COMMON CAUSE – INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES SEMINAR ON ‘LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT – THE UNFINISHED AGENDA’ PROCEEDINGS
Inaugural session
Welcome Address: Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal, Director, Common Cause
Shri Kishore Chandra Deo, Hon’ble Union Minister for Panchayati Raj and Tribal Affairs, Prof. K. C. Sivararmakrishnan, Chairman, Centre for Policy Research, Dr. George Mathew, Chairman, Institute of Social Sciences, Smt. Loretta Vas, Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, members of the Governing Council of Common Cause, eminent chairs of sessions and distinguished panelists, leaders of civil society, academia and media, veterans of public services, esteemed colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,
It gives me great pleasure to extend a hearty welcome to you all to this day-long deliberation on the most compelling imperative in our quest for good governance.
Organized jointly by Common Cause and Institute of Social Sciences, this seminar aims to take stock of the progress made in the implementation of the scheme of democratic decentralization enshrined in the 73rdand 74th Constitutional Amendments and evolve a strategy to accelerate the process of reconfiguring the power equations and resource allocations in our polity so as to give primacy to the aspirations and expectations of the people at the grassroots level.
While focusing on the unfinished agenda of the Constitutional mandate from the standpoints of devolution of powers and resources on the one hand and capacity building at the level of institutions and functionaries on the other, we also propose to cast a quick glance at some alternate paradigms of returning power to the people. This will be a prelude to a more detailed inquiry in the near future.
It is obvious that ours is a society in ferment. Established norms and practices of governance, which bear the unmistakable imprint of an imperial legacy, are increasingly being questioned. The inadequacy of outcomes in various centrally planned development programmes and the poor quality of human interaction at the points of contact with a distant administration tend to exacerbate the innate impatience of a young population. The conclusion is inescapable that the task of empowering and enabling local communities to take charge of their destinies and assume the responsibility for realizing their development goals will brook no delay.
In this context, it gives me immense pleasure to extend on behalf of all of us gathered here a very warm welcome to the Hon’ble Union Minister of Panchayati Raj and Tribal Affairs. He has been a strong votary of empowered, self-governing local communities epitomized by our rich tribal tradition. We are fortunate, Sir, that you have consented to inaugurate our deliberations today and share with us your vision and strategy for giving substance to the framework of democratic decentralization, which was incorporated in the Constitution nearly two decades ago.
The importance attached by your Ministry to our endeavours is also reflected in the presence here of Smt. Loretta Vas, Secretary, Panchayati Raj and her senior officers. We extend a cordial welcome to them and hope that the recommendations emerging at the end of our collective reflection will receive the careful consideration of your Ministry.
Let me also give expression to our happiness in welcoming Prof. K.C. Sivaramakrishnan, who has been steadfast in championing the cause of democratic decentralization, having played a key role in its evolution right from the stage of ideation. We look forward to his keynote address, which will set the tone of our deliberations and help us formulate an action plan for actualising the Constitutional scheme adopted way back in 1993.
I would also like to welcome our distinguished panelists, who have been working tirelessly in their chosen fields to help bring about a transformation in the structures and processes of our polity such that effective power comes to repose in the ultimate sovereign, the people. In particular, I would like to extend a warm welcome to Smt. Nirmala Buch, former Chief secretary, Madhya Pradesh, who has come from Bhopal to share her vast experience and insights in institution building with us.
I am not quite sure in what words I should welcome Dr George Mathew since he is co-hosting this event; but that is just one of the many hats that he wears; and I am well within my rights to welcome him as an invaluable resource and giver of the valedictory oration.
We are lucky to have in our midst a few elected representatives from the third tier of democracy. They have come all the way from Uttarakhand to be with us.
Let me also welcome our friends from the media, whose responsibility it is to disseminate the message of the seminar and keep its theme in sharp public focus.
I shall conclude by saying that an alliance of the enlightened elements in the political executive, legislatures, bureaucracy, media and civil society only can alter the unequal power equation obtaining today and enable local communities to wrest power from the nexus of vested interests and to play their rightful role in governance. I am hopeful that our deliberations today will bring us a step closer to this goal.
