INTERACTIVE SESSION - III: A NEW PARADIGM OF DEMOCRATIC DECENTRALISATION, CHAIRPERSON: MS. MADHU KISHWAR, FOUNDER, MANUSHI SANGATHAN AND FOUNDER EDITOR, MANUSHI

Prashant Bhushan: Mr. Bhushan, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, observed that people do not vote for individuals but to form governments. Hence, they do not vote for candidates who have no chance to win. The first problem that arises from this behaviour is that only those parties that have money and muscle power and are mostly corrupt, are perceived as serious contenders in the race for power The second problem is that even if people were able to bring to power a party of honest individuals dedicated to working for the welfare of the population, its Government may not function in accordance with the will of the people.

It is difficult for the elected representatives to reach a consensus on important issues. Even if a consensus is arrived at, there is no certainty that it represents the will of the people. Is it necessary for Parliament to decide on behalf of the citizens? Representative democracies have their limitations. Therefore, citizens should opt for a system where they themselves are able to take decisions on all important issues. The Constitution needs to be amended to accord primacy to the will of the people, such that the citizens are able to take their own decisions on important issues. The elected representatives would only make decisions on day-to-day issues.

Complete decentralization would imply that decisions affecting a village are made in the gram sabha meetings. There may be instances of use of power by individuals against the minorities and in such situations the minorities need to be protected. To counter this possibility, discussions should be held in the open, but voting should only be by secret ballot. Any question can be put to vote with the help of information and biometric technologies. The same system can be followed at the state and national level as well.

There can be two models of referendum. In the Swiss model, when one lakh citizens send a proposition on a particular issue, a referendum has to be held on that issue. In case the elected government proposes to introduce a legislation and 50,000 people say they want a referendum, then it is held. However, in this model, the referendum is limited to the particular issue proposed by the citizens.

The second model envisions an independent constitutional body, which may be called the “Referendum Commission”. It has to be selected by a transparent method. This body should also look into other alternatives to and variants of any proposal put forward by the citizens. For example, when a bill is forwarded by some citizens, the suggestions made by other groups of citizens or the government may also be considered. The job of the Commission should be to look into issues which need to be segregated and issues which could be bunched together for referendum. The Commission would then ascertain the most popular options/alternatives and put them up for referendum. This may be done for any issue, at any level and at any interval. All that is required is to put up internet kiosks in every village and conduct the voting though a biometric system. Logistically, there should not be any problem in this.

Some skeptics would argue that the public may be ignorant and unable to decide on complex issues. In such situations, the public would have to rely on expert opinion to make its own decisions. This would still be better than the prevailing system where a few people with vested interests make the decisions on behalf of all the citizens.

It may be argued that this would institute majoritarianism and may lead to decisions detrimental to the minorities. Mr. Bhushan felt that this apprehension was unfounded since anything contrary to the spirit of the constitution could not be permitted.

Another concern could be that MNCs would influence the public opinion through money power and publicity blitz. For instance, Monsanto would seek to swing the public opinion in favour of genetically modified foods. Noam Chomsky has referred to the phenomenon of manufacturing consent in a democracy. But this happens even in elections and will always happen. In any case, it will still be better than the present system, where the elected representatives decide on crucial issues under the influence of vested interests.

Mr. Bhushan felt that our democracy was beyond redemption and should be done away with. It was a thoroughly corrupted democracy, a democracy which existed only in name, a democracy in which the only right of the people was to exercise their franchise once in five years, which right was a very marginal right considering the nature of the elections. In his view, the time was ripe for instituting a truly participatory democracy and decentralizing power to take it to the lowest level. All decisions which should be taken at the village level should be taken at that very level and no higher.

Mr. Bhushan recommended the preparation of a full draft of the Constitutional Amendment Bill to effectuate the vision of participatory democracy and decentralization of power.

Mr. Shashi Bhushan Uniyal, State Programme Coordiantor, Shri Bhuvaneswari Mahila Ashram, District Tehri, Uttarakhand., :

Mr. Uniyal shared his grassroots experiences of empowerment of women, SCs and STs in local self-governance in Uttarakhand with the participants. He recalled that in 2008, when panchayat elections were in the offing, the media were very excited that village women would be contesting the elections. They quizzed the contestants on their general knowledge and administrative capacity. In response to such questions, an old lady quipped, “When you climb these heights, all that matters to you is a glass of water. We know what we need”. “You cannot bring people from outside; whatever has to be done will have to be done by us, and with us”,, she proceeded to add.

Giving another illustration of the empowerment of these women, he recalled that when Mr. Mani Shankar Aiyar visited Uttarakhand in the capacity of Union Panchayati Raj Minister, he was told by the women PRI representatives, who had patiently been waiting for him, to reciprocate the courtesy by listening to their problems.

