Author : Mohan A K Department of Social Work University of Mysore
From Ancient Roots to Modern Reforms: A Comprehensive Overview of India’s Local Self-Governance
Understanding India’s Grassroots Democracy: Structure, Participation, and the 73rd Amendment
Panchayati Raj in India: Historical Journey, Constitutional Framework, and the Dynamics of Political Participation
Key Components and Historical Trajectory of India’s Decentralized Governance System
1.Vedic Era
‘Panch-Ayat’ is a group of five persons selected by the villagers. Indirectly, it denotes the system through which rural people are governed. It indicates that there was some method of self-government. In the old Sanskrit scriptures, there is a word ‘Panchayatan,’ which means a group of five persons, including a spiritual man. But, gradually the concept of the inclusion of a spiritual man in such groups vanished. In the Rigveda, there is a mention of ‘Sabha,’ ‘Samiti,’ and ‘Vidatha’ as local self-units. Subsequently, the panchayat became a group of any five selected persons of the village to decide the village disputes. The concept of ‘Panch Parmeshwar’ or ‘Panch-the God’ existed in the ancient age. There is a description of ‘Sabha’ and ‘Samiti,’ which were the democratic bodies at the local level. The king used to get the approval of the ‘Sabha’ or ‘Samiti’ regarding certain functions and decisions (Joshi and Narwani, 2011). In the Vedic age the concept of local self government is visible and these units had prominence in the administration.
2. Epic Era
Epic era indicates the two great epic periods of India, that is, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. The study of Ramayana indicates that the administration was divided into two parts – ‘Pur’ and ‘Janpad’ or city and village. Villages were ‘Janpad’ and the village people were called the ‘Janpada.’ ‘Gram,’ ‘Maha Gram,’ and ‘Ghosh’ (Village, big village, and group of villages) are mentioned in the Ramayana. ‘Pattan’ were neither towns nor villages and served as ‘Mandi’ or market for the villagers. ‘Shreni’ and Nigam were there as local bodies but no description regarding their constitution is available in the Ramayana. In the whole of the state, there was also a Caste Panchayat and one person elected by the Caste Panchayat was the member of king’s Council of Ministers. Self-government of a village finds ample expression in the ‘Shanti Parva’ of the Mahabharata; in the Manu Smriti as well as in Kautilya’s Arthashastra. ‘Sabha’ and ‘Samiti’ played the part of controlling the decisions of the king. As per the Mahabharata, over and above the village, there were units of 10, 20, 100, and 1,000 village groups. ‘Gramik’ was the chief official of the village. ‘Dashap’ was the chief of ten villages. ‘Vinshya Adhipati,’ ‘Shat Gram Adhyaksha,’ and ‘Shat Gram Pati’ were the chiefs of 20, 100, and 1,000 villages, respectively. They used to collect the local taxes and were responsible for the protection / defense of their villages. The village heads also protected people against the cruelty of the king. The ‘Sabha Parva,’ of the Mahabharata mentions the Gram Panchayats but it is not clear whether the Panchas were elected by the people or nominated by the kings (Joshi and Narwani, 2011).
3. Ancient Period
There is a mention of village panchayats in Kautilya’s Arthashastra. He advised the king to constitute units of villages having 100-500 families. There would be centers of 10 villages, 200 villages, and 800 villages. These centers would be respectively known as ‘Sangrahan,’ ‘Karvatik,’ ‘Drona Mukh,’ and ‘Sthaneeya.’ The town was referred to as ‘Pur.’ Its chief was the ‘Nagarik.’ Local bodies were free from any interference from the king’s side (Joshi and Narwani, 2011).
During the Mauryan and Post-Mauryan periods too, the headman, assisted by the council of elders, continued to play a prominent role in the village life. The system continued through the Gupta period, though there were certain changes in the nomenclature, as the district official was known as the vishya pati and the village headman was referred to as the grampati. The village assembly consisted of all adult males. Sometimes the mahattras, i.e., the body of select elders, assisted the village headman. Thus, in ancient India, there existed a well established system of local government which was run on a set pattern of traditions and customs. The state functioned separately, never encroaching into the functioning of the village panchayats (Mookerji, 1958). The Neeti Shastra of Shukracharya also mentions village governance during this period. In South India, the ‘Satavahan’ kingdom existed in the 1st century B.C. There were local bodies for governance in the cities as well as the villages. The ‘Nadu Parishads’ were representative bodies which were solely responsible for the maintenance of the villages in northeastern India. They were small republics which were quite independent in internal matters. The village Panchayats were vested with sufficient administrative powers and the king’s interference was to the minimal (Joshi and Narwani, 2011). However, it is significant to note that there is no reference of women heading the panchayat or even participating as a member in the panchayat. Traditionally, Indian women confine themselves to only household activities and their participation in public affairs was not encouraged. One could not imagine women taking part in public affairs, especially in the village governance.
