References

pdc

Political Discourse

2395-22292582-2691

Prof. R S Yadav

Kurukshetra, Harayana

pdc-3-1-006

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Relevance of Gandhian Vision of Panchayats in the Era of Globalization

Pal

Kushal

¹Dr. Kushal Pal, Associate Professor& Head, Department of Political Science, Dyal Singh College, Karnal (Haryana)

162017

318388

2017

IndianJournals.com

The ideas of Mahatma Gandhi had been formulated during the colonial period when he was leading the struggle for independence against British imperialism. But these remain relevant to a considerable extent even in the present era. His ideas on Panchayats may be cited by way of illustration. In this context, it is pertinent to mention at the outset that Gandhi had designed these on the basis of his empirical understanding of the rural society of India and its psyche. In fact, his political Guru, Gopal Krishan Gokhle, had advised him to understand Indian society before taking a plunge into politics. And, he earnestly tried to get a deep insight into the various aspects of the life of people in Indian villages.

He was perceptive enough to recognize that the predominantly rural society of India was based on village communities. He could perceive that the local problems could be solved only at the local level by local people through their own institutions based on their genuine participation in the decision making. He strongly felt that it would not only facilitate the expansion of grass root democracy based upon democratic decentralization but also preserve the autonomy of local self government institutions at the grassroots. He could recognize that the development of India was not possible without the development of villages. The independence of India or the Swaraj, according to him, shall remain incomplete without the Gram Swaraj. He had gone to the extent of saying that if villages die India would not be able to survive. That is why he focused upon the overall growth of the rural society. In fact, Gandhi wanted that the Independent India should be a commonwealth of politically independent and economically sufficient villages.

He also advocated that the post-independent polity of India should be based on the village, the mandal, the district, the provincial and the national panchayats. The village panchayats should be elected by the respective gram sabhas of the villages through consensus. Further, he favoured maximum powers for the gram panchayats and minimum powers for the central government. He was of the view that the mandal panchayat be unanimously elected by the representative of the village panchayats. These should do whatever is beyond the capacity of the gram panchayats. The district panchayats elected unanimously by the representatives of mandal panchayats should do whatever is beyond the capacity of mandal panchayats and the provincial panchayat (provincial government), elected in the same manner by the representatives of the districts panchayats should do whatever the district panchayats are not able to do and the central panchayat (central government) elected through consensus by the provincial panchayats should do only which is beyond the capacity of provincial panchayats. In fact, he wanted a system of governance in which the gram sabha is organically linked with the Lok Sabha (the National Panchayat). He had favoured indirect elections based on consensus at all the levels for setting an organic link between them.

Besides, Gandhi wanted indirect election instead of direct election for making it party-less democracy instead of a party-based democracy. So much so that he had suggested soon after the independence of India in 1947 that the Indian National Congress should be disbanded for this purpose and converted into a social organization (Sarva Sewa Sangh) as its role of attainment of Swaraj was over. But the leadership of the Indian National Congress rejected his views as it considered the retention of the party essential for the modernization, economic growth, political development and nation building. The fact of the matter is that Gandhi was so fascinated by the village panchayats that he advocated that the Independent India should be a commonwealth of villages – politically independent and economically self-sufficient. But the constitution-makers rejected his idea as utopian.

The Gandhian perspective was totally ignored by them. So much so that the word ‘panchayat’ did not figure in the Draft Constitution of India. When Gandhi came to know about it, he observed: I must confess that I have been able to follow the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly…(The correspondent) says that there is no mention or direction about village panchayat and decentralization in the fore-shadowed Constitution. It is certainly an omission calling for an immediate attention if our independence is to reflect the people's voice. The greater the power of the panchayat, the better for the people…(Balwant Rai Mehta,1964).

As a matter of fact the Gandhians could get the word panchayat included in Article 40 of the Directive Principles of State Policy incorporated in part third of the Indian Constitution with great persuasion. It says, “The state shall take steps to organize village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self government”.

