Aizawl, the largest women’s organization in Mizoram, on Friday urged the state government to withdraw the Marriage and Inheritance of Property Amendment Bill, as it alleged that the legislation could be unsafe for women of the Mizo community.
The state assembly passed the Mizo Marriage and Property Inheritance Bill on February 24. Worryingly, while the previous law applied to all Mizo citizens, including those who married outside the community, this amendment excludes Mizo women who marry non-tribal men.
In a statement, Mizo Hmeichhe Insuihkhawm Pawl described the bill as “inappropriate” and “potentially unsafe” for Mizo women, and called for its review.
Despite their representation on the Mizo Customary Law Commission, MHIP claimed that they were not consulted or informed while drafting the specific provisions of the bill.
The organization stated that it rejected the current version, and is now looking for an alternative way to provide legal protection and reforms to better protect women’s rights.
The bill, introduced by Prime Minister Lalduhoma in his capacity as Minister of Law, seeks to further codify Mizo customary laws.
Its goal was to bring about transformative changes in traditional practices of polygamy, inter-communal marriage, and property rights.
The amendment formally prohibits bigamy and polygamy while seeking to strengthen women’s property rights upon separation. Laldouma stated that under the new provisions, no individual is allowed to take a second wife while the previous marriage remains legally valid. Therefore, divorced persons who intend to remarry must now submit a “divorce certificate” as proof that their previous separation was legal.
However, the main point of contention lies in a clause that says: “If a Mizo woman marries a non-Mizo person, she will cease to retain her Mizo identity, and her children will not be eligible to claim Scheduled Tribe benefits.”
On the other hand, the legislation seeks to enhance women’s financial security within society. It allows women to claim up to 50 percent of marital property and assets acquired jointly during the marriage if they divorce their husbands.
Since its passage, the bill has sparked a polarized debate on social media, drawing intense scrutiny and mixed reactions from the public.
While some viewed the amendment as a necessary step to regulate the growing trend of women marrying outside the tribe, critics said it institutionalized gender discrimination.
Opponents of the bill argued that a woman’s ethnic identity was an immutable birthright that followed the lineage of her parents and could not be abrogated through the codification of customary laws.
Others have questioned the legal validity of this law, citing Supreme Court rulings that state that a woman’s caste is determined by birth and does not change upon marriage, ensuring that her children remain eligible for SC or ST status.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
