Kewal Sharma
Is woman dependent on her husband? If the response of the common people is yes then is the clarification vide order no. GAD(Adm)18/2006-I Dated 27-02-2006 justifiable ? The word dependent is a debatable issue in this regard.
In 2005 The Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005 was passed which was issued by Social Welfare Department vide Notification SRO-294 dated 21st October, 2005 which Reads as “A person claiming benefit for being resident of Backward Area or of Area near the Line of Actual Control must establish that he/she has resided in the area for a period not less than 15 years before the date of application and is actually residing in the said area. However, a person may not be disentitled from claiming this benefit only on the ground that his/her father or person on whom he/she is dependent is living in a place which is not identified as Backward Area or area near line of Actual Control on account of his employment, business or other professional or vocational reasons;
Women married from non RBA/ALC to RBA/ALC area are not entitled to get RBA/ALC certificate. In this regard law/reservation rules are silent. Amendment in this reservation rule 21 (iii) is required.
*15 yrs rider in reservation rule 21 (iii) is considered only in RBA/ALC category and not in others. Why?
* In rule 21 (iii) woman married in backward areas/Actual line of control should be treated as dependents on their respective husbands.
* As mentioned in the Rule 21 (iii) the dependents i.e. Children are entitled to get RBA/ALC certificates irrespective of the residence and time bar on being a dependent on the father, who is residing in RBA/ALC areas for fifteen years.
* As such the women married to the RBA/ALC areas should be put in the Rule 21 (iii) dependent on their husband and should be entitled to get RBA/ALC certificate without time bar ( i.e. 15 yrs ) or income bar (i.e. 4.5 Lac). If the Government really wants to empower the women.
* People elect MLA’s/ representatives to make laws and amend laws; in this regard amendment is required by the representatives of the Government.
* Government on papers assures women empowerment if this is true then the rider for women should not be there. Why this kind of impartiality and unjustice with the women?.
* In patriarchal society woman folk constitute 50% electorates/population even then their voices/demands and opportunities are not considered equally. i.e. 50 percent.
* Government include the names of the newly married women in the voter list for its vested interest as there is no 15 yrs rider, but when these married women demand their rights from the government then the government denies them these innocent women in one way or the other.
* The reservation rule 21 (iii) for issuance of RBA/ALC certificate to women married in RBA/ALC areas from non RBA/ALC areas is totally eyewash, if a women get married at the age of 25 then after 15 yrs (rider) she will get 40 yrs of age it means at the age of 40 yrs she will be entitled to get RBA/ALC certificates. Does the house think; it is right. Will women at the age of 40 yrs get any reservation benefits. I think it is of no use.
* Woman should be entitled of claiming benefit on the ground being dependent on her husband. Husband must be a resident of Backward area/Actual line of control for fifteen years as per rule 21 (iii).
* And clarification vide order no. GAD(Adm)18/2006-I Dated 27-02-2006 is totally unjustified and an attack on the woman of RBA/ALC category particularly.
* As per our view the period for women married in RBA/ALC areas should be counted of her husband which they are dependent. So that the intention of the Government on the issue of woman empowerment may be cleared and the woman folk may get the reservation benefits equally as per their population at par with their counterpart.
* In male dominant society the women constitute 50% population but their genuine demands are not even heard. In 2012 and 2013 the demand was raised in the both houses respectively but only assurance was given and nothing concrete was decided. It was a communal attack by the then leaders because of both category all the sections of society living in these areas were getting benefit.
(The author is a social activist)
Follow our WhatsApp channel