The
Panchayati Raj in India has not been an absolute success. Its functioning all
these years has demonstrated numerous shortcomings. Some of the defects of the
system are as follows:
1. Unscientific distribution of functions:
The
Panchayati Raj scheme is defective in so far as the distribution of functions
between the structures at different levels has not been made along scientific
lines. The blending of development and local self- government functions has
significantly curtailed the autonomy of the local self government institutions.
Again it
has virtually converted them into governmental agencies. Even the functions
assigned to the Panchayat and the Panchayat Samiti overlap, leading to
confusion, duplication of efforts and shifting of responsibility.
2. Incompatible relation between the three-tiers:
The
three-tiers do not operate as functional authorities. The tendency on the part
of the higher structure to treat the lower structure as its subordinate is
markedly visible. M. P. Sharma rightly observes the hierarchical domination and
predominance, “fitters down step by step from Zilla Parishad to Panchayat
Samiti and from them to the Village Panchayats” Needless to state that this
kind of mutual relationship is not in comensurate with the genuine spirit of
democratic decentralisation.
3. Inadequate finance:
The
inadequacy of funds has also stood in the way of successful working of the
Panchayati Raj. The Panchayati Raj bodies have limited powers in respect of
imposing cesses and taxes. They have very little funds doled out to them by the
State Government. Further, they are generally reluctant to raise necessary
funds due to the fear of losing popularity with the masses.
4. Lack of cordial relation between officials and people:
Introduction
of the Panchayati Raj aimed at securing effective participation of the people.
But in reality this hardly happens since the key administrative and technical
positions are manned by the government officials.
Generally
there is lack of proper cooperation and coordination between the people and the
officials like Block Development Officers, the District Officers etc. Again the
officers fail to discharge the development duties more efficiently and
sincerely.
5. Lack of conceptual clarity:
There is
lack of clarity in regard to the concept of Panchayati Raj itself and the
objectives for which it stands. Some would treat it just as an administrative
agency while some others look upon it as an extension of democracy at the grass
roots level, and a few others consider it a charter of rural local government.
What is all the more intriguing is the fact that all these conceptual images
could co-exist simultaneously tending to militate against each other every now
and then.
6. Undemocratic composition of various Panchayati Raj
institutions:
Various
Panchayati Raj Institutions are constituted setting aside democratic norms and
principles. The indirect election of most of the members to Panchayat Samiti
only increases the possibility of corruption and bribery. Even the Zilla
Parishad consists of mainly ex-officio members. They are, for the most part,
government officials. This negates sound democratic principles.
7. Disillusionment on structural-functional front:
The
performance of Panchayati Raj Institutions has been vitiated by political cum
caste factionalism, rendering developmental projects into chimeras. Corruption,
inefficiency, scant regard for procedures, political interference in day to day
administration, parochial loyalties, motivated actions, power concentration
instead of true service mentality- all these have stood in the way of the
success of Panchayati Raj. Furthermore, the power to supercede the local bodies
on the part of the State Government clearly violates the spirit of democratic
decentralisation.
8. Administrative Problem:
The
Panchayati Raj bodies experience several administrative problems. They are the
tendency towards politicization of the local administration, lack of
co-ordination between the popular and bureaucratic elements, lack of proper
incentives and promotion opportunities for administrative personnel and
apathetic attitude of the government servants towards development programmes
etc.
9. Politics is an inevitable part of a democratic frame -work:
The
manipulative nature of rural politics is manifest in the techniques used at the
time of elections. The fact-finding research teams observe that the caste
system in rural India has made a mockery of the concept of rural development.
Even the Panchayat elections are fought on caste grounds and the traditional
dominant castes have manoeuvred in such a way that they still occupy the positions
of power in the changed set-up.
Once the
dominant castes have managed to occupy important positions where the decisions
are made, they find it easy to manipulate the plans to serve their best
interests. Consequently, the schism of caste grows wider day by day, alienating
the low castes farther and farther from participating in rural development
programmes.
The
political elite in the villages develops a vested interest in the perpetuation
of the caste system. As a result, the Panchayats which were to bring about
social changes have themselves become victims of caste divisions. As K.
Seshadri pointed out, the institution which was created to bring changes in the
socio-economic structure, due to the mere logic of the situation, legitimises
the authority of socially and economically well-off persons.
10. It is
being increasingly noticed that the Panchayati Raj Institutions are viewed only
as organisational arms of political parties, especially of the ruling party in
the state. The State Government, in most states, allows the Panchayati Raj
Institutions to function only upon expediency rather than any commitment to the
philosophy of democratic decentralisation.
In view of
the various shortcomings in the working of the Panchayati Raj Institutions, the
Janata Party Government in 1977 appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of
Ashok Mehta to inquire into the causes of failure in the working of Panchayati
Raj bodies and suggest measures to strengthen them.
In 1978,
this Committee made a number of recommendations for revitalisation of PRIs.
These included: replacement of the three- tier system by a two-tier system with
Mandal Panchayat at the base and Zilla Parishad at the top; assigning more
powers to PRIs; making Zilla Parishad primary unit in PR system; political
parties taking part in the Panchayati Raj Institutions; conducting election
within six months in case of supersession of PRIs; grant of compulsory powers
of taxation for Panchayati Raj Institutions to augment their resources; setