Panchayati Raj - Pre Independence Background  

The institutional expression of democratic decentralization in India is identified with Panchayati Raj. The concept of Panchayati Raj is a recent phenomenon but there is a strong legendary and historical tradition that Village Panchayats have been in the country since the dawn of history and that they have outlived and survived all changes and upheavals of time. Whatever has been the shape and function of the Village Panchayats in the earlier period, the institution had become completely dormant during the British regime. The Englishmen keeping in view their limitations in terms of number and having no interest in the development of the country built up a highly centralized imperial structure where there was little scope for decentralized administration. However among the Britishers also there were some liberal democrats who were interested in the creation of Institutions of local self-government in India. But it was as late as 1882 when Lord Ripon, the then Viceroy of India took the initiative in the establishment of popularly elected institutions at local levels to look after specified functions in their areas. In recognition of the interest shown and efforts made by him in this direction he is popularly known as the father of local self government in India. To his critics, Lord Ripon made it clear that the institution of local self-government was not primarily with a view to bring improvement in administration but it was chiefly meant to act as an instrument of political and popular education.

It is true that many Englishmen did not share his views and opposed his ideology. Lord Curzon who succeeded Ripon as Viceroy was against this approach and he even went on to remark that Indians were not fit to be entrusted with any power and responsibility to govern themselves. However, the efforts of Lord Ripon certainly did have its impact, when the institutional deficiencies of the local self government structures were acknowledged by the British rulers of India themselves and with no less a person than the Secretary of State for India, felt concerned at the stupendous growth of over centralization in India, Viscount Morley, appointed a Royal Commission on Decentralization headed by Charles Hobhouse in 1907. It is notable that the first ever reference in a document of constitutional significance to Village Panchayats as Local self-government institutions was made in the report of Royal commission on Decentralization in 1909. The report of the commission resulted into the Minto-Morley Reforms of 1909 which led to the enlargement of the elective process in the Local Self Government structure of India This move of the Britishers also encouraged the Indian National Congress (INC) which at its 24th Session held at Lahore urged the British Government to take necessary steps to make all bodies from Village Panchayats upwards elective with elected non-official chairman and support them with adequate financial help.

The Government of India Act, 1919 was based on the twin objective of Diarchy and limited Provincial Autonomy and the Local Self Government Institution was made one of the provincial transferred subjects placed under the jurisdiction of elected Indian Ministries. During the Diarchy regime several enactment’s for the establishment of Village Panchayats were passed in major states like Bengal (1919) Bihar (1920), Bombay (1920), C.P. and Berar (1920) Madras (1920) U.P. (1920), Punjab (1922) and Assam (1925) From 1920 Fill 1947 when India got Independence the main emphasis of the Indian National Congress was on the bigger issue of all-India Swaraj and during this period all the important national level leaders remained occupied in organizing campaigns and movements for independence under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. This naturally, resulted in the neglect of the task of preparing any sort of blue print for local level reforms and the INC Ministries also in their short lived period of 1937-39 could not do much to place the Local Self-Government institution in the country on a sound footing.

It is also true there was no unanimity among the top-level leaders regarding the status and role to be assigned to the institution of rural Local Self Government, rather there were divergent views on the subject. On the one extreme Gandhiji was in favour of Village swaraj and strengthening the village Panchayats to the fullest extent and on the other extreme Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was totally opposed to this idea. The extra ordinary confusion that prevailed in the rank of the Indian National Congress over this issue of the role and status of the rural Local Self-Government institutions in the Constitution of Independent India is one of the most serious failures of the national leaders in general and those who drafted the Constitution in particular. In the Constitution of India hardly 4-5 lines were devoted to the cause of rural local self-government. Under Article 40 of the Constitution it was stated that the State shall take steps to organize Village Panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them as units of self-government. This Article formed a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy under the Constitution. However, no worthwhile legislation was immediately enacted either at the national or State levels to implement it. This all happened in spite of Gandhiji’s strong feelings for the Village Swaraj. His concept of Village swaraj is very well documented in his Paper "Harijan" dated 26 July 1942.

The village will maintain a village theatre, school and public hall. It will have its own water works ensuring clean supply Education will be compulsory up to the final basic course. As far as possible very activity will be conducted on co-operative basis. There will be a compulsory service of village guards, who will be selected by rotation from the register maintained by the village. The government of the village will be conducted by the panchayat of 5 persons elected annually by the adult villagers, male and female both possessing minimum prescribed qualifications. These will have all the authorities and jurisdiction required. This panchayat will be legislature, judiciary and executive combined, to operate for its year of office. Any village can become such a republic today without interference.