Keynote Address: Prof. K.C Sivaramakrishnan, Chairman and Research Professor, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi
I deem it an honor to be associated with Common Cause, an organisation hallowed by the memory of late Shri H.D. Shourie. I also am particularly happy that Minister Kishore Chandra Deo is with us. He is a veteran parliamentarian and has successfully contested for Lok Sabha five times and also for the Rajya Sabha. More importantly, from what I could learn from the website, he is a person who has drawn his strength and sustenance from his constituency. On top of it, he is a political science graduate from the Christian College, Chennai. All in all, it would seem to me that some of the thoughts that I have to share will find a certain reception and resonance.
Mr. Jaswal and his colleagues have circulated a note on Decentralization, and it is a long history which has been captured. What has happened after Independence? I do not wish to add to it in any significant manner. But by and large, the whole process of the so called decentralization and local self-government before Independence and after Independence has been gradual and incremental. It has been marked by caution on the one hand and by suspicion on the other.
The suspicion of the colonials has not entirely left independent India. We also continue to look upon local self-government with a mixture of suspicion and caution and when these two qualities merge, progress is bound to be painfully slow, and that is what has really happened. We should also remember that when significant political changes take place, they are not the result of bureaucratic thinking, or legislative drafting; they are the product of political leadership and strength and vision, and that is what really prompted the 73rd and the 74th Constitutional amendments, including all its precursors.
At some point of time, this young man, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, had a window of peak learning, whether he was prompted by the events around the world, including Tiananmen Square, or the conversations that he had with Mr. Gorbachev. At some point of time, he felt that the funnel of political participation should be widened in this country and that the sum total of Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies numbering no more than 6000 was not enough for a country of this size. I want to emphasize this again; it was this widening of the funnel of participation that was the political objective he was seeking, not just the delivery of services. Empowerment, he felt, should precede the delivery of the services. Unfortunately the manner in which the Constitutional Amendment itself was drafted and went through its various stages, was marked by apprehension rather than objectives.
One of the earliest compromises that took place, which to my mind raises a very serious issue, is the so called Proviso to Article 243Q. When the Bill was drafted by the Narasimha Rao government, it was a drastically reduced Bill, though it was openly proclaimed to be Rajiv Gandhi’s dream. It was this diluted Narasimha Rao version which went to the Joint Committee of Parliament, but was significantly enlarged by it. While industrial townships were discussed, there was no recommendation by the Joint Committee in this regard. When the Bill was remitted back to the House, some events took place very fast in November 1992. I should tell you that I came to know about these events only because of an RTI application. As a result of it, I came to know that in the month of November 1992, Shri Biju Patnaik, the then Chief Minister of Orissa, and also Shri Santosh Mohan Dev, the then Minister of Steel, wrote to the Prime Minister seeking exemption from the Constitutional amendments in so far as company townships were concerned. A so called consensus in an all party meeting held on the 25th of November,1992 was reached; and ex post facto approval of the Cabinet was obtained on the 3rd December 1992. The government introduced this proviso saying that if an industrial management wants to provide services, that particular area need not be constituted into a municipality. In other words, in spite of all the passion that marked the passage of these amendments, the compromise was reached that certain parts of India would remain outside the pale of the Constitutional amendments. I am not referring here to the Scheduled Areas.
In my opinion, this is a compromise in principles which should not have happened. As result of that, you now have umpteen special economic zones; you also have Noida and Greater Noida. Even the CPM people found it necessary to take out a few wards of the existing Bidhan Nagar township and constitute them into the Nabo Diganto Industrial Township, whose Mayor is a state government official. He openly says, “I am the Worshipful Mayor; but there are no citizens to worship me, since this township only has the offices of the Wipro and the Infosys!” Even the DMIC Corridor between Delhi and Mumbai, much heralded and comprising many towns, is to be kept out of the Constitution, taking advantage of the Proviso to Article 243Q. I am mentioning this because our political history has been marked by compromise. If you really want decentralization and empowerment of the people, that cannot co-exist all the time with such compromises. It may be evidence of our cleverness, but not necessarily of our commitment to democratic, Constitutional values.
We have been knocking at the doors of the judiciary for quite a few years since this Constitutional amendment came in. The Institute of Social Sciences was asked by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj to do a review of the various state laws and the Central laws and to report to what extent they were consistent with the Constitution. That exercise was done. Various recommendations were given. One of the very important things that transpired was that there was a provision in the Constitution to the effect that within a period of one year, every state should revisit its laws to see whether they comply with the Constitutional provisions or not. Most of the states did not bother till the eleventh month; the compliance exercise was done only towards the end. Excepting Kerala, which appointed a committee under the leadership of Shri S.B. Sen, no other state went through a conscious exercise, though there may have been one or two small exceptions.
Unfortunately, the judiciary itself has been very cautious by adhering to the letter of the law. But this is a matter where intent is extremely important. One of the most important cases agitated fairly early was theRanga Reddy District Sarpanch Association versus the Government of Andhra Pradesh. There, a 5judge bench presided by Shri Devendra Gupta as Chief Justice gave an important ruling. The Attorney General, Shri Soli Sorabjee, was invited to assist the Court, as also the Additional Solicitor General. The Attorney General pointed out that while it is expected that there would be some powers and functions given to these panchayati raj bodies, the amendments were not to override the plenary powers of the State. The Court’s verdict, to quote, was:
“In pronouncing on the Constitutional validity of a statute, the Court is not concerned with the wisdom or unwisdom, adequacy or inadequacy, fitness or otherwise…”.
Thus was the majority judgment delivered. In other words, the Court more or less said, “Intent is a stranger to this Court. It is the letter of the law that counts.”
Here is a judiciary, which invented the basic features of the Constitution, but in a case relating to the Constitutional amendments, it took a different view. There was one dissenting judge, Shri Justice Goda Raghuram, whose dissenting judgment merits notice. His views may be summarized as follows:
“You have the Directive Principles of State Policy. It is presumed that Members of Parliament are aware of this. They contain a whole series of exhortations in so far as Panchayats are concerned. And you said that did not work and hence, you went through this elaborate exercise of amending the Constitution and you got the ratification by the states. Now you say that this is also discretionary and, therefore, an exhortation. Are we to conclude that the 73rd and 74th amendments are a surplus to the Constitution? Can there be a surplus in a written Constitution?”
Unfortunately, being a dissenting judgment, it remained just a dissenting judgment. From time to time, this issue has plagued the country. In the most recent case of Gandhinagar, where the Gujarat government tried very hard to make it into an industrial township, the Gujarat High Court said, “No, you cannot do it. It is not an industrial township and you have to constitute it into a municipal body.” And that was eventually done.
We need to bear in mind that when there are political issues, the courts are probably the last place to seek an answer. It is a matter to be sorted out by and at the political level. Unfortunately, the response of many of the governments, whether Union or State, has been ambivalent. We have not accepted the 73rd and 74th amendments as the organizing principle of the country’s governance. Mr. Minister, one of your predecessors, Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar, tried to forge a consensus and mobilize public opinion in the states by holding a whole series of Round Tables. The consensus that was reached is a tribute to his persistence, but nevertheless, it has been somewhat fragile. Another major feature in our country is that we still continue to regard the MPs, the MLAs and the panchayat representatives or the corporators in a hierarchy. We still seem to think that one level is superior to the other level. The political inter-dependency is not fully recognized. On top of it, the MP/MLA Local Area Development Scheme has become a legally certified intrusion into the local domain.
After 50 years of Independence, the Lok Sabha debated many issues when Shri Purno Sangma was the Speaker. Somehow, the Members preferred expediency, rather than Constitutional adherence, with the result that the MPLAD Scheme continued. By and large, the Supreme Court decision on the MPLAD case focused very much more on the legal aspects of separation of powers of the executive and the legislature, but in the process, it has dealt a body blow to local self-government.
Well, all may not be lost yet. Capacity building, competence, accountability, these are all very important and I have no problem whatsoever in agreeing with the emphasis that is placed on all these subjects. For the rest of today, debates will focus on these, but I do have to come back to this simple question - What are we seeking? Empowerment or delivery of services?
If we wanted only the efficient delivery of services, why would we have this elaborate decentralized arrangement? An authoritarian government is quite capable of delivering, very efficiently, the services that you need. As a matter of fact, the Proviso to Article 243Q is an acknowledgment that democracy and efficiency cannot go together. Is that what we want to say? This is not a question which is remitted only to scholars and academics. It is a question for the polity at large.
I am happy to know that Minister Shri Kishore Chandra Deo has said that the local voice will be very important as far as mining activities are concerned and that the local people will have to be consulted. We are then talking about empowerment. Why is it not possible that this salutary principle of empowerment is carried through? Why is it that we are harping all the time on capacity building? Was this not an issue that was raised by the Hon’ble Mr. Winston Churchill; that we Indians were not capable of governing ourselves? He said that we must really be trained, and Montagu, Chelmsford and Ripon and various other people tried to train us. At some point of time, Gandhiji said, “Why don’t you just get out? We will deal with these issues ourselves.” If we had harped so much on capacity building, we would all be running training schools and still waiting for Independence!