Mr. Uniyal felt that there might be a tendency to try to achieve too much too soon. There had been a lot of progress in the past few years. The fact that there was a realization of what was needed was itself a cause for satisfaction. According to Mr. Uniyal, Uttarakhand could become a role model for the rest of the country on the strength of the achievements at different levels, which needed to be aggregated. Panchayats in Uttarakhand had achieved cent percent registration of births and were managing their own forests. There were many other positives, which needed to be documented. For example, a village in Uttarakhand has successfully enforced complete prohibition, but this achievement was not reflected in the official records. Only matters related to expenses are recorded for the purposes of audit.

Mr. Uniyal recountted the the process of drafting the proposed Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, which spanned a period of six years and involved gram panchayats, MLAs, academicians, legal experts and the Minister of Panchayati Raj. He recapitulated the novel features of the legislative proposal, notably the provisions for formation of gram sabha on watershed basis, guaranteed allocation of funds for blocks, constitution of a service commission for recruitment of panchayat personnel and a deadline of three months for filling of all vacancies, merger of DRDA with Zilla Panchayat, earmarking of a minimum of fifteen percent of the state revenues for panchayats and compulsory social audit of all budgeted and non budgeted functions of the panchayats.

In conclusion, Mr. Uniyal stressed the importance of keeping our faith in the Panchayati Raj system and giving it the time and the space to fulfil its mandate

Ms. Madhu Kishwar: While summing up, Ms. Kishwar lauded Mr. Bhushan’s achievements in winning many historic cases and contended that it would not have been possible in a rotten democracy. Therefore, she could not agree with him that our democracy was completely rotten. She held that panchayat was not a new subject in India though Parliament could be a new institution as it had been copied from the British. But panchayats, she observed, were centuries old traditional institutions and we had a deeper and better understanding of this system of grass roots democracy as compared to any other country in the world. Mahatma Gandhi did not invent or introduce this system of governance; he was clear that traditional institutions of governance that have prevailed in India should be strengthened.

Ms. Kishwar also held that India has been known as a land of village republics which meant that that every village was a model of Swaraj in itself. She observed that unlike in Europe, the kings in this country were entitled to only the right to impose taxes. (He who taxed less was a good king and when the tax rates were raised to 25% Chatrapati Shivaji was criticized for his “chauth”). The King or ruler would not meddle into the private affairs of individuals. However, rulers subsequent to the British have interfered with all aspects of our lives as they did not consider the people fit enough to decide for themselves their personal behavior in their own homes with their families.

She further stated that when one talked of “Swashasan or Swaraj Pratha” one should remember that other than village panchayats, every caste or biradari had their own panchayats for example as in the case ofkhap, patel and nat. They lived together as a community as this was the only support system that they had.

Statutory panchayats on the other hand had complicated rules. They were written in Delhi; even amendments were made in Delhi. In contrast, Biradari panchayats had their own rules and regulations and every individual was aware of his rights. However, educated people were allergic to Biradari panchayats and hence were trying to finish these, the reason being that these panchayats actually work. An example was “Angadia” on which there was a television programme. The Angadias work as couriers and are honest and reliable people. Also they were a much disciplined community. Despite these positive attributes, the anchor in the television programme, was repeatedly saying that this system of courier should be banned. Similarly everyone wanted to ban the “khap” panchayat, though the people who wish to ban them are not even aware of what khap was.

These panchayats were still in existence in one form or the other. Ms. Kiswar wondered why the energy and discipline of these panchayats had not been utilized. Mahatma Gandhi’s conceptualization of the panchayat was an attempt to reenergize the existing panchayats and to strengthen them. The reasons why the Biradari panchayats work were:

• they have their own rules.

   

• they are not paid to do the work, nobody is an employee of another.

   

• they take their decisions with consensus and not by majority votes. They are willing to spend any amount of time for reaching this consensus unlike majority vote system in government panchayats.

   

• on the contrary, the government model of panchayat functions in utter confusion, locally nobody knows the rules, the rules are in English and difficult to understand.

Under the old panchayat system nobody was required to give money. There was a study on Chingalpeth district in AP around the turn of 18th/19th century when the British had not taken over. Palm leaf manuscript of that period shows that each family had to contribute to the common kitty and payments to service providers were made from this common pool. Since everyone was contributing and involved in distribution, there was no conflict of interest.

On the contrary, the government panchayats receive money from the top. Since it was nobody’s money, vested interests were in operation. The sarpanch who was the recipient of the government money becomes God and tries to serve his vested interest.

Democracy can only function in the absence of a majoritarian approach, but our democracy functions through majority votes, contended Ms. Kishwar. This inevitably leads to horse- trading and balancing power equation by all means, legal and illegal. A democracy where there is no provision for consensus tends to transform itself into a gang war. Minority opinion has to be taken into confidence, convinced and not bended by the majority.

Ms. Kishwar also observed that the law and order situation in villages was appalling and women could not function in such a system. Further, empowerment and participation of women in governance cannot succeed till hooliganism prevails. Traditional panchayats worked to join and strengthen the society but Government models are breaking the society due to money and vested interest. There is a lot of fight over distribution of money and bureaucracy is overpowering them.

