PANCHAYATI RAJ SYSTEM AND THE DECENTRALIZATION PROCESS

INTRODUCTION

In the last unit we learned about the meaning of decentralized planning. We also gained some idea about the way decentralized planning has taken shape during the last fifty years or so in India. The various aspects of decentralized planning were also discussed.

We now know that the Panchayati Raj system is the most effective mechanism available in the country for the implementation of decentralized planning. In this unit we will learn more about the Panchayati Raj system as it prevails in the country today and its relationship with decentralized planning. It will also be useful to be familiar with a brief history of Panchayati Raj in India. 
EVOLUTION OF PANCHAYATI RAJ
Panchayati Raj has a long history in India. Panchayats are mentioned in Rig Veda, which is believed to have been composed more than 1000 years before Christ. The five members of the Panchayat of the village were known as Pancha Parameswar, or the five godly persons. Kings were respectful towards them. The Panchayat distributed land, collected revenue and settled disputes in the village. However, the Panchayats suffered a steady decline later under feudal and Moghul rules. A new class of feudal chiefs called zamindars came to function as a link between the king and the people.

Panchayati Raj Under British Rule Under the British, the Panchayats started slowly losing their self-governing character. The authority of the state began to be felt in the villages directly. Special programmes like construction and maintenance of irrigation works, relief works, payment of grants-in-aid to schools were implemented by the state. Under a new judicial system, disputes arising in the village were carried to the courts outside the village. Thus the age-old functions of the Panchayat were carried to external agencies. It was after the First War of Independence in 1857 that local-self government received a little more attention from the British Government. District Funds were set up in several states and were given the power to levy a cess on land revenue, education and roads. District and Taluka local fund committees were set up, too. But the funds were small and the village was hardly

touched by the district committee.

Viceroy Lord Mayo’s Resolution of 1870 is an important land-mark in the evolution of local –self government during the British Rule. It aimed at enlarging the powers and responsibilities of the governments of the Provinces and the Presidencies. Local public works, health services, sanitation, education could now receive more attention from them and from the local-self governments.

But it is Lord Ripon, who is regarded as the father of local-self government in India. He passed a resolution in 1882 to put into practice the intentions of Lord Mayo. He attached importance to both administrative efficiency as well as political education at the local level.

The Ripon Resolution, however, focused on towns. It provided for a majority of elected nonofficial members and a non-official chair-person for the local board. The colonial administrators resisted it.

The Royal Commission on Decentralization, headed by C.E.H.Hobhouse, tried to revive the age-old institution of Panchayats by starting local-self government at the village level in stead of at the district level. The Commission recommended granting some powers to the Panchayats to enable them to perform their duties independently. They were entrusted with functions like village sanitation, control over ponds and management of schools. It also provided for some finance for the purpose independently. After the Montague-Chelmsford reforms, village Panchayats were established in a number of provinces. By 1925, eight provinces had passed panchayat acts and by 1926, six native states

had also passed panchayat laws.

It was expected that local-self government would receive a boost with the introduction of Dyarchy, under the responsibility of elected ministers. But it was found that the Dyarchy ministers contributed very little to the development of local government.

In 1927 the Simon Commission was entrusted with the task of enquiring into the working of local-self government and suggesting measures for improvement. The Commission found the following major drawbacks in the working of local bodies: large size of an average district in India, inadequacy of financial resources, lack of public spirit amongvoters and the absence of control over the local-self government authorities by the provincial governments.

The popular ministries formed in1937 undertook legislation to make the local bodies truly representative of the people. But unfortunately, they resigned with the outbreak of World War-II in 1939. From 1939 to 1946 the provinces were ruled by one man- the Governor. India became independent in 1947.

Panchayati Raj After Independence

We saw briefly how the British tried to decentralize power to local authorities. You should note, however, that the aim behind this was not to decentralize democracy, but to facilitate colonial administration. The Freedom Movement was concerned more with swaraj for the country than with gram swaraj. Mahtma Gandhi, of course, was a great advocate of gram swaraj, but not all the other

leaders held the same view. For example, Dr. Ambedkar, who is widely regarded as the chief author of the Indian constitution, thought that “the village (was) a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism.” He said that he was glad the Draft Constitution had discarded the village and adopted the individual as its unit.

Therefore, when the Constitution was adopted, Panchayati Raj institutions were placed under the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 40. The Article says,” The state shall take steps to organise 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.” As is wellknown, the Directive Principles can not be enforced in a court of law. Thus, it was only expected of the state that it would foster the development of Panchayati Raj.

This constitutional weakness of Panchayati Raj institutions remained there for more than four decades. The 73rd amendment to the Constitution removed this weakness at long last. We will learn some more about that a little later.

During these four decades, however, efforts were being made to bring in democratic decentralization of power in the country by strengthening the Panchayati Raj system. Various committees were set up at different times to make recommendations in this regard. Some of these committees are briefly discussed below.

The Balwantrai Mehta Committee (1957)

We have already been familiar with this committee earlier. It was set up to study the Community Development(CD) projects and the National Extension Service and make recommendations. The Committee strongly recommended the involvement of the community in the decision-making, planning and implementation processes for the success of the CD project. Some of the more important recommendations of the Committee are the following:

- an early establishment of elected local bodies and devolution to them of necessary resources, power and authority,

- the basic unit of decentralization was the block / samiti

- the body was to be constituted for five years by indirect elections from the village Panchayats- the higher- level body, zilla parishad was to be an advisory body only.

The Panchayati Raj system in the country did not develop as expected because of resistance from politicians and administrators to share power and resource with local-level bodies and domination of local politics by the local heavy-weights.

The Santhanam Committee (1963)

This Committee was set up to look into the finances of the Panchayati Raj institutions. Some of the recommendations of the Committee were the following:

- panchayats should have special powers to levy taxes like land revenue and home taxes, - all grants at the state level should be mobilised and sent in a consolidated form to the PRIs

- a Panchayati Raj Finance Corporation should be set up to take care of the financial needs

of PRIs Some of the recommendations of the Committee are being taken up by the State Finance

Commissions now.

The Ashok Mehta Committee(1978)

This Committee was set up when the Janata Party government came to power at the Center in 1977 to suggest measures to strengthen the PRIs. The following recommendations were made:

- the district is a viable administrative unit for planning, coordination, resource allocation with the available technical expertise,

- a two-tier system is desirable with Mandal Panchayat at the bottom and zilla parishad at the top

- there should be a four-year term for the PRIs

- political parties should participate in elections

- there should be both functional and financial devolution

The G.V.K. Rao Committee (1985)

This Committee was set up to once again look into the various aspects of PRIs. Its recommendations were as follows:

- PRIs were to be activated and provided with all necessary support,

- PRIs at the district level and below should be given the task of planning, implementation, and monitoring of rural development programmes - the block should be the key level in the rural development process

The L .M. Singhvi Committee (1986)

The two most important recommendations of this Committee were:

- local-self government should be constitutionally recognised, protected and preserved by the inclusion of a new chapter in the Constitution, - political parties should not be involved in panchayat elections

Although there was resistance to these recommendations from different directions, finally the Constitution was amended to make PRIs constitutional institutions.