I do feel very strongly that it is important that we revisit the essential principles of these Constitutional amendments, that is local self-government. It does not require too much of an elaboration. Instead of applying our intelligence all the time to find some circumventing compromises, why is it not possible for us to proceed with the central principle? As we move on, we are going to witness an increasing contest for political space. That will be inevitable. There will be an increasing contest for resources; there will be an increasing contest for economic space. Umpiring should not be so distant that only the Union Government or the State Government can umpire. We really have to come to terms with the local voice and the state cannot be the sole arbiter.
The Ministry of Panchayati Raj itself has helped develop a couple of initiatives. One is the Road Map, which was discussed and which Mr. Jaswal has circulated with the concept note. About a year and a half ago, a circular was addressed to all the state Governments about the need for further amending the Constitution. There are two or three very interesting suggestions that have been made. One is the revival of a common zila parishad, or a common district council; not a district rural parishad, or a district urban parishad; but a common zila parishad. The second is the revival of the Legislative Council. It is the suggestion that has been made in the Ministry of Panchayati Raj’s Road Map. If MPs and MLAs, who by the Constitution are precluded from joining each other’s legislative bodies, i.e. the Parliament and the State Legislatures, why are they both so keen on their presence in the municipal hall?
If the MPs and MLAs like the municipal domain so much, then the zila parishad and the corporation should return the compliment and seek to revive the Legislative Council and make it really a body fully representative of these local bodies. That is a suggestion made by the Panchayati Raj Ministry’s Road Map.
The second is a common election code. There are serious discrepancies in the electoral rolls followed for the Assembly and Parliament elections on the one hand and panchayat and municipal elections on the other. It has been recognized that this is a problem. Here we are, priding ourselves on our great information technology capability, and we cannot get these rolls sorted out! The Ministry of Panchayati Raj again supported an effort to bring together some kind of a common election code. Unfortunately, that has also not been pursued.
In conclusion, let me express my relief and happiness that Common Cause has taken up the issue of decentralization because Common Cause really pioneered the initiative for identifying public interest, advocating public interest and more importantly, fighting for public interest. I think we have to get back to the essentials. Everything else is also important; I do not deny that. By all means, talk about capacity, talk about accountability; talk about everything, but the question really is why, in spite of all our efforts, the simple principle of local self- government has not been accepted.
Today’s newspaper talks about some of the powers of zila parishads in West Bengal being taken away and conferred on District Magistrates. I do want to say that Lord Curzon has not entirely left us. Somehow, his ghost continues to haunt us. I can only expect that given the Minister’s background and given his strong roots in his constituency, we will go back to the basic issue of local voice, local choice and empowerment. Otherwise, even if we are tremendously clever in continuing on the basis of compromises for some more time, the fundamental change that we tried to bring about by amending the Constitution and establishing a tier of local self governance will be lost.
Inaugural Address by Chief Guest: Shri Kishore Chandra Deo, Minister of Panchayati Raj & Tribal Affairs
I am happy to be here today at this seminar not only as the Minister-in-Charge of Panchayati Ra,j but more so as a grassroots level worker. My public life spanning several decades has been spent with villagers, many of whom are forest dwellers and many of whom belong to the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. My understanding and knowledge is borne out of what I have read, what I have heard and what I have seen. Unfortunately, the background note circulated by the organizers paints a bleak picture of the state of panchayati raj and makes sweeping observations about continued deterioration of panchayats over the years. I would like to put the matter in the correct perspective.
Prior to the Constitutional mandate for holding regular elections to panchayats, supersession of panchayats was routine and frequent. With coming into force of the 73rd amendment to the Constitution, the imperative of regular elections has become justiceable. Admittedly there are exceptions. For example, in my own State of Andhra Pradesh, elections to Panchayats have not been held within the stipulated time in the background of a ‘stay’ by the Hon’ble High Court. Nevertheless, not holding of elections is viewed with the seriousness it deserves. We have advised the state government to adhere to a percentage of reservation for OBCs in a manner that the total reservation remains within 50 percent as required in the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court in civil writ petition 356 of 1994. And this is not the only step we have taken. Under the Panchayat Empowerment and Accountability lncentive Scheme, states are rewarded for progress made in devolution of the 3 “F”s to panchayats and panchayats are rewarded for good performance and accountability. Since elections have not been held in Andhra Pradesh, the state would also not be eligible for any award under this scheme even if it qualified otherwise. Puducherry is another state where panchayats were superseded. The matter went to the Court and the state has undertaken to complete the election process within six months of the date of supersession. We had taken up the matter with the state government at the highest level and now they have appointed a State Election Commissioner.
