Firoj Ansari & Prof. Mohammad Abid
The period in between fall of Mughal era and consolidation of British rule in India ‘witnessed the gradual decline in the village community as an effective form of local polity’. “In this interregnum,” writes Hugh Tinkers, “the ties of the Social frameworks were loosened, and in many places, local institutions had been prevented
and sapped before British Officials had any opportunity to assess their value.” Thus at the advent of the British rule, Panchayats were not found as full of vigour as they were in the earlier period. In some parts of India e.g. in Bengal, they had even ceased to be operative. They were found to play a more active and efficient role in the Southern and Western India than in the Northern and Eastern parts of the country, which were continuously under direct Muslim rule.
But, the various references and the accounts of self-sufficient village communities and the Panchayats, the instruments through which these communities functioned, in the recollections, memoirs, minutes and other writings of the contemporary travellers, statesmen and officers, go to confirm the opinion that these institutions continued to work in some form or the other even in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. The staff of functionaries, artisans and traders by means of which village communities carried on their internal Government had survived in a recognizable form almost everywhere.
The village community organization has been spoken of as the soul of corporate life in the rural areas which sheltered the teeming millions. And it was due to the survival of these organizations that the people could not feel the evils of the many indifferent and autocratic regimes. Paying a tribute to these village communities, Elphinston, remarks:
“These contain in miniature all the materials of a state within themselves, and are almost sufficient to protect their members, if all other governments were withdrawn. Though not comparable with a very good government, they are an excellent remedy for the imperfections of a bad one, they prevent the bad effects of its negligence and weakness and even present some barriers against its tyranny and rapacity.”
Sir George Birdwood has also remarked: “India has undergone more religious and political revolutions than any other country in the world; but the village communities remain in full municipal vigor all over the peninsula. Greek, Sareen, Afghan, Mughal and Maratha have come down from its mountains and, Dutch, English, French and Dane up out off its seas, and set up their successive domination in the land, but the religious trade-unions of villages have remained as little affected by their coming and going as a rock by the rising and falling of the tide.”
According to the detailed reports sent to Elphinston by the officers, who took charge of the conquered territories of Mahrattas, it is clear that the only Panchayats known to the collectors of all the districts were those appointed to decide the civil
disputes. But other documents found in the Dafter (Office ) corroborate the view that ‘there were two different forms of Panchayats for village government, one being the Panchayat proper selected to arbitrate in disputes, and the other, the hereditary council of representative which attended to certain other matters in village, which however had almost fallen into decay by 1817.’
Despite their primitive character and their liability to be improperly influenced, the collectors and district officers later recognized that the Panchayats were the universal mode of settling disputes. It has also been expressed that although the panchayats were at times tainted, yet in principle and in practice they remained ideal as a system of village self-government.
They were found to be a great leveller of all sections of the community. They never needed any encouragement even in the anarchical and disturbed days of the Peshwas when the atmosphere was so very unfavorable for such institutions to function. The Panchayats kept themselves alive as the most successful instrument of dispensing justice.
In the words of H.George Frank, “Panchayats did not receive the fostering care of local officers in Maharastra except as a source of personal revenue; and yet the system lived, prospered, and succeeded where any other system would have been suffocated by bribery and interred beneath a load of indifference and cruelty.
British policy towards panchayat
When the English were trying to strengthen their administrative hold on India, there were two conspicuous schools of thought, the one represented by Cornwalls, Wellesly, Dalhousie and Curzon, etc, who ignored local institutions and traditions and tried to substitute them by western ones, and the other school was represented by humbler men like Munro, Malcolm, Elphinston and Metcalfe and others who valued the ancient Indian Institution of Village Panchayats and advocated its maintenance and preservation.
Munro
Munro had a better understanding of the Indian people. He held that it was impossible to communicate to Indian peasants all the advantages of English jurisprudence, without first making them Englishmen. He also realized that the country was too poor to go to law courts. He was definite on the point that there could be no better judge of local cases than the Head man or the Panchayat under his
directions. He himself tried to build the administrative edifice on Panchayats. He was in favour of withdrawing all suits below a certain valuation from the jurisdiction of the regular courts, and transferring the same to Panchayats. But unfortunately his views were not shared by the superior authorities whose opinions mattered.