Ms. Kishwar commented that a lot had been said about political freedom, but economic freedom had been ignored. She elaborated that the government insists that the MGNREGA be implemented through panchayats. Further, any subsidy in food grains would mean less profit to the farmer. Since the government cannot and does not produce food grains, then how can the farmers be fed when food grains are produced by farmers themselves, and not by us. Therefore, when the produce is sold at lesser price than the cost of production, how can the farmers be economically independent? Thus, the subsidy given is ultimately at the cost of the farmer. Government thus turns farmers into beggars and panchayat funds become alms. Politicians have captured all aspects of our lives. Thus, she suggested that we should concentrate more on economic freedom than on anything else.

Finally, Ms. Kishwar recalled that Mr. Prashant Bhushan had wanted to hold a referendum on whether Monsanto seeds had benefitted the farmers. In fact, there was prosperity among the farmers subsequent to the use of BT cotton. Thus, this was a sort of referendum and the farmers had voted in favour of the seeds.

At the end of the session, some of the participants raised questions and made a few observations which are recorded below:

• Mr. Saluja: We cannot assume panchayats to be Ram Rajya. There is a lot of mismanagement at that level as well. Even at MCD level the seats reserved for female candidates are usurped by the existing powers and utilized for their wives, daughters and other relatives. So it seems this has not worked the way it was planned to be. Similarly, just because village representatives come to Delhi and present their case, it cannot be taken as a big achievement after sixty years of Independence.

   

• Mr Gulfam: We need the money for the gram panchayat to be sent to the gram panchayat fund. Gram panchayat should get their rights. Where does all the money go and how do you expect us to work without money?

   

• Ms. Kishwar: It is my failure if I have not been able to explain myself properly leading to this misunderstanding. I never said that you should work without money. All I meant was that if we analyse the system of working of both the government panchayat and thebiradari or traditional panchayats, we find they are different. One apparent distinction is that the members of biradari panchayat function on few cups of tea during the deliberations of the panchayat. People work because they think it is their own work. On the other hand, the panchayats that we have today, everyone expects remuneration for the work they do. We should utilize the synergy of the biradari panchayat and strengthen the present panchayat system. We should conceptualise it in such a way that we become self sufficient.

• Mr. Gulfam: We are certain that panchayats should be given independent powers to decide what is good for them and what work needs to be done at the local level. It is bad that central schemes dictate what should be done and what not. This is not in keeping with the requirement of our village.

   

• Ms. Kishwar: You still wish to function as mediator and not take decisions for yourself. From the concept note forwarded by Mr. Jaswal and from what I have gathered from Prashant’s speech, gram sabha should have its own source of revenue generation by way of taxation. That is the only way to strengthen our panchayats.

   

• Mr. P. Bhushan: We all agree that decisions that can be taken at the local level should be taken by the panchayat. At the same time local taxes should be levied at the panchayat level. There are some taxes which cannot be levied by the Panchayat or the state and only the Centre has the right to levy them. However, the distribution of funds allocated either by state or Centre should be done by the panchayat. As Ms. Kishwar says, the first step should be economic freedom/democracy. However, this decision should again be taken by the gram sabha at the panchayat level. If the same is done by the political masters, then again vested interest will be the first concern and such policies will be framed which will benefit the MNCs. This will further strengthen the political democracy and will lead to disaster. I also do not fully agree with Ms. Kishwar’s contention that the biradari panchayats have complete consensus. Thus majoritarianism is the principle of democracy where the right of the minority has to be protected. There are certain fundamental rights that are given to the minorities, which cannot be trampled upon even by the majority. Consensus is an illusion and only majority decision is the ultimate solution. BT cotton is no more a successful option.

   

• Mr. Uniyal: Personal vision and institutional vision need to be merged and it will take more than five years for this vision to materialize. We also need to relay this vision to the new generation. So far as female workers are concerned, some of them are strong headed who will get the work done no matter what. The second level consists of females who are sponsored by their male relatives and the third are those who find the work cumbersome. It is the 2nd level which needs to be changed. However, it’s a perception, some may feel the glass is half empty and some may look at it as if it were half full.

   

Valedictory Session

At the concluding session of the Seminar, Dr. George Mathew summed up the proceedings of the day. He stated that it is necessary to re-prioritise the order in which local self government ought to be understood. Thus, the first tier of governance should be the panchayat, the second tier the state, and the third tier would be the Central government and not the other way round. We have a federal state which is good for a big country like ours. Our Constitution mandates a direct as well as representative democracy but we need to ponder whether it really functions in this manner. Gram sabhas which are the foundations of direct democracy do not meet and there is no political will for the enforcement of such meetings. He urged that we should ensure that all this information reaches the villages. Funds should go from the local bodies to the top and not the other way round. He regretted that panchayati raj was getting a paltry Rs. 200 crore in the budget while the Ministry of Rural Development was getting over Rs.one lakh crore. These are issues which remain to be resolved as part of the unfinished agenda. He also stated that many such meetings are required before a comprehensive road map can be prepared. He concluded with an exhortation to civil society to strive towards the achievement of this right through action based research, information dissemination and a concerted national campaign.