BEFORE INDEPENDENCE THE MAKING OF the present local self-government in India has had an unabated evolution of more than two millennia across the realms of time and space in the South Asian sub-continent. Even now the process is far from any satisfactorily evolved stage of coherent functionality.
Historians have recorded the origins of this institution by various names in North India since the Vedic Age (1500 BC onwards) viz. Sabha, Samiti, Vidhata and in South India since the Sangam Age (400 BC onwards) viz. Ur, Sabha, Nagaram et.al . In fact it would be appropriate to state that the continuity within the Indian cultures and its broad civilization ethos owes its debt to the silent and stable undercurrent provided by the institution of local governance despite the emergence and subsidence of various kingdoms and empires. Nevertheless, if one seeks to understand the origin of the modern or present day Panchayat Raj system in India one has to look back upon the last decades of the 19 th century especially the 1870s and ‘80s.
The first evidence of the idea of a three-tier Panchayat Raj system comes from Mr. D. P. Mishra, the then Minister for Local self-government under the Government of India Act of 1935 in Central Provinces and Berar. In order to rejuvenate and invigorate the system of local self-governance, he suggested a three-tier structure of local government with a district as the focal point. |
It was the Mayo's Resolution of 1870 that initiated a dialogue on local institutions by attempting to enlarge their powers and responsibilities. This was followed, some years later, by Lord Ripon's move by which all the then existing Boards had to have a 2/3 rd majority of the non-officials who had to be elected while the chairman of these bodies itself had to be an elected non-official. C.E.H. Hobhouse, Chairman of the Royal commission on Decentralization, in 1907, viewed that the local governance should emanate from the village level rather than the district--- a view that still does not find even partial takers amongst the establishment. During the British Colonial period in India Panchayats were limited to the male members only. As a matter of fact, it would be interesting to mention here that the Franchise Committee set up by the then British Government left the question of women's franchise in India to Provincial Legislatures by arguing that it involves local sensitivity and culture. Women were, however, not even made eligible, under the Act, for appointment as members of the Legislative Councils. Nevertheless, the Montague-Chelmsford Report made local self-governance a part of the ‘transferred subject' via the newly enacted scheme of Dyarchy. By 1926, eight provinces and six native states had passed the Panchayat Acts. The village level Panchayats were units of local governance and administration since the dawn of British regime, but the Colonial Government governed them. In fact, the various concessions at the lowest level that the Regime provided e.g. the Bengal Municipal Act (1884), the Bengal Local self-government Act (1885), the Bengal Village self-government Act et.al were all earmarked to checkmate the champions of Indian nationalism who pressed for local autonomy at the national level |
ROLE OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY VIS-A -VIS GANDHI
Unfortunately, the makers of the Indian Constitution (the Constituent Assembly) bypassed the strong national sentiment as well as the Gandhian ideal of a system of governance from below (Gram Swaraj) and instead of mainstreaming local self-governance it was shelved into the non-justifiable Part IV of the Constitution of India (COI) known as the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). Even during the National Movement itself many national thinkers had come to regard the country's system of village Panchayats as embryonic republics. Gandhi himself not only wanted their revival but also was in favour of erecting a constitutional structure on such an edifice. It appears that he was appalled to note that there was whatsoever “no mention or direction about village Panchayats and decentralization in the foreshadowed Constitution. It is certainly an omission calling for immediate attention if our independence is to reflect the people's voice. The greater the power of the Panchayats, the better for the people”. (Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol.XC, p. 209; also see Limaye, Madhu, ‘Contemporary Indian Politics', p.20)
The provision, as noted above, was put under Article 40 of the COI and it read:
“The State shall take steps to organize village Panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of local self-government” (Basu, D.D. ‘Introduction to the Constitution of India', Wadhwa and co. New Delhi, 19 th Edition, 2001,p.273.). Granville Austin, in his work notes, “the minutes of the committee meetings contain no mention of the Gandhian Constitution, or of panchayat or indirect government---- A Gandhian Constitution seems not to have been given a moment's thought.” (‘The Indian Constitution: Corner-stone of a Nation, Oxford Univ. Press, 1972 p.34 )
The architects of the Indian Constitution did not accept the Panchayat basis for the Constitution. They not only opted for direct elections to the national assembly, but also made the citizen the core of the entire structure. In the Constitution, as it finally emerged, the Panchayats and the municipalities were deprived of any Constitutional legitimacy besides the fact that their powers were left undefined by any Constitutional provision.
