Current Public Administration Magazine (June - 2014) - "L.M. Singhvi Committee (1986)"
Sample Material of Current Public Administration Magazine
Rural Development Programmes
L.M. Singhvi Committee (1986)
The concept of panchayats was a part of the philosophy of 'Purna Swaraj' and 'Gram Swaraj". Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru breathed into those concepts and inexorable and practical patriotic impetus during the era of Indian struggle for independence. Indeed, at the seed time of our Constitution, the concept of village panchayats was not a remote and hoary historical concept. It was a part of the legacy of India's struggle for freedom and its quest for its own traditions and identity.
The Constitution of India was enacted, adopted and proclaimed in the name of the people of India as an organic document of democratic self-government and rule of law, enshrines for democratic faith and resolve of the resurgent people of India committed to the philosophy of "Swaraj" not only in the sense of emancipation from the colonial yoke of an alien imperial power but in the sense of self-government and the protection of the fundamental rights and dignity of the individual as a way of life and social habit. The fabric of our constitutional philosophy is woven with the warp and woof of democracy and rule of law.
The Constitution of India provides for republican democracy at the national level in the form of its bicameral Parliament and by making the Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the House of the People. The same basic pattern of parliamentary institutions is replicated at the level of States which form the Union of India. In the quasifederal framework of India's Parliamentary democracy, the creation of Panchayati Raj institutions and their organisation was, however, left to a general directive embodied in Article 40 of the Constitution in the following terms: Organisation of Village Panchayats—The State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government".
Public Administration Online Coaching / Study Kit or (2) GS-II Online Coaching / Study Kit or (3) GS-III Online Coaching / Study Kit
Article 40 came to be discussed and inserted somewhat belatedly on 22nd November, 1948 as Article 31 (A) in the Draft Constitution of India and now renumbered as Article 40 in the Chapter IV of the Constitution of India. It is significant to recall that at one point of time, the omission of village panchayats from the draft constitution was sought to be justified on the ground that the village communities in India which had survived through many vicissitudes were not fit to be units of self-government. On that issue, there was considerable furore and ferment among Members of the Constituent Assembly. A modus vivendi was then worked out behind the scences. As a result, Shri K. Santhanam's amendment which eventually became article 40 of the Constitution came to be accepted in a somewhat reticent and quiescent manner. No controversial statements were made. The debate in the Constituent Assembly on this provision occupies less than eight pages and does not fully reflect the range of conflict out of which the accord was fashioned. Earlier, Dr. Rajendra Prasad has also expressed the view somewhat wistfully that the Constituent Assembly should have attempted to adopt village republics as the basis of the Constitution. The Constitutional Adviser, Shri Senegal Narsaing Rau, while sympathising with the idea, has pointed out that it was too late to make an attempt to change the basis of the Constitution, the preparation of which had already progressed considerably. As Shri T. Prakasam implied during the debate in the Constituent Assembly Shri K. Santhanam's amendment was belated but welcome attempt to salvage the Constitution from the fundamental standpoint of Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy of grass-root democracy. In the speeches made in the Constituent Assembly, there were echoes of the Gandhian concept of village self-government and eloquent references to India's ancient republican and democratic traditions.
Clearly, the inclusion of Article 40 as a Directive Principle of State Policy did not more than accommodate a conceptual viewpoint. It did not enact it in a mandatory and constitutive form as an integral and operating part of the constitution. Article 40, however, does contain in it the seeds of a constitutional mandate and unequivocally projects the concept of village panchayats as units of self-government and requires that they should be endowed with all necessary powers and authority to enable them to function as units of self-government.
The true potential of Article 40 lies not merely in its directive to the Indian State at all levels as a part of constitutionally formulated principle of State Policy to organise village panchayats but in its significant concomitant mandate that panchayats should be endowed with "such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government". The message of that mandate is clear and clarion. It means that the task and the tryst of the founding fathers of the Constitution would remain incomplete unless village panchayats begin to function as units of self-government as a part of our democratic policy. An attempt to conceptualise the framework of panchayat institutions is to take its inspiration from the constitutional mandate to complete that unfinished task. The teleogical emphasis of that constitutional mandate is structural, operational and functional with its implicit ramifications for our democracy and development, for freedom and welfare, and for justice, liberty, equality, individual dignity, national unity and Indian people's fraternity as integrally correlated concepts.
