advertisement
"I miss my old home, how do I not have any control or share over the house I spent my childhood in?"
Rubina (35) distinctly remembers the day that she and her mother, Hakeeman (75) were pushed out of their house in Nalhar village in Nuh, Haryana. After Hakeeman's husband passed away, all the properties in the village were taken by Raheeshan, the first wife as she also has sons besides daughters.
In Nuh, having sons or a brother means it is relatively easier to demand and control inheritance. But Hakeeman only has one daughter, Rubina. The mother and daughter were made to leave the house and they now reside in a small shelter surrounded by a field in Nuh.
The devil behind this is an archaic, colonial customary law, known as the 'Riwaz-e-kanoon' barring the women from inheriting property.
The customary law warrants a deeper look. Introduced in the early 1900s, the law came into being in United Punjab province. Soon after the bifurcation took place and Haryana was carved out of Punjab in 1966, the law was abolished in Punjab but continued to exist in Haryana. Mainly it pertained to the entire Gurugram district of which Nuh was a part then.
Customary laws supersede every other law, even the Constitution on matters like inheritance. If a Muslim has migrated and settled like the Meos, it's applicable on them, he noted.
And thus came the story of Hakeeman and many other women like her.
Hakeeman and Rubina recalled that even the house they were supposed to get an equal share in has been reconstructed as per Raheeshan's will. "Ab toh naksha hi badal dia," they said, referring to the 300 gaj land.
Whatever Raheeshan schemed, she got it done through her sons but it has impacted their lives forever, they alleged.
Rubina and Hakeeman echoed a similar sentiment: "Humara jo haq hai humein mile." (Give us what is our right).
Advocate Gupta asked an important question: "A woman loses her husband and she comes back home to her mother. How will she have any share that could help her stand on her feet? It is then ultimately upon the brothers whether they want to take care of her and the mother or not."
Another case in point is the case of Waheed's family, six sisters whose fight to get their ancestral property has taken most of their lives while the younger ones have also grown up.
The women were fairly young when they started the fight around 12 years ago. But now they have aged. Haseena (58), Khatija (55), Rabina (45), Bassan (36), Kairoli (26) and Mehram (21).
Their uncle, Waheed has been helping them fight their case. He told The Quint, "My aunt wrongly sold the land to another local, Nasruddin who swooped in after uncle's demise years ago. She didn't realise what she did. The property, a Qila was to be divided among the six daughters but it wasn't."
The property was also devalued and sold off at a much lower price.
Their lawyer, Liaqat Ali has been looking at their case since 12 years. He told us that there is a reason the law still applies to Meo women.
"Meos are converted Muslims. We come from a lineage of Kshatriya Rajputs, hence neither Muslim nor Hindu law applies to us," he said.
According to Ali, historically, Meos are said to have come from a army/warrior clan who fought alongside Mughals and Rajputs, there were instances were the girls/women of a family were abducted in conflicts and their property share would be lost.
Hence, the law originated in giving them life estate right instead of ownership.
On being asked if writing a Will beforehand would make any difference, Advocate Gupta said it is still challenged in the court under the customary law and since they are ancestral properties, they "will fall upon the sons."
Similarly, another Advocate Tahir Devla who has also seen to some civil suits pertaining to such property rights, he said, "It is to deny women of their basic rights."
Further, he elaborated on how the British also picked up from the Indian culture and sensibilities then and codified the law. A law like this not just practiced in Nuh, but also in some regions in UP and among some tribal groups, he remarked.
An official district registrar (Patwari) who wishes to remain anonymous, narrated about the time he was confronted with a case of four girls being denied of their property and he stepped in to help.
He added, "The biggest shortcoming is that the women lose their own share if they don’t go to court. If they don’t get it, where will they go? And court cases like these take time."
These cases got this reporter wondering where the local leaders of the community stand on this issue and if there was a pushback on the ground.
Lawyer Ali said that politicians don't address it because it would mean 'less property for them.'
When The Quint met Mohd Alam, legal head of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind in Nuh, he instantaneously said that noted scholar Mahmood Madani has often reiterated in his speeches that when it comes to the "share of a sister, you have to give it to her. It's not forgiven."
It all comes to this: How do eliminate a law still depriving women of a basic right that could help in their upward mobility and autonomy? Gupta rightly observed:
"The only way to abolish it is by Act, until and unless the legislature interferes and dissolves it, nothing else can be done."
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)
Published: undefined