The position and status of rural local self-government at the time of Independence is well described by P.C. Mathur in his article Rural Local Self Government in India’ "Free India forgets Gandhi, not to mention Ripon, India thus achieved its cherished objective of Self-government in ‘all India’ terms and its Constituent Assembly proceeded to frame a constitution which embodied the West Minister style democratic ideology of parliamentary democracy of the Centre and State levels. But the long chapter of evolution of Rural and urban LSGs which started in 1882 (and even earlier in several respects) had almost no impact on the public and political life of free India either in the Riponian or Gandhian sense. As far as the rural (and urban) LSGls were concerned, 15 August 1947 was just any other day.

Post Independence: The Constitution in its 7th Schedule under Article 246 lists local government legislation as being reserved to the States. The entry is very wide and empowers the state Legislature to legislate with respect to local government, that is to say, the constitution and powers of municipal corporations, improvement trusts, district boards, mining settlement authorities and other local authorities for the purpose of local self-government or village administration. The state Legislature can also confer such powers including the power of taxation to a local authority as it itself processes. The only Constitutional provision which can be invoked by the Union Government is the Presidential veto over State legislation which has been referred by the State Governor. This veto was exercised in respect of the legislation passed by the State of Madhya Pradesh regarding the composition of Zila Parishad whose members were to be entirely nominated by the Government and which restricted voting rights for Panchayats. The veto power exercised by the Union government led to the bill being redrafted in accordance with more acceptable democratic norms. Thus the subject of Local Self-Government being under the State List, the Union Government did not take any major step on this issue for quite long. However, from time to time the matter was discussed at various appropriate form a and suggestions were made to the State Government.

After Independence, in the early period the country felt more concerned about its socio-economic problems and development of the rural areas. In order to solve its socio-economic and other problems, the country more or less, accepted the leadership of USA which provided material aid in the shape of loans, grants, capital and consumer goods. Technical aid was also provided in the form of experts, advisers and foreign training. Under the influence of USA a very ambitious programme known as Community Development (CD) programme was launched in the country with very high hopes. The Programme professed to be far modern and comprehensive in nature. The programme also promised economic prosperity by including the desire for development and by securing common participation. With the onset of the First Five Year Plan the CD was introduced as a nation wide programme to be completed over a period of a decade or so in whole of the country. The country was divided into over five thousand community development blocks. At the block level a team of subject matter specialists headed by a generalist known as the block Development Officer was appointed and during the initial stages of the programme substantial financial assistance was made available for various development activities.

As a result of evaluation of the working of the Community Development programme during first few years of the existence it was realised that the programme has not delivered the desired results and lack of peoples’ participation was attributed to be the greatest weakness of the system. In order to improve the situation Block Advisory Committees consisting of block level officials, progressive agriculturists, representative of co-operative societies, heads of educational institutions, MLAs and MPs etc. were constituted in 1955. The main purpose of the Committee was to advise the BDO and his team on planning and implementation of development programmes. This experiment also did not achieve the desired results as it did not have any statutory backing. It was also realised that there was no organic link between the village Panchayats, Block Advisory Committees and the District Boards. A necessity was, therefore, felt to examine the whole issue in greater detail and evolve a system to enlist peoples’ participation and make the institution of local self government more effective.

As a follow-up action of Article 40 of the Constitution some discussions took place in the early 1950s as to whether or not the Union government should try to lay down a formal and rigid pattern for development of Panchayats. The Second Local Self-Government Ministers’ Conference held in 1954 suggested that there should be greater uniformity in the Panchayat Acts of different states. In order to ensure it, the Conference suggested that before the state legislatures pass their bills on Panchayats the same may be sent to the Centre for scrutiny and examination. However, this suggestions was ignored in the report of the Committee which formulated the views of the Conference on Panchayats . Perhaps, it was done so on the analogy that it may amount to Union’s inference in the area which falls under the category of State List, Finally, all that the committee accepted was that the Centre should only collect and collate information on the subject so that it could be supplied periodically to all the states.

The Conference also recommended that the district boards should be associated with the development programmes within the district. However the Conference also observed that most of the states were in favour of abolition of the district boards. It is interesting to note that the Fifth Development Conference held in 1956 also had observed that District Boards have outlived their utility.