Malcolm
Malcolm was also of the opinion that Panchayats must be made part of the British judicial system, and that, “no option must be made to those whose case they are to judge; unless the rule is made absolute for the trial of certain cases in these courts, it would not be in one out of a hundred that the two parties would assent. Both the plaintiff and the defendant would calculate whether they had the best chance of gaining their suit by applying to a panchayat or district court, and whenever they did not agree, the latter court, in which the forms are compulsory, is that in which the case would be tried. He comments further “But this result must not be brought forward as a decided proof of its superior popularity. Before such a fact can be admitted, it must be established whether the preference to it is given by the honest men or rogues.”
Elphinstone
And it was the standing instruction of Elphinston that Panchayats were to be the main instruments of civil judication. Elphinston’s successors also issued frequent circulars to the effect to district officers, that: “In all cases depending upon local circumstances, complainants to collector must be compelled to show that they have done all in their power to adjust their disputes before they claimed redress by a civil action.”
But after a few years of administration district Munsifs were introduced. In the beginning it was laid down that all the cases, on requisition of the parties, could be tried by Panchayats instead of a Munsif, but there were ten varieties of such cases which were both cognizable and treatable by the Panchayats and these ten varieties included a wide circle of the local Panchayats. But this principle could not continue for long and the practice followed was that if the parties voluntarily agreed in writing they could be submitted to the Munsifs. The ordinary court system of the British ultimately proved more convenient and had speedy way for settlement of disputes. This ultimately affected the popularity of Panchayats.
Changes introduced by the British Government in administrative service
The British adopted a policy of administrative centralization. With the coming of Dalhousie, the public works and many of the administrative duties which in those days were left to be done by village community were taken over by the central government or its subordinate agencies. The British utilized the village functionaries as government servants. Emoluments of old village officials were cut down, their privileges were curtailed and instead a meagre salary was assigned to them.
The village watchman, belonging to the low caste and living on the outskirts of the village was the real executive police and a servant of the headman from time immemorial. He performed several duties for the community. The importance of his service has been continuously recognized from the time of Lord Hastings, who in 1815 described him as the foundation of all possible police in country, right up to the present time. The police commission of 1902-03 emphasized the necessity of maintaining the village watches as part of the village system. But they remained no more community servants responsible to the headman but instead through him to the District Magistrate.
Changes in Revenue scheme
The village community of India perhaps got the greatest setback by the revolutionary changes brought by the British in the Indian land system. The East India Company had found a number of intermediaries, who were in reality tax-farmers or officials appointed by the previous rulers to collect the land revenue on commission. These intermediaries were originally soldiers, military chiefs, civil officials and court- favorites who were assigned or granted the right to collect land revenue either in lieu of their services or as a reward of their good work or as a token of esteem in which they were held by the ruling monarchs.
Since every succeeding ruler had resumed the grants of the predecessor, it became, however, more or less a hereditary privilege of the descendants of the assignees and grantees, to collect the government land revenue. During the decline of the Muslim empire, the revenue officials were merged in or superseded by the revenue farmers –persons who contracted for a certain sum of money to be paid, into the treasury, from a given area, as representing the state dues exigible from the land holdings within that area.
Unfortunately, the East India Company took these revenue farmers to be the proprietors of the land and recognized them as such that it excluded of the real proprietors i.e. the cultivators. In fact, these revenue farmers never had any right to claim the ownership of the land. In India, they
had been given only the right to collect revenue, due to the king, who was entitled to a fixed share of it in return for the protection and care which he offered; and the real landowner in India was the cultivator himself. Cultivator’s ownership of land was never denied as it would have been contrary to custom.28 But the British declared zamindars to be the full proprietors of the areas over which their collection extended, and they showed studied indifference to the rights of the ryots.