The Society for Participatory Research In Asia (PRIA), a research based NGO, elaborates upon as to how the Panchayats were marginalized in one of its publications by stating: “The Gandhian concept of ‘village republic' was opposed by Ambedkar and others who saw the village as a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism. Later, a compromise was forged and Panchayats found place in the non-justifiable part of the Constitution, the Directive principles of State policy, as Article 40 of the Indian Constitution.”
ROLE OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY VIS-A -VIS GANDHI
Once pushed into the DPSP of the COI and development activities being mostly guided by the Indian State, the Panchayats could never take off as such. This was also perhaps because of the fact that the common citizens were not even involved in their own governance and the Panchayats remained a mere formality for almost fifty years. No wonder that beginning from the Community Development Programme (CDP) in 1952 until the debate on decentralization and devolution of powers into the late 80's and early 90's, almost all the major State sponsored schemes began as non-starters and ended up in a damp-squib. Being essentially directive in nature, non-justifiable in the courts, implemented by a top-heavy administration via high-handedness, unmindful of the necessity of equipping the locally elected leaders with decision making powers, and schemes virtually non-gender-just, there was no possibility of Panchayats acquiring any amount of self-sufficiency based on equality of sexes, opportunities and fairness in the distribution of power.
THE PRE 1990s PHASE: Centralized governance shelves crucial recommendations
During the five-year plan the Centre emphasized the importance of local authorities in community development, but little was done since it was like putting the cart ahead of horse. The Second Plan improved upon the First by specifically calling for a ‘well-organized democratic structure of administration within the district boards' in order to evoke popular initiative and Participation. (‘Second Five year Plan: Summary,' New Delhi: Government of India, Planning commission, 1956, p. 62; Also see Hardgrave, Jr. Robert L, 1968 p102).
In this regard, recommendations for corrective measures by four important committees are worth highlighting.
Balwantrai Mehta Committee (1957): This Committee was formed in the mid-50's to look into the various causes that led to the failure of the Community Development Programme. The team observed that the main reason for the failure was an absence of people's participation
The team suggested that a ‘set of institutional arrangements' was required not only to secure people's participation but also to make it significant and effective. The team brought up the idea of ‘Democratic Decentralization' and village reconstruction through the introduction of a three-tier system. The strategy for decentralization included democratic decentralization, structural decentralization, decentralization of planning at the grassroots level, decision-making, and delegation of power through local institutions, which is not to be used as a mechanical device but to be based on humanitarian aspects. The committee observed that “…the democratic government operating over large areas through its executive machinery can't adequately appreciate local needs…It is, therefore, necessary for devolution of power and a decentralization machinery, and such powers to be exercised, to be controlled and directed by popular representation of the local areas” (Chaudhary, Sahdev B, 1991, p616).
The Report was equally concerned about the training requirements of Panchayat people and quite lamentfully observed, “…no efforts so far have been made either by the Governments or by public or political organizations to impart any training in administrative matters to persons elected to local bodies. Such training is essential if we are to make our local bodies effective and useful.” (Kaushik, Sushila, 1993, p. 64). The result of these recommendations was the announcement of a three-tier Panchayati Raj system to undertake rural development activities.
Ashok Mehta Committee (1977): The Ashok Mehta Committee, which was formed in 1977, brought some new and significant thoughts in the concepts and practice of Panchayati Raj. It re-emphasized the need for involving the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in local development and planning, and viewed their roles in terms of strengthening the planning process at the micro-level. The Committee recommended a plan, which saw ‘democratic development…in all spheres of rural life' co-terminus and possible along with ‘rapid changes, continuous growth and sustained innovations.'