It may also be recalled that elections have been held in Jammu & Kashmir in 2011. For the first time, there was reservation for women for ward members. The reserved seats have returned women representatives. The constitution of the panchayats has also been pivotal to return of normalcy, economic activity and normal social life. With these three live examples, I would leave you to decide whether things are deteriorating or not.
To equip the elected representatives from Jammu & Kashmir with the required knowledge and skills to take on their new role and responsibilities, and since training infrastructure in J&K is weak, we have arranged for the training of trainers and elected representatives from Kashmir in other states which have a more robust training infrastructure. Training programmes have evolved continuously in the State lnstitutes of Rural Development. lnitially, the trainings were limited to making elected representatives aware about their roles and responsibilities in panchayats. The modules now include domain knowledge on government programmes being implemented in the district as well as on important socio-economic issues like education, health, drinking water and sanitation.
It is not my perception that the panchayats are less transparent today. We have been taking up with different Ministries and state governments the need to empower the gram sabha to conduct social audit as has been mandated in the MNREGA Scheme. Instructions, which, inter alia, require the gram panchayats to make the following voluntary disclosures, have been issued:
a) Names of the persons and wages paid to them.
b) Names of works, amount of money spent on each work and amount of money required for completing the incomplete works.
c) Quantity and price of materials purchased for the works and from whom purchased.
This authorization is only the beginning and its impact will ultimately depend on the ability of the gram sabha to demand the information.
Transparency in the operations of the PRI’s is also sought to be achieved through the e-panchayat project. Seventy thousand panchayats are making online voucher entries on PRIA Soft, the accounting software developed by this Ministry with National lnformatics Centre. 41,500 gram panchayats have uploaded their Annual Action Plans on line on the planning software called Plan Plus.These are only two of eleven applications developed to address all aspects of panchayat functioning.
Devolution of functions, functionaries and funds to panchayats by states is being pursued continuously. The extent of devolution done by states is assessed and verified in the field every year and the best performing states are rewarded. The detailed analysis of devolution supported by field verification through independent agencies shows that devolution is taking place in states which hitherto had not shown any progress on this front earlier. While the states of Kerala, Karnataka and Maharashtra have been traditionally strong and progressive on devolving powers to panchayats, in order to encourage other states to take more initiative in this area, any step taken by them which devolved powers to the panchayats during the course of the year, are selected for an award. As a result, we are seeing many new initiatives from states like Rajasthan and Haryana in respect of devolution of the 3 “F”s to panchayats.
Panchayats have also diversified their agency and governance functions. From 2011-12 onwards, Ministry of Panchayati Raj has begun to incentivize best performing panchayats across states. A wide range of initiatives taken by these panchayats bring out the potential of local leadership and have been noted for further dissemination. These include: Livelihood activities such as setting up milk production units, garment manufacturing units in collaboration with Self Help Groups, etc.; focus on marginalized groups, such as special schools for handicapped children; upgradation of civic infrastructure, such as construction of roads, improvement of tourist facilities in pilgrimage centers and making them a source of revenue, improvement in sanitation, etc.. Other initiatives include measures to bring about transparency in governance through social audit, encouraging active gram sabhas, and a host of creative efforts to generate revenues and voluntary contribution.
Along with strengthening the capacity of elected representatives, strengthening the infrastructure and processes of the panchayati raj system is also under the consideration of Government of lndia.
The importance of gram sabha as a forum for need-based planning and selection of deserving beneficiaries under state and central schemes and for ensuring transparency and social accountability in the working of the gram panchayat cannot be overstated. With the foundation for inclusive governance having been laid in the provision of Parts lX & IXA of the Constitution, the framework for participative development in vibrant and efficient functioning PRIs can, and I believe, will, lead to inclusive growth.
- Kamal Kant Jaswal
