Empowering have-nots

It is ironical that while states talk about devolution of more powers by the Centre, they dither to decentralise when it comes to them. Instead of empowering panchayats, politicians and bureaucrats find ways and means to circumvent the provisions of the Act in order to cling on to power themselves.

It is ironical that while states talk about devolution of more powers by the Centre, they dither to decentralise when it comes to them. Instead of empowering panchayats, politicians and bureaucrats find ways and means to circumvent the provisions of the Act in order to cling on to power themselves.

HT Image

It has been over a decade since the passage of the 73rd Amendment to the Constitution of India, which granted constitutional status to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), the bid to truly democratise our village panchayats and realise Mahatama Gandhi's vision of gram swaraj continues to remain a distant dream.

While the Act may have forced states to institutionalise Panchayati Raj, lack of political and bureaucratic will to empower them has failed to turn PRIs into instruments of change for economic development and social justice, as was conceptualised in the amendment. Barring a few states like Kerala and West Bengal, which have attempted to empower the PRIs in consonance with the letter and spirit of the constitutional amendment, the process of devolution of power is yet to take off in other states. States like Bihar, Jharkhand and Pondicherry have in fact yet not even commenced this process.

As far as Punjab is concerned, Wajahat Habibulla, Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, recently stated that Panchayati Raj was weak in the state. Habibulla said Punjab was among the states that lagged behind in transferring 29 issues listed under the 11th Schedule of the Act.

The 11th Schedule under Article 243 G lists 29 subjects which are to be transferred to the panchayats. These include agriculture, minor irrigation and watershed management, land improvement and land reforms, animal husbandry, social forestry and farm forestry, fisheries, minor forest produce, drinking water, health and sanitation, rural housing and the public distribution system.

Punjab has so far transferred seven subjects: social security, development of women and children, welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes, public health, rural development, health and family welfare and primary education. Though these departments were handed over to the panchayats with much fanfare last January, nothing has been done as regards devolution of financial powers and functionaries to them. Barring distribution of old-age pension through panchayats, which was only started a couple of months ago, the PRIs by and large remain ineffective.

The Reforms Committee, which was formed under the chairmanship of Chief Minister Capt Amarinder Singh, had in June, 2003, suggested several measures for transferring funds and granting financial autonomy to the panchayats. These included enactment of certain laws authorising a panchayat to levy, collect and appropriate certain taxes, duties, tolls and fees. But even two years after these suggestions were made, nothing has been done and PRIs continue to depend on state government for finances.

The Punjab government has also failed to constitute District Planning Committees (DPCs), mandatory under the 74th amendment Act. The government has been dithering over it for purely political reasons. While the DPCs, as per the provisions of the Act, can only have one-fifth of its strength as nominated members, the District Planning Boards that are operational in Punjab at present have only nominated members in it and are headed by MLAs and ministers.

It is indeed ironical that while states talk about devolution of more powers by the Centre, they dither to decentralise when it comes to them. Instead of empowering the panchayats, politicians and bureaucrats find ways and means to circumvent the provisions of the Act in order to cling on to power themselves.

In fact, the role of regional parties, who harp on true federalism, has been worse in this regard. During the five years of Akali rule in Punjab, the government did nothing to strengthen the PRIs. In Haryana, the INLD regime under Om Parkash Chautala in fact worked systematically to weaken the PRIs. The government created village-level parallel bodies called Gram Vikas Samitis in 2002 and these were given independent powers. These samitis were constituted with government nominees bypassing the elected structure.

If one looks at the implementation of the Panchayati Raj system nationwide, the situation is no different. Barring states like Karnataka and Kerala which have been successful to some extent in strengthening the PRIs, lack of political and bureaucratic will continues to be the biggest impediment in empowerment of panchayats.

While one would tend to blame politicians more for this situation, bureaucrats are equally responsible for subversion of PRIs. The agenda for the meeting of state Panchayati Raj ministers in July, 2001, makes a scathing comment on their role. It states, "A scrutiny of all state laws reveals that wide powers of suspension and dismissal have been vested in the bureaucracy... the new system of Panchayati Raj perhaps threatens bureaucrats with loss of powers."

Though the National Advisory Council, under UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, has recommended cuts in allocation of funds to states for not implementing recommendations relating to the Act, it’s unlikely to make much headway in the midst of a divisive and cast-ridden environment. rthukral@hindustantimes.com