4. Medieval Period
During the Sultanate period, the Sultans of Delhi understood the fact that it was not possible to govern a vast country like India from the centre directly. Hence they divided their kingdom in to provinces called ‘Vilayat.’ For the governance of a village, there were three important officials – Mukkaddam for administration, Patwari for collection of revenues, and Choudhrie for settling disputes with the help of the Panch. A village was the smallest unit where the management was looked after by the Lambardar, Patwari, and Chowkidar. The villages had sufficient powers as regards self governance in their territory. Panchayats were prevalent in villages in the medieval period. Agricultural produce from the villages was the main source of revenue for the state. The Marathas also constituted local self-government institutions in rural and urban areas during the rule of the Peshwas in Maharashtra area (Joshi and Narwani, 2011). Casteism and feudalistic system of governance under the Mughal rule in the medieval period slowly eroded the self-government in villages. A new class of feudal chiefs and revenue collectors (zamindars) emerged between the ruler and the people. And, so began the stagnation and decline of self government in villages (Srinivasrao, 2011). One of the biggest changes, which took place during the medieval period, was in the economic sphere, both at the urban and rural levels, under which organized economic activities began to take roots. This era is also marked by presence of both the rural and urban local governments (Khanna, 1979). It is again noteworthy to note that even in medieval period there is no mention of women participation in the local village administration.
5. British Period
Under the British regime, village panchayats lost their autonomy and became weak. Though, some researchers say that when the British came to India as the East India Company, the panchayats in most places were almost dead as units of administration (Maheshwari, 1963). Self governance was not the objective of the British government. The Panchayat, had never been the priority with the British rulers. It is only from the year 1870 that India saw the dawn of representative local institutions. The famous Mayo’s resolution of 1870 gave impetus to the development of local institutions by enlarging their powers and responsibilities. The year 1870, introduced the concept of elected representatives, in urban municipalities. The revolt of 1857 had put the imperial finances under considerable strain and it was found necessary to finance local service out of local taxation. Therefore it was out of fiscal compulsion that Lord Mayo’s resolution on decentralization came to be adopted (George, 2000). Viceroy Lord Mayo’s Resolution for decentralization of power to bring about administrative efficiency in meeting the people’s demands to augment the finances of the colonial regime gave the needed impetus to the development of local institutions. It was a landmark in the evolution of colonial policy towards local government (Srinivasrao, 2011). Following the footsteps of Mayo, Lord Rippon in 1882 provided the much needed democratic frame work to these institutions. All boards (then existing) were mandated to have a two-thirds majority of non-officials who had to be elected and the chairman of these bodies had to be from among the elected non-officials. This is considered to be the Magna Carta of local democracy in India (George, 2000).
Local self-government institutions received a boost with the appointment of the Royal Commission on centralisation in 1907 under the Chairmanship of C.E.H. Hobhouse. The commission recognized the importance of panchayats at the village level. The Royal Commission (1909) recommended that, “it is most desirable alike in the interest of decentralisation and in order to associate people with the local tasks of administration that an attempt should be made to constitute and develop village panchayat for the administration of local villages” (Report of the Royal Commission on Decentralisation, 1907). It is in this backdrop, that the Montagu Chelmsford reforms were passed in the year 1919. This reform transferred the subject of local government to the domain of provinces. The reform also recommended that as far as possible there should be a complete control in local bodies and complete possible independence for them from external control. These panchayats covered only a limited number of villages with limited functions (Stephen, 2001) and due to organisational and fiscal constraints they did not become democratic and vibrant institutions of local self government at the village level. However, by 1925, eight provinces had passed the Panchayat Acts and by 1926, six native States had also passed panchayat laws. Local bodies were given more powers and functions to impose taxes were reduced. But, the position of the local self-government institutions remained unaffected. D.P. Mishra, the then minister for local self-government under the Government of India Act of 1935 in Central Provinces was of the view that “the working of our local bodies… in our province and perhaps in the whole country presents a tragic picture… ‘Inefficiency’ and ‘local body’ have become synonymous terms” (Ventakarangaiah, 1969).