Integrated vision of democracy
The national parliament and the Central Government, the State Legislatures and the State Governments and the whole pyramid of our judicial system are important to the working of democracy and the maintenance of the rule of law. In their own respective spheres, these legislative executive and judicial institutions provide an important infrastructure. To the common Indian villager, however, they do not represent a preoccupying part of his daily life. The revolution in communication technology does often enough lift and transport him audio-visually to the ambiance of these institutions but he cannot quite relate to them in terms of his daily needs and everyday concerns. Self-government may mean to him only the spectacular occasion when he exercises his franchise; but his participation in the electoral process for the Lok Sabha and the Vidhan Sabha cannot give him a sense of full and meaningful participation in the democratic process. He is unable to feel great power and even the greater responsibility of being a citizen in the democratic republic that is India. There are gaps and anomalies in the democratic experience of the Indian citizen, particularly in the countryside. Panchayati Raj institutions in our rural areas and municipal bodies in our urban areas represent, first and foremost, the possibility of a truly dependable and durable institutional assurance for overcoming those distances and gaps. Without local units of selfgovernment, we cannot hope to establish a viable and vibrant democracy. It is in this perspective that rural and urban development are, in effect, two sides of the same coin and are parts of a composits continuum of what may be called democratic urbanisation. Self-government necessarily subsumes and supplements developments in all its ramifications in rural as well as urban contexts. It is with an integrated vision that they have to be reviewed, restructured, reclaimed, renewed and revitalised.
The experience of local self-government in the urban areas and in the districts in different parts of India during the period of British rule was uneven. It is true that certain ground rules of municipal self-government were evolved in the cities and towns during that period. Some of the municipal bodies acquitted themselves so creditably that they become examples of civic self - government at its best. There were, however, other municipalities which appeared to be insufficiently imbued with the philosophy of local self-government. The District Councils were primarily administrative structures and did not quite come into their own. One of the obvious reasons was that the country was dominated by colonial administration and its pre-emptive imperatives. In the countryside, panchayats were quite often caste institutions with a pivotal social role but they did not function as institutions of State and instruments of self-government and social change.
The constitutional vision of republican self-government at the village level enshrined in Article 40 came to be unfolded a few years after the commencement of our Constitution when it became increasingly self-evident that community development and socio-economic transformation could not be achieved without democratic participation. This compelling and inescapable realisation of the limitations of the bureaucratic models led to an enthusiastic interest in Panchayati Raj institutions which was enlivened by generous impulses.
The Community Development Programme was launched in 1952. The blocks came to be established as units of development administration. The National Extension Service was established soon thereafter with a view to reinforce the administrative network to tackle the problems of growth and development at different local and functional levels. At that stage there was, relatively speaking, only nominal public participation through nominated representatives of the public. Soon, lack of public involvement and participation began to be perceived as an impediment in the successful implementation of the Community Development and National Extension Service Programmes. Based on that perception, the Second Plan document recognised the necessity for speeding up the development of democratic institutions and concluded that "unless there is a comprehensive village planning, which takes into account the needs of the entire community, weaker sections like tenant-cultivators, landless workers and artisans may not benefit sufficiently from assistance provided by the Government." Referring to the aim of the National Extension Movement to reach every family in the village, the Second Five Year Plan reported that in order to fulfil that aim it was necessary to have "an agency in the village which represents the community as a whole and can assume responsibility and initiative for developing the resources of the village and providing the necessary leadership. Indeed, rural progress depends entirely on the existence of an active organisation in the village which can bring all the people including the weaker sections mentioned above into common programmes to be carried out with the assistance of the administration." The thinking underlying the Second Plan was that village panchayats along with co-operatives could play a considerable part in bringing about a more just and integrated social structure in rural areas. The thrust of the Second Five Year Plan was to establish statutory panchayats in all the villages though more as vehicles for national extension and community development projects and not so much as units of self-government. It was primarily from this angle that the number of panchayats was to be more than doubled by 1960-61.
This Committee is of view that it has been a fundamental error to regard Panchayati Raj institutions primarily as convenient tools for administrative programmes and development projects. That error had the effect, in greater or lesser measure, of devaluing and downgrading the role of these institutions as units of self-government and relegating them to a secondary position, harming and hampering both democracy and development.
Ascent and ennui of Panchayati Raj momentum
The Balwantray Mehta Team was appointed in January, 1957 to study and report on the Community Development Projects and National Extension Service with a view to "economy and efficiency" and, among others "for the assessment of the extent to which the movement has succeeded in utilising local initiative and in creating institutions to ensure continuity in the process of improving economic and social conditions in rural areas." Once again the approach was primarily to achieve economy and efficiency. The Balwantray Mehta Team, however, found that "Development cannot progress without responsibility and power. Community Development can be real only when the community understands its problems, realises its responsibilities, exercises the necessary powers through its chosen representatives and maintains a constant and intelligent vigilance on local administration." It was with this objective that the team recommended an early establishment of statutory elective local bodies and devolution to them of the necessary resources, powers and authority.