In order to protect the ryots from the arbitrary exactions of the zamindars, the Government from time to time enacted certain laws and regulations which practically made little allowance for local conditions. For, they were promulgated by the State Government, which was composed entirely of Englishmen possessing little local knowledge, situated at a great distance and in a different atmosphere.
Spurt in Litigations
For the trial of suits and cases, regular law-courts were established, and with their establishment the number of cases increased. The tenant had to contest a suit brought by the landlord against him, owing to the latter’s denial of the former’s legitimate right. For example, under the Agra Tenancy Act 1901, the landlord sued the tenant under Sec.58 for ejectment, describing him to be a non-occupancy tenant, when he had in most cases already acquired the right of a tenant.
In some cases a tenant had to establish his occupancy right when he thought that the landlord was manoeuvring in collusion with the Patwari. The law of devolution in section 22 of Agra Tenancy Act 1901, regarding occupancy tenancy was also responsible for a lot of litigation among the heirs of tenants. There were many other old sections in the Act which had helped in increasing litigation. To quote the words of Macdonell: “What really had happened is that we have destroyed in Indian Social Life all those offices which had as one of their functions the settlement of personal disputes. We have thus driven the people to the pleader and the barrister and the law court and those things are like alcohol- they create an appetite for themselves.”
As a result of false civil and criminal cases brought against them by the zamindars with the help of ingenious pleaders, tenants were reduced to absolute poverty and were forced to leave their villages. Those few who went in appeal against all odds were further reduced to beggary. But “It is vain to say” observed the Court of Directors, “that the ryots are protected against harassing and vexatious proceedings by
the Courts of Justice, for the loss of time, the expense incident to a legal process, and delay of decision will, in nine instances out of ten, prevent the ryot from appealing to the court.” Apart from this, no notice was taken of cases until the parties were worn out of dancing attendance and giving petition after petition, almost all of which were ordered to be filed along with others, which were to be heard when the judge had leisure. No doubt, the officers had the excuse of being preoccupied with important business, but they also intended to create as much delay as possible for therefrom sprang their harvest of illegal fees and douceurs, to forward the business of those who were willing to pay.
Thus, the judicial system introduced in India by the British Government destroyed the age-old sanctity of the panchayats, on the one hand and on the other, rendered justice difficult to attain. It is worth mentioning that a person having a good cause always applied for a Panchayat; while he who had a bad one, sought decision of a collector or a judge because he knew it was easier to deceive them. Besides, the foreign judges were inadequately acquainted with the language and customs of the people whose rights they sat to adjudicate upon. The tone of their voices and the gestures made by the villagers had their own importance in helping the Panchayats to arrive at a correct decision but these were of no value in a court of law.
The British Government did not take long to discover their mistake of having centralized the administration too much. To bring efficiency and economy in the top heavy administration, the necessity for creating local bodies by transferring some of the powers and functions of the Central Government was felt. Local Self-Government received its first impetus during the viceroyalty of Lord Mayo in 1870. But it was only in theory that its need and value was realized.
Then, there followed in 1882 Lord Ripon’s famous resolution on local self government. Really speaking, local self government owes its true inception to this great and wise statesman who was an ardent liberal and ex-member of Gladston’s Cabinet. He regarded local self government as a means to popular and political education. In his resolution of 18th May 1882, he envisaged a net-work of local bodies for the administration of both rural and urban affairs.
Ripon’s Resolution 1882
It was through the resolution introduced by the liberal Viceroy, Lord Ripon, in 1882 that the perspective for the rural local self-government began to acquire its proper shape. He regarded popular education as the primary function of local self government. This was the test by which these institutions were to be judged even though it meant sacrifice of efficiency which was to be regarded as means to an end rather than something to be worshipped for its own sake.
Ripon proposed a smaller unit for constituting rural local boards, namely a sub-division, tehsil or taluqa. These should have a majority of non-officials who should be elected wherever it was feasible to make such arrangements, presumably on caste or occupational basis. The Chairman of these boards was to be a non-official as far as possible, the official control to be exercised from without rather than from within. At the village level the need was felt to “revive and extend the indigenous system of the country” and “to make full use of what remains of the village system.”