Balwantray Mehta Committee: After Independence the first landmark in the history of Panchayati Raj Institutions in the country was the appointment of Balwantray Mehta Committee. On 16 January 1957 the Committee on Plan Projects, a body established by National Development Council set up a team for the study of Community Projects. Among other areas the terms of reference of the Team included to study the problems connected with the organic linking of Village Panchayats with popular organizations at higher levels and the reorganization of district administration so that the democratic bodies should take over the entire general administration. It is interesting to note that the reorganization of district administration was not a part of the original terms of reference of the Team. In fact the Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission had mentioned this subject later to the Team in a separate letter.

The Study Team while making its recommendations observed that one of the least successful aspects of the Community Project and National Extension Service work (NES) is its attempt to evoke popular initiative. The Team felt that so long we do not discover or create a representative and democratic institution which will supply the local interest, supervision and care necessary to ensure the proper utilization of funds on the felt-needs of the people and the area and also provide these bodies adequate powers and assign to them appropriate finances, we will never be able to evoke local interest and initiative in the field of development. The Team noted that for some years decentralization of responsibility and power had not taken place below the State level and such decentralization had now become urgent and can be affected by a devolution of powers to body which when created will have the entire charges of all development a three-tier system for self government at the grass root levels.

The Study Team appeared to be conscious of the fact that at the block level there was no institution worth the name of local self-government, whereas, with the introduction of the CD programme in the country the block level administration has to play the most important role in the field of rural development. The Team proposed that an elected self-governing institution known as Panchayat "Samiti should be set-up at the block level and it should be constituted by indirect election from the Village Panchayats. The institution should also include co-opted members-women, members of Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes and local persons having experience in administration, public life or rural development. The Team also suggested the inclusion of a member from the municipal pockets within the block to facilitate communication between the rural and urban bodies. The functions of this body may include the development of agriculture and allied, the improvement of cattle, local industries, public health, welfare work, administration of primary schools and the collection and maintenance of statistics. The block level institution should also act as an agent of the State Government in the execution of special schemes of development entrusted to it. The Team recommended that all the Central and State funds to be spent in the block are a should be assigned direct to the Panchayat Samiti".

Below the Panchayat Samiti would be the Village Panchayats which should be directly elected with special provision for representation of women, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The functions of the Panchayats should include provision of water supply, sanitation, lighting, maintenance of roads, land management, collection and maintenance of records and other statistics, and the welfare of the backward classes. It would also act as an agent of the Panchayat Samiti in executing any of its schemes. The Village level employees, such as the Gram Sewak and the primary school teacher, would be recruited by the third-tier (the Zila Parishad), and remain under the administrative and operational control of the chief administrative officer of the Panchayat Samiti.

As regards the third-tier i.e. the district level the Team suggested three types of arrangements, depending upon the role powers and functions assigned to the lower level tiers by the concerned State Government. The Team proposed that in case a State assigns the Panchayat Samiti and the Village Panchayats the roles as suggested by the Team, there would be very little left for any higher executive body other than the Government. Under such a situation the functions of the Zila Parishad may include coordination and general supervision of Panchayat Samitis within the district, distribution of State funds among the Panchayat Samitis and the approval of their budgets. In order to achieve these objectives, an indirectly elected Zila Parishad consisting of presidents of Panchayat Samitis, MPs, MLAs and district level officers would be preferred. A second type was suggested for those state Governments who thought it convenient to have a large local body for the district. Such a body would consist of members of the Panchayats within each Panchayat Samiti area, who would be elected by the Panchayat members from among themselves. Unlike the first type it would be an executive body and would undertake district level and inter-block activities. The third type of Zila Parishad would be a culmination of process of devolution of powers and functions from the State Government to local government. The Team envisaged that the Zila Parishad would supervise the activities of the Panchayat Samitis which in turn would supervise the working of the Village Panchayats. However the study Team did not recommend a uniform pattern and the States were left free to adopt any model to suit their requirements keeping in view the basic need for a real transfer of power to the people’s representative.

The Study Team submitted its report in November 1957 and the National Development Council gave its general approval to the scheme envisaged in the Mehta Report in January 1958. The NDC recognised the general principle of giving responsibility for development to the peoples representatives. The Council, however, indicated that the precise manner in which the scheme should be applied is essentially a matter to be decided by the States. The Council only emphasized that there should be a three-tier structure of local self-governing bodies from the Village to the district, the bodies being organically linked up and there should be genuine transfer of power and responsibility to them. The NDC further pointed out the adequate resources should be transferred to the new bodies to enable them to discharge their responsibilities and all development programmes at these levels should be channeled through these bodies.