It is also important to recall that the chief architect of the draft Constitution Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar had vehemently opposed the inclusion of the word panchayat in the Constitution. Replying to the criticism of the Gandhians on the exclusion of village panchayats from the structure of government, he strongly defended his position thus;

“It is said that the new Constitution should have been drafted on the ancient Hindu model of a state and that instead of incorporating Western theories the new Constitution should have been raised and built upon Village Panchayats and District Panchayats… They do not want any Central or Provincial Governments. They just want India to contain so many village Governments. The love of the intellectual Indians for the village community is of course infinite if not pathetic… No doubt the village communities have lasted where nothing else lasts. But those who take pride in the village communities do not care to consider what little part they have played in the affairs of the country; and why?.. But mere survival has no value. Surely on a low and selfish plane, I told that these village republics have been the reunion of India… What is a village but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism? I am glad that the Draft Constitution has discarded the village and adopted the individual as its unit….(Quoted in ibid).

As a matter of fact, Ambedkar was not opposed to the idea of democratic decentralization or to the concept of giving power to the people, which can be an ideal form of the panchayati raj system. He was critical of traditional panchayat structured in a caste-ridden feudal village society in India. No doubt he was more realistic than Gandhi. But the Gandhians considered panchayats both as a means and also as an end. They had immense faith in the potential of panchayats for democratic decentralization and for devolving power to the people. Their basic premise was that these institutions could play an important role in the social transformation and in implementation of economic development programmes.

Even the first Prime Minister of India, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru, was not convinced with Gandhi's concept of gram panchayats. He had rejected the idea long before the independence of India. But the failure of the Community Development Programme that has been launched by him in 1952 for bringing about a silent revolution in the rural society by awakening the dormant forces of progress in it, made Nehru to realize the need for panchayats and for giving a second thought to Gandhi's ideas on panchayats or democratic decentralization. This led to the appointment of Balvantrai Mehta Study Team in 1957. The Study Team observed that without the creation of an agency at the village level for representing the entire village community which could take responsibility and provide effective leadership at the grass-root level, development programme can not be implemented properly. Moreover, the Team strongly felt that the democracy at the top would not be a reality unless it is built from the below. That is why it recommended a scheme of democratic decentralization for effective implementation of the Community Development Programme. This is how the three-tier structure of panchayats comprising of the gram sabha and the gram panchayat at the base, panchayat samiti in the middle and the zila parishad at the top was set up in 19591. This system was given the name of Panchayati Raj because it was more comprehensive for rural masses that ‘democratic decentralization’ which is an absolute term. The setting of panchayat raj was certainly influenced by the Gandhian ideas on gram panchayats. However, it was qualitatively different from the Gandhian vision of Gram Swaraj.

But even this panchayat raj was gradually destroyed during the post-Nehru era as his successors Lal Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi, had no faith in democratic decentralization. However, when Rajiv Gandhi became Prime Minister of India in 1984, he found that only 15 paisa out of one rupee meant for rural development reaches the rural masses. Hence he decided to rejuvenate the Pnachayati Raj by according a constitutional status to it. He made an unsuccessful attempt to do so through the 64th Constitutional Amendment Bill in 1989. But his unfulfilled dream could get institutionalized through 73rd Constitutional Amendment only in 1993. This Amendment, which was implemented in 1994, has not only accorded a constitutional status to the gram sabha but also created a uniform system of a three-tier structure of directly elected village, block and districts panchayats in all the states having a population of more than 20 lakhs. It also includes 11th schedule which lists 29 functions on which these panchayats make and implement plans for economic development and social justice on those subjects that are devolved on them by the state legislatures so that these could become institutions of self governance.

But even 23 years after the implementation of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment on April 24, 1994, the panchayat raj has not been established in its true spirit. This was influenced by the Gandhian emphasis on gram sabha and gram panchayats. As a matter of fact genuine devolution of functions, functionaries and funds to the panchayats can go a long way in rectifying the ills from which contemporary Indian polity suffers. But this is not enough, as the faith of people in the local institutions and their role in handling the local problems of development needs to be restored. It remains a big challenge due to the apathy of rural masses, poor quality of leadership in panchayats, hostility of bureaucracy to these and reluctance of political leadership to devolve powers to these institutions of decentralized rural governance.

Partha Nath Mukherji has in his very well articulated monograph, ‘Participatory Democratization: Panchayati Raj and the Deepening of Democracy’, enumerated twelve specific problems that confront the system of rural local self-government in India.

There is a factor of the local political economy and the high probability of elite capture of resources.

Central and state-level political elite vying with the local political elite, trying to win support from a common constituency, feel threatened.

The non elected resource-rich NGO/INGOs with their primary accountability to the donors operate within panchayats jurisdictions as competing structures of influence and power.

There are state and central-level projects that by-pass the authority of the panchayati raj institutions.