6. Post Independence Period
After the Constitution came into force, Article 40 made a mention of panchayats. “The state shall take steps to organize village panchayats and to endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government.” Article 246 empowers the state legislature to legislate with respect to any subject relating to local self-government. However, this inclusion of panchayats into the Constitution was not unanimously agreed upon by the then decision-makers, with the major opposition having come from the framer of the Constitution himself, B.R.Ambedkar. He contended that, “the village communities were nothing but a den of ignorance, sink of localism, narrow mindedness and communalism.” He was glad that the draft Constitution had discarded the village and adopted the individual as the unit. Had it not been for Gandhi, the village panchayat would have been missing from the Indian system of governance. It was after much discussion among the supporters and opponents of the village panchayat that the panchayats finally got a place for themselves in the Constitution as Article 40 of the Directive Principles for State Policy. Since the Directive Principles are not binding principles, the result was the absence of a uniform structure of these bodies throughout the country (Singla, 2007).
After independence, as a development initiative, India had implemented the Community Development Programmes (CDP) on the eve of Gandhi Jayanti, the 2nd October, 1952 under the major influence of the Etawah Project undertaken by the American expert, Albert Mayer. It encompassed almost all activities of rural development which were to be implemented with the help of village panchayats alongwith the participation of people. In 1953, the National Extension Service was also introduced as a prologue to CDP. Community development is defined as “a process designed to create conditions of economic and social progress for the whole community, with the active participation and fullest possible reliance on community’s initiative” (U.N. Economic and Social Council, 1956). But the programme did not yield much result. There were various reasons for the failure of CDP like bureaucracy and excessive politics, lack of people participation, lack of trained and qualified staff, and lack of local bodies interest in implementing the CDP especially the village panchayats. People participation is crucial in the development of any society. It is crystal clear that development involves people participation, so development has been defined as the development of the people, by the people and for the people (Misra, 2000).
In 1957, the National Development Council constituted a committee headed by Balwant Rai Mehta, a Member of Parliament to look into the working of community development. It reported that the community development movement after its first flush of momentum has lost its speed and was slowly tapering out. Further, it opined that, “the development cannot progress without responsibility and power.” The development of a community can take place only when the community understands its problems, realizes its responsibilities, exercises the necessary powers, through its close representatives and maintains a constant and intelligent vigilance on local administration (Balwant Ray Mehta Committee Report, 1957). The team observed that the major reason for the failure of the CDP was the lack of people’s participation. In order to enhance participation, the team suggested that “a set of institutional arrangement” would have to be created to ensure people participation. The team felt that, “there should be a single representative and vigorous democratic institution to take charge of all aspects of development work in the rural areas… it must not be cramped by too much control by the government or government agencies…it must receive guidance which will help it to avoid mistakes. In the ultimate analysis, it must be an instrument of expression of the local people’s will in regard to local development.” The committee suggested a three-tier PRIs, namely, Grama Panchayats (GPs) at the village level, Panchayat Samiti (PSs) at the block level, and Zilla Parishad (ZPs) at the district level (Report of the Study Team for Community Project, NES, 1957).
The Union Government held meetings of state ministers and administrators to persuade the state governments to establish the three-tier system of panchayati raj. The Union Government agreed to guide and support the system. As a result, a net work of PRIs began to be built by the state governments. The lead in the establishment of panchayati raj system was taken by the states of Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh. The scheme of democratic decentralization was launched in Rajasthan on October 2, 1959. In Andhra Pradesh, the scheme was introduced on 1st November, 1959. The necessary legislation had also been passed and implemented in Assam, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, and Punjab. In West Bengal the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1956 was already in force and legislation for setting up of bodies at the block and district level was undertaken. In Kerala, a new comprehensive panchayat act was passed in 1960 and was implemented. Legislation for the upper tier was also undertaken (Reddy, 1977).