The resolution banked upon utilising the public-spirited intelligentsia which was growing rapidly with the growth of education. Nearly 500 rural boards were created with a two third majority of non-officials who depended upon the district magistrate for the favour of nomination. The District Magistrate continued to be the Chairman of all local boards.
The presence of the District Magistrate as chairman of these boards was justified on the ground of prestige which these boards acquired through his presence. It was also argued that the position of the District Officer be strengthened in the district administration as the representative of the Government at district level. Further, it was believed that co-operation of the departmental officials as well as revenue staff was essential for the success of these bodies, but the same hinged on the authority of the District Magistrate. Hence the District Officer was retained as the Chairman of the rural boards even though it marked a major departure from the general directions given by the resolutions.
Although, Ripon had proposed local boards at sub-district or Tehsil level, with district level boards as supervising and co-coordinating authorities only, the legislation which was followed in a number of provinces in the wake of resolution on local self-government in 1882, had vested most of the funds and functions in the district boards with a provision that these could be delegated to the smaller bodies. Regarding revival of Village Panchayats, most of the provincial legislations simply
ignored them. The Bengal and Madras acts contained provisions for village unions to be established for providing watch and ward and sanitary services but these provisions did not become fully operative. Not even two per cent of the total villages were covered by the unions thirty years after the passing of the Act.
The noble spirit of the Ripon Resolution with which these institutions were inaugurated was defeated in its main intents. The resources of the district boards were extremely small. They only sufficed to meet the cost of a hospital, a feeder road or some similar project, generally concentrated at the headquarter town of the district and were entirely insufficient to carry the services and amenities down to the Tehsil level.
The principle of election was ignored. Nomination being the rule it was considered as a more dignified way of reaching the district board than the direct election. The electoral base was extremely narrow, being confined to a few hundred citizens in a district of a million inhabitants. The supremacy of the collector over the district or sub district board continued.
Membership was governed more by considerations of securing loyal support for the empire through the extension of patronage than by capacity to make constructive contribution or true representation of village people. The rural representatives evinced small interest in the meetings, the attendance being composed of a few prominent lawyers, businessmen of the district town and occasionally some influential landlords of the rural areas who looked upon their membership as a privilege symbolizing their loyalty to the crown.
The Report of the Royal Commission
The Report of the Royal Commission was published in 1909. It devoted one full chapter to the village organization. The Commission reported strongly in favour of the development of Village Panchayats.
The Report made liberal recommendations for the establishment of Panchayats. The Commission had already pointed out that it wanted to create new Panchayats with certain powers and obligations towards village people and not to revive the old Village Panchayats. The Commission arrived at the following conclusions:-
- Panchayats should be under the control of district authorities and not of local boards.
- The unit of Panchayat should be the village.
- The headman should be the ex-officio chairman.
- The appointment of other members should be by informal election in villages.
- Duties and functions should be conferred on the Panchayats with great caution.
- They should be endowed with civil and criminal jurisdiction in petty cases. It is feared that injustice, factiousness and corruption will ruin the utility of the Panchayats, but there is ground for the hope that on the whole they will work well.
- The Panchayats should be entrusted with the work connected with sanitation, minor public works, school building and they should be provided with sufficient sources of revenue.
- Non-interference by low government subordinate is a necessary condition of success.
- Artificial unions will no longer be necessary.
The proposals and suggestions of the commission were favorably commended by the Government of India. But the officials found practical difficulties to be insurmountable in many parts of the country. At the same time they, in fact, did not wish that the people should be entrusted with powers and responsibilities which ultimately might weaken the hold of bureaucracy on them.
They contended that there was no demand for regularly constituted panchayats of the kind contemplated by the Decentralisation Commission. They further added that even if such Panchayats were established they would not command the confidence of the people.