Following the recommendations of Mehta Report, Rajasthan was the first State in the country to adopt the Panchayati Raj System on 2nd October, 1959. It was followed by Andhra Pradesh and within next few years almost every State established some sort of Panchayati Raj Set-up. Although the Mehta Report had proposed a three-tier structure of Panchayati Raj, there was no uniformity in this regard in the States. As on March 31, 1973 Kerala and Jammu & Kashmir had adopted only one tier system the Village Panchayat, Karnataka Himachal Pradesh and Orissa had a two-tier system-Village Panchayat and Panchayat Samiti, West Bengal had adopted a four tier system Zila Parishad, Anchalik Parishad, Anchal Panchayat and Gram Panchayat and rest of the States had adopted a three-tier system. Haryana after adopting a three-tier structure, abolished Zila Parishad. Gujarat and Karnataka had Panchayat Samitis at the taluka level, whereas most other States had it at the block level.

With the process of implementation of the Panchayati Raj system in various States, as provided under their respective legislation’s, number of operational problems were faced and the concerned States tried to overcome such difficulties either through making amendments in their relevant laws or framing suitable rules for the purpose. The enactment of legislation in most of the States followed rapidly after the recommendations of the Mehta Committee were approved by the NDC. In most of States a high priority was given to the subject as to how Panchayati Raj was to be implemented. Ministers and senior officers in the States together applied their mind with enthusiasm to the task of giving the best shape possible to Panchayati Raj Institutions.

But soon the interest and the enthusiasm shown in the beginning started declining. As these institutions took shape and proved their existence, the MLAs, MLCs and State level politicians came to realise the strategic importance of these bodies and started looking or the representatives of PRIs as their political rivals. The local level bureaucracy also did not relish superiority of the non-officials and started finding faults of the system. The Institutions were blamed for inefficiency, corruption and favouritism. The State Governments also started raising doubts about the competence of the Panchayati Raj Institutions. The performance and objectives of the Panchayati Raj bodies were considerably diluted and less support coupled with the indifferent attitude of the local level bureaucracy led to further diminution of the developmental and administrative role of the Panchayati Raj Institutions.

The process of decline of PRIs started after the midsixties, continued for almost next two decades. During this period the flow of funds for the development of block was reduced considerably. In fact the non-devolution of the sources of revenues proved to be the greatest stumbling block in the performance of PR bodies. Whatever the sources of revenues were assigned to these bodies under the acts, these bodies did not make use of many of the provisions for one reason or the other. The Panchayati Raj Institutions elections were indefinitely postponed in many States. For planning and implementation of various rural development and poverty alleviation programmes parallel bodies came to be set up at the district level and at the block level also the condition of disarray came about through the reassignments of Extension officers to their parent technical departments.

In early 60’s the flow of funds under the CD scheme started declining and later the era of Centrally sponsored schemes was started. Most of the development programmes undertaken under this category were kept out of the purview of the Panchayati Raj Institutions as such, at the most Village Panchayats were involved in the implementation of some of these schemes. The Planning Commission initiated two schemes – the Rural Works Programme (RWP) and Rural Industries Projects. Later on RWS was converted into National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) and its adjunct, the Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP), and very recently into the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY). During the Fourth Five Year Plan (1969-74) a number of special programmes like Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP) Desert Development Programme (DDP) Hill Area Development Programme (HADP) small farmers Development Agency (SFDA) and Marginal and small Farmers and Agricultural Laboures (MFAL) Programme were introduced under the category of centrally sponsored schemes. Similarly under the Fifth Five Year Plan a very ambitious programme in the name of Minimum Needs Programme (MNP) was started. During the Six Five Year Plan (SFDA) and (MFAL) were merged into a very ambitious know as Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) which was extended to the entire country an a very large scale. A scheme known as Training of Rural Youth for Self-Employment Programme (TRYSEM) was another important programme introduced during the same period. In fact in recent years special programme of various kinds have become the main substance of the country’s rural development effort. Each special programme carries its own flow of resources, its own organizational patterns and its own control and monitoring mechanism-all concentrated in the concerned ministry at the Centre.