The growth of PRIs during the post-independence period can be seen in three phases; first phase 1959 to 1966; second phase 1967 to 1976; and third phase 1977 to 1986 (Shivaiah, 1986). The first phase of the PRS in the post-Independence era between 1959 to 1964, plan periods was called as the “phase of ascendancy,” between 1965 to 1969 as the “phase of stagnation” and between 1969 to 1977 as the “phase of decline,” as commented by the Ashok Mehta Committee. The appointment of the Ashok Mehta Committee in 1977 did bring new thinking in the concepts and practice of the Panchayat Raj. The committee envisaged a role for the PR institutions, such that they would “under take democratic development management under conditions of rapid changes, continuous growth and sustained innovations in all spheres of rural life” (Government of India, 1978). With this purpose, the committee recommended a Panchayat Raj institutional structure consisting of Zilla Parishad, Taluk Samiti, and Mandal Panchayat. In order to use planning expertise and to secure administrative support, the district was suggested as the first point of decentralization below the state level. Based on its recommendation, some of the states like Karnataka incorporated them effectively. The Ashok Mehta committee recommended including the Panchayat Raj in the Constitution and genuine and effective devolution of powers to PRIs and that the primary unit in the Panchayat Raj system should be the Zilla Parishad and not the Panchayat Samiti. The committee favoured the participation of local parties in Panchayat elections with their symbols (Ashok Mehta Committee Report, 1978).
In order to revive and give a new lease of life to the panchayats, the Government of India had appointed various committees. The most important among them are the Hanumantha Rao Committee (1983), G.V.K. Rao Committee (1985), L.M.Singhvi Committee (1986) and the Sarkaria Commission on the Centre-State relations (1988), P.K. Thungan Committee (1989) and Harlal Singh Kharra Committee (1990). The G.V.K. Rao Committee (1985) recommended making the “district” as the basic unit of planning and also holding regular elections while the L.M.Singhvi committee recommended providing more financial resources to the panchayats to strengthen them. The Amendment phase began with the 64th Amendment Bill (1989) which was introduced by Rajiv Gandhi seeking to strengthen the PRIs. Rajiv Gandhi introduced various poverty eradication programmes like the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna (1989), the National Rural Employment Programme, and the Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme by integrating these with the PRIs. The 64th Amendment Bill was the brain-child of the late Rajiv Gandhi, who strongly believed in strengthening panchayats by giving them Constitutional status. Unfortunately the Bill was not passed in the Rajya Sabha. The Constitution (74th Amendment) Bill (a combined bill for the PRIs and municipalities) was introduced on 7th September, 1990, but was never taken up for discussion (Singh and Mishra, 1993). It was during the Prime Ministership of P.V.Narasimha Rao that a comprehensive amendment was introduced in the form of the Constitution 72nd Amendment Bill in September 1991, which was subsequently referred to a joint Select Committee of the Parliament in December 1991 for a detailed examination.
Finally, after the necessary amendments, the Bill got the President’s assent on April 20, 1993 and the Constitution 73rd Amendment Act came into effect from April 24, 1993. The Act is considered as a landmark in the history of local self government. The Act provided a constitutional status to the village panchayats with major structural functional changes. The Act also made provisions for direct election, reservation for women, SCs and STs, formation of a State Finance Commission, a State Election Commission, regularity of the PRIs, conduct of Grama Sabha once in six months, and so on. One of the important features of the Amendment, relevant to this study, is the reservation of seats for women. This has been referred to by the scholars as the “political empowerment” of women. This has led to a sudden spurt in the number of women in the decision-making positions at the local level (Singla, 2007). From among the 15-20 lakh contesting in the polls, 7-8 lakh women elected and about 75,000 women as office bearers at all levels of Panchayats elections will provide opportunities to the younger generation to participate in the rural development process (Singh,1993). However there are certain apprehensions with regard to certain provisions of the Act like one-third reservation to women. The question raised is will the illiterate and inexperienced women be able to participate in our country, which is male dominated. Another grey area is the lack of adequate funds in time. There is a need to enlarge the domain of panchayats to be able to raise their own funds. The interference of area MPs and MLAs in the functioning of panchayats is also likely to adversely affect their performance (Singla, 2007). However, the Amendment has been considered as a revolutionary step towards establishing grassroot democracy; it has ensured Constitutional status for people’s participation and self-governance.