims and objects of the legislation as set out in the preamble were:

“A Bill to provide for disqualification from being a permanent resident of the State on marriage of a female permanent resident with a non-permanent resident”.

On becoming an Act, it would have come into force, retrospectively, with effect from October 7, 2002, the day the High Court delivered its judgment. The Act had three sections. Section 1 dealt with title and commencement. Section 2 dealt with disqualification and read:

“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary obtained in any law, notification or judgment, decree or order of any court, a female permanent resident on her marriage with a person who is not a permanent resident shall with effect from the date of such marriage cease to be a permanent resident.”

Section 3 provided for interpretation:

“For purposes of this Act, the expression ‘permanent resident’ means a person who is or is deemed to be a permanent resident under Section 6 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir subject to the modification that a female permanent resident shall cease to be so on her marriage to a person who is not a permanent resident.”

Paradoxical as it may seem, two mainstream national parties, the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), arch rivals, worked with full vigour to defeat this Bill. Of course, they did not work together to defeat it but in their own different ways, they contributed to the outcome. The BJP organized massive protest demonstrations, to begin within the Jammu region, and then in several other parts of the country. This unnerved the Congress, a coalition partner of the PDP in the State Government from November 2002 to July 2008.

The Congress worked within the government, and the Legislature, to ensure that the Bill got defeated in the Legislative Councial and did not become a law. This was achieved as Chairman of the Legislative Council Abdul Rashid Dar, of the National Conference (NC), adjourned the House sine die, rather unexpectedly, on March 11, 2004, amid heated discussions on the Bill close to midnight.

Immediately thereafter, Omar Abdullah, who was then the president of the National Conference, threw out Dar from the party who later joined the Congress and presently in PDP.

It was the BJP that approached the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in 2004 and 2005 to secure gender equality by seeking its indulgence to abolish the practice of making an endorsement of ‘valid till marriage’ and the High Court upheld the BJP pro-gender equality view. It was in August 2005 that the PDP-Congress coalition Government finally assured the High Court that it will implement the High Court order in letter and spirit,” .The PDP-Congress government accepted the court verdict to avoid contempt proceedings. BJP was quite happy with the judgment, it still wanted a regime that would entitle the children of the daughters of the state married outside to enjoy all citizenship rights available to the residents of the state and its struggle to achieve goes on unabated.

Questions for Omar Abdullah and his party:-

1. What would be the stand of National Conference if such law comes again in the assembly?

2. Does Omar's sister Sara enjoy same equal rights as her brother simply because she has married to a person who is not a permanent resident of J&K? Do Sara's children enjoy same rights as Omar's children?

3.Does Sara ,being the wife of a non-State subject ,enjoy same rights as Payal, the wife of Omar Abdullah, even though Payal is originally not a State Subject of J&K by birth? .