The recommendations of the Balwantray Mehta Study Team came as a fresh breeze and gave a new lease to community development and extension service projects. It paved the way for a new era of Panchayati Raj institutions which was inaugurated by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru on 2nd October, 1959 at a national rally at Nagaur.
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru described the new beginning as "the most revolutionary and historical step in the context of new India." In a sense, it was an act of faith in republican democracy and was as important an event as the establishment of the parliamentary system itself for the people of India and by the people of India. The idea rode on the crest of the new wave of public enthusiasm which had found a sense of direction and an institutional habitat. The spirited launching of Panchayati Raj institutions at Nagaur seemed to capture the public imagination. That memorable rally aroused high hopes and great expectations. The idea was not meant to be a mere counsel of convenience or as a design of an auxiliary system of development administration. Indeed, the momentum of that momentous change was lost and the Panchayati Raj institutions began to decline when their status and role as units of self-government were eclipsed by a combination of several factors of decadence and disarray. When the basic premise of Panchayati Raj institutions as units of self-government was lost, these institutions also lost their capability to fulfil the promise of development.
After the Balwantray Mehta Study Team reported, legislation was enacted in different States except in the State of Meghalaya and Nagaland and UTs of Lakshadweep and Mizoram. According to the Committee set up by the Planning Commission which reported in December 1985, a three-tier system has been adopted in 12 states and 1 Union Territory, two-tier system exists in 4 states and 2 union territories. Electoral system also differs from state to state. In terms of structures, electoral procedures, powers and functions, there is a considerable variety in the Panchayat institutions adopted by the States. There are, today, more than 2,17,300 village panchayats in the country covering over 96% of about 5.79 lakhs inhabited villages and 92% of the rural population of our country. There are about 4,526 panchayat samitis of different nomenclature at the block, taluka or tehsil level. There are about 330 Zila Parishads covering about 76% of the district in the country; each Zila Parishad has on an average 13 to 14 Panchayati Samitis and about 660 Gram Panchayats.
Though there are variations from state to state, it may be
broadly stated that the functions entrusted to panchayats include village roads,
community wells, maintenance of public parks, tanks, irrigation works, public
hygiene, drainage and other civil services. In some states, they are also
responsible for primary education and are entrusted with functions relating to
rural industries, primary health care, medical relief, women and child welfare,
maintenance of common grazing grounds and other community lands and properties
and provision of inputs of agricultural production. The extent and tempo of the
involvement of Panchayati Raj institutions in basic planning and implementation
of development projects is also subject to wide variations from State to State
and even within the States. Most Panchayati Raj institutions appear to suffer
from grave insufficiency of resources which generally devolve upon them from
assignments in the land revenue and water rate, or additional surcharge on cess
on land revenue and water rate and various grants by the State Governments in
some cases revenue is derived from octroi and assignment of forest revenue. Some
of the Panchayati Raj institutions also derive income from taxes on buildings
and non-agricultural lands or from sur-charge on stamp duty on transfer of
immovable property. Variable in terms of yield, but not unimportant in the lives
of Indians in rural areas, there are local taxes, fees, cesses, tolls, licence
fees and other similar levies, on trades, industries, water supply, sanitation,
lighting, markets, bazars and haats, pilgrims, fairs and festivals, exhibitions,
entertainment shows, rest houses, bus stands, car stands, camel parking, vehicle
parking, animals, cattle ponds, fish ponds, slaughter houses, ferries bridges,
cattle grazing lands and commercial crops. The list of subjects on which levies
may be made may not appear to suffer from brevity but the sum total of yields
and collections do suffer from chronic paucity particularly in the context of
the responsibilities which are or ought to be entrusted to Panchayati Raj
institutions and their significant bearing on the quality of life in our rural
areas. The network of Panchayati Raj institutions covers the length and breadth
of the country today but not in the sense and manner they were meant to.
Numerically and quantitatively there are myriads of these institutions dotting
the entire landscape of our country. Powers and functions have been conferred on
them by legislative enactments. There is, however, a feeling that these
institutions have become moribund and that they have been denuded of their
promise and vitality. There is a legitimate question mark against these
institutions, not because the constitutional promise has been abandoned nor
because self-government is no longer an article of faith with us, not because we
have lost faith in ourselves; but because we have allowed these institutions to
be neglected, because we have failed to nurture them with the inputs and
material and human resources necessary for them and because the operational
claims and quest of political power have taken a heavy toll on the fundamental
concept of self-government and public service.