The Committee gave importance to the growth of human resource and suggested that there should be three types of training: (i) For officials, (ii) For elected representatives and (iii) combined courses for both officials and elected representatives together. The Report further read:
“The training programmes, covering officials as well as non-officials, would be of staggering dimension. This would require not only the activation of the existing institutions but also considerable augmentation of their numbers and resources. Suitable remedial measures should also be taken to resuscitate and revitalize the State-level training institutions .”(Ibid.p65)
Besides this, three other significant suggestions were:
• That the three-tier Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI) should consist of Zilla Parishad, Taluk Samiti and Mandal Panchayat;
• That the PRIs should be an inherent part of the COI rather than just a vestigial appendage in the DPSP (this committee was the first to initiate this idea); and
• That there should be participation of political parties in the Panchayat elections.
G.V.K. Rao Committee (1985): This Committee was formed in 1985 to look into the ways and means to revitalize the PRIs. It recommended that the Panchayat Samiti and the Gram /Mandal Panchayat should have a sub-committee, consisting mainly of women members, for considering and implementing programmes and schemes for welfare of women and children, including adult education. The two important suggestions that this committee provided were:
a). That the 'district' should be the basic unit of planning; and
b). That there should be a system of regular elections for the Panchayats.
L.M. Singhvi Committee (1986): This Committee, formed for Revitalization of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) for Democracy and Development, argued for devolving of more economic powers and resources to the PRIs in order to render them financially autonomous and self-reliant. The Committee perceived the PRIs as one that needs playing a pivotal role in the democratic success of the nation. It viewed the PRIs as the basic unit of self-government and the base for the democratic and republican operations of the nation. The Committee was strongly of the view that considerable training, research and public education inputs should be provided to strengthen the PRIs and the performance capabilities of those who are called upon to function as voters, elected representatives, administrative officials, and voluntary workers in relation to PRIs. It recommended further that national and state level local self-government institutes, and centres for training at the district level should be formed and empowered to train and evaluate particularly in relation to PRIs and Urban Local Bodies.
The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Government of India, held half a dozen conferences, of district magistrates and collectors, between December 1987 and July 1988 at several locations, on the broad theme of “Responsive Administration”. The various suggestions of the first five conferences were put together as a report which argued for people's participation, status of elected bodies at the local level, the latter's powers, responsibilities and financial resources. The Report also delved into the issue of the PRIs raising their own resources for at least a part of their expenditure, so as to have a sense of participation and responsibility.
It is, nevertheless, interesting to note that none of the conferences or the Report of these personnel had recognized women as a special component either for purposes of reservation or financial allocation. No specific issue of development was viewed as one that could involve women in their majority or as being covered under women's issues. Obviously the sensitivity to women as constituting equal proportion of the population or as a majority among the poor and weaker sections of the rural areas is totally absent at the administrative level.
THE CENTRALIZED STATE BEGINS ROLLBACK
The decade of 1980's was one that saw a movement and a general consensus building up towards reservation of seats for women for not less than 33%. But before the much required corrective via the 73 rd Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA) came, another bill in 1989 had been tabled before the Indian Parliament, known as the 64 th Amendment Bill, seeking “as nearly as may be” up to 30% seats in favour of women in the membership of panchayats at all the three levels, including in the seats provided for SC/ST and in the total seats. However, it did not provide for reservation among chairpersons. It is important to mention here that after the 64 th Amendment Bill fell and before the 73 rd CAA was passed, several States initiated some correctives in their panchayat laws in order to bring reservation for women as if in sheer anticipation of the 73 rd CAA. These States were Orissa, which provided 30% reservation for women in the membership of the panchayat; Maharashtra, which introduced a 30% reservation for women in the membership of the panchayats in 1991; and Kerala, which also did the same before 1992. The most crucial difference between the 73 rd CAA and the earlier 64 th Amendment Bill was the fact that there was no provision for the reservation of the seat of chairpersons in the 64 th while the 73 rd contained it.
Whatsoever might have been the logic behind zeroing-in on the ‘not less than 33%' figure, ‘not less than' came to be meant, unfortunately, as 33% only (and not more) for all the States. However, even this 33% was not vertically maintained to the level of various quorums of panchayats meetings where the most crucial decisions regarding panchayats are taken.