When instructions for all India census of 1911 were issued, staff was particularly asked to ascertain whether the ancient Village Panchayats survived. The report states that in certain provinces (especially Bombay), the Panchayats were not more than a ‘myth’, and that in certain other provinces they had never existed. In those provinces where they existed, they were almost entirely an organ of caste government.
Another scheme, of setting up panchayats as overall units of village government on the lines indicated by the Decentralisation Commission, was launched by the Government of India, in 1912, but the results of the experiment came out to be most discouraging. The ambiguous programme of 1911-1912 could not also be advanced due to the outbreak of the war.
The year 1915 saw another great effort being made to revive and resuscitate Village Panchayats. The Government of Lord Hardinge consulted Provincial Governments on the Commission’s recommendations and after taking into consideration their views produced the cautiously worded resolution of the 28th April 1915. This important resolution stressed the necessity for a full and unstinted growth of local self-government in India.
The resolution was unequivocal and unambiguous. This Resolution fully endorsed the views expressed by the Decentralization Commission. It also recommended that the Panchayats should be financal by a portion of land cess, special grants, receipt from village cattle ponds and markets and fees on civil suits.
Owing to the pressure of public opinion in India and the pressure of World War first was outside, the British Government announced their policy in respect to future of India, in the House of Commons on August 20, 1917. The policy was to increase “association of Indians in every branch of administration and the gradual development of self- governing institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India, as an integral part of the British Empire.”
The Government of India, showing its willingness to practice what it preached, issued a Resolution on the 6th May, 1918, which fully supported the principle enunciated long before by Lord Ripon and the Decentralization Commission. The Resolution affirmed the policy of minimum interference in the affairs of the local bodies. The Resolution of 1918 approved the proposals of establishing departments of Local Self-Government in the provinces.
And it was in pursuance of the policy contained in the British Government’s famous announcement of August 20, 1917, that the Government of India Act of 1919 was passed. This act incorporated the recommendations of the two statesmen, Montague and Chelmsford. With the coming into force of this Act, the local self-government became a transferred subject. All the provinces passed their respective Acts to revive and resuscitate Panchayats so as to inject new life in the villages.
Montague –Chelmsford Reforms of 1919
To make local self-government really representative and responsible, the Montague-Chalmsford report on Indian constitutional reforms dated 22 April, 1918, suggested many ideas. Montague Chelmosford 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 for as possible there should be a complete popular control of local bodies and the largest possible independent for them of outside control.
In regard to village panchayats the report said that the prospect of their successful development must depend on local condition and that functional powers to be allotted to them accordingly. However, these panchayats covered only a limited number of villages with limited functions. But this reform could not get much far as democratization of panchayats was concerned and read to a lot of organizational and fiscal constraints.
Government of India Act 1919
The government of India act issued a resolution on May 6th, 1919 which fully supported the principle enunciated long before, by lord Ripon and the decentralization commission. The resolution affirmed the policy of maximum interference in the affairs in the local bodies. The government of India act 1919, made local self- government a ‘transferred subject and hence the responsibility of popular ministers.
This was the beginning of the growth of these bodies in British India under elected ministers’. This period is notable for the final establishment of local self-government institution to the smallest unit of the rural areas i.e. village. In almost all provinces, laws were passed providing for the formation of village panchayat. The progress of development of local self-government was, however, relatively slow.
Government of India Act 1935
This is considered as another important stage in the evolution of panchayats in British India. With popularly elected government in the provinces, almost all provincial administrations felt duty-bound to enact legislation for further democratization of local self-government institution, including village panchayats. Although the popular government in the provinces governed by the congress vacated offices following the declaration of the Second World War in 1939, the position of local government institutions remained unchanged till August 1947; when the country attained independence.
Even though the British government did not have any interest in the village autonomy, they were forced to do so, in order to continue their rule in India and moreover to meet financial necessities. The Indian rural republic had flourished till the advent of
the British received a setback during the British rule. Self- contained village communities and their Panchayats ceased to get the substance. They were replaced by formally constituted institutions of village administration. In the highly centralized system of British rule, village autonomy seemed to have lost.