Problem of accountability and transparency often associated with rent-seeking behaviour characterize many functionaries at all the levels.

Gram sabhas, which are fundamental units of direct democracy, are often convened irregular intervals with poor attendance.

There is problem of what is known as ‘proxy panchayats’ where the husband/male member of the family acts on the behalf of the elected women representatives.

Social-institutional barriers often inhibit the role of dalits (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) as envisaged in the panchayati raj.

A resistant bureaucracy is tardy in implementing devolution of power.

Political and economic clientelism is an iniquitous agrarian and caste structure perpetuates the role of dominant powers.

There are problems relating to ambiguities in the distribution nd sharing of power at the various sub-state levels.

Most importantly, there are problems of poverty, illiteracy and malnutrition that provide structural barriers to the improvement in life-chances of the deprived and marginal groups.

According to him, despite several problems, the challenges and resistance by the predominantly patriarchal and feudal structure, the new developments point to a situation of optimism. Lakhs of women have been performing the leadership roles due to reservations provided to them by the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments. Local level development planning with the slogan: ‘planning by the people and for the people’ is taking place in Kerala panchayats and municipalities. The recent decision of the Rajasthan and Haryana governments to prescribe minimum educational qualifications for contesting elections to the local bodies also may be hailed as a progressive step in that direction as it will improve the quality of panchayat leadership.

But the legal framework and legislative measures are not enough for strengthening panchayats. There is a strong need to resist the steps that are discriminatory and which undermine the devolution of functions. Radical change in the socio-economic structure of the rural society and meaningful cultural change is required to reform the patriarchal and feudal mind-set of the people. Only then the local democracy could function effectively at the grass-root level and shall be able to make a far reaching impact on the rural society. It shall certainly bring a qualitative change in India's federal character.

It may be tentatively concluded that the Gandhian concept of panchayats remains relevant even today. But it will have to be modified and reinterpreted and in accordance with the needs of the present era of liberalization, privatization and globalization. In fact, its relevance has been further enhanced for mitigating the negative effects of these processes. Hence, we need strengthening of panchayat institutions for socio-economic transformation in India's rural society if we want to make Gandhi's dream of Gram Swaraj a reality. However, we will have to keep in view the fact that the social, economic and political context has totally changed. But despite this, the Gandhian concept of panchayats has not altogether lost its relevance. In fact, in the present era we need Glocalization2 which means globalization on the one hand and the localization on the other.

References1.

Rajasthan was the first state to implement the Banvantray Mehta study team's recommendations. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru inaugurated panchayati raj at Nagaur, about 260 kms from Jaipur, the capital of Rajasthanon 102, 1959. He hailed the system as “the most revolutionary and a historical step in the context of new India”.

The well known sociologist, Ronald Robertson (1980), has suggested replacing what he considered a widely misunderstood term globalization, with glocalization in order to transcend the tendency to cast globalization in opposition to localization. In a paper he has argued that globalization is seen as the triumph of culturally homogenizing forces above all others; as overriding locality. Interactions between different cultures do not amount to homogenizing; hence the global can never exclude the local. The origin of globalization, however, can be traced to Japan, to the word Dochakuka, which is the principle of adopting farming techniques to suit local conditions.

Gandhi

M K

, ‘Panchayats in Independent India’, Harijan, 728, 1946.

Bandyopadhyay

, ‘Panchayat and Democracy’ in Bandyopadhyay

and Amitav

Mukherji

, New Issues in Panchayati Raj, Concept Publications, New Delhi, 2004.

Nirja

Gopal Jayal

, Amit

Parkash

, Pardeep

K Sharma

, (eds.), ‘Local Governance in India: Decentralization and Beyond’, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2006.

Partha

Nath Mukherji

, ‘Participatory Democratization: Panchayti Raj and Deepening of Indian Democracy, ISS Occasional Paper Series-34, New Delhi: Indian Institute of Social Sciences, 2007.

Ranbir

Singh

& Kushal

Pal

, ‘Devolution of Powers to the Panchayati Raj Institutions in Haryana’, The Grassroots Governance Journal, Volume X, Number 1, January-June2012.

Editor, ‘Burying Grass-roots Democracy’, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. No.41, 1010, 2015.

Ranbir

Singh

& Kushal

Pal

, ‘Need more than Education Boost in Haryana Panchayats’, The Tribune, 77, 2016.

10.

The author is an Associate Professor& Head, Department of Political Science, Dyal Singh College, Karnal (Haryana)