Thus, the Minister of State for Rural Development noted this lacuna while introducing the 73 rd Amendment Bill in 1992 – that making a provision for reservation of one-third of the total seats can be considered as inadequate. The Minister announced, “ considering the fact that women constitute nearly half the population, even this reservation can be considered as inadequate; but the honourable members will agree that it is significantly more than what has been attempted so far in most of the states” (See .Lok Sabha Debates, Vol. XVI, No.9, 1 Dec, 1992, New Delhi, p. 716)
DISCOURSE ON DECENTRALIZATION: DECONSTRUCTION AND PARADIGM SHIFT
In the last ten years or so, especially since 1991, India has been home to some major structural reforms. The magnitude of it has been at such an unprecedented scale and pace that already an argument of an 'overdose' has started gaining ground among its detractors. Nevertheless, the proponents are of the view that the 'second generation reforms' must be initiated and taken to their logical conclusion irrespective of the fact that a nebulous realignment of forces can already be noticed.
This new strategy which is explicitly pro-globalisation' and pro-'liberalisation' has had a twin-fold impact on the discourse on governance and development.
First, the new discourse favours a rapid rollback of the Indian State from a position of virtual omnipresence and omnipotence to one where it should conduct itself as a facilitator in the process of development only. This rollback would necessarily allow then its logical corollary of the devolution of powers to the units of local self-government at the rural ( Panchayats ) and urban ( Nagar Palika ) levels. It is at this grassroots level that the elected representatives shall execute upon the nature and type of development that suits local aspirations. The enactment of the 73 rd and 74 th Constitutional Amendment Acts (CAA) must be seen in this light.
Second, the new discourse also thereby favours the clearing of space by the State for active citizens' participation via the various citizens' groups, NGOs / INGOs, and other concerned parties. No wonder, therefore, India is witnessing an awareness and information revolution generated by the social sector at a scale hitherto unheard of.
The new discourse on local governance is thus entwined with an emphasis on the devolution of powers to locally elected representatives as well as active citizens' participation via various organizational platforms. In this regard, Kothari opines that the "Panchayati Raj is too important to be left to governments and parties. It must be seen as part of the political process that emanates from the grassroots". (Ibid. p.10)
However, the people behind this discourse have been cautious enough to warn of the lurking dangers that lie in apparent rationalities. According to them, the devolution and decentralization of powers is of little worth unless due protection is provided to weaker and marginalized sections in our society that includes Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), OBCs and more especially women. This concern has been emboldened and directly noted by the 73 rd CAA, 1992, Art. 243(3), which states:
"Not less than one-third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Panchayat shall be reserved for women and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in Panchayat".
It took almost half a century for the framers and legislators, however, to legalize the Panchayats via this 73 rd CAA (put under the Schedule XI) and empower the common citizens in order to have the powers to arrive at decisions and to execute them in tune with their local needs and aspirations.
Nevertheless, the Eleventh Schedule (Art. 243G) made an elaborate list of 29 items that were to be devolved to the Panchayats. These items once again were the issues that all the erstwhile governments had been claiming to deal with but were unable to work out because of an undemocratic, high-handed approach, which then quite understandably could not generate or garner any kind of citizens' participation.
Thus, the clearing of space by the State, as part of its rollback, provided a diverse range of fields to the Panchayats for their developmental and operational necessities. This list includes items from agriculture, land improvement, irrigation, animal husbandry, fisheries, social forestry, small scale industries, rural housing, drinking water to rural electrification, non-conventional sources of energy, technical training, education, markets, family welfare, welfare of weaker sections etc.
Despite these sincere provisions, James Manor raises his doubts by arguing that 'these changes have been inspired by a curious mixture of something close to Gandhian idealism, a concern for effective development and hard-nosed political calculations' . (EPW, Vol. XXXVI, 03.03.2001,p. 716) The 73 rd Constitutional Amendment Act, as such, has been hailed by its supporters as a landmark Act, a ‘ silent revolution' (Mathew, G., 1999,p.8) and rejected by one of its critics as 'illusion' (Sharma, B. D., 1998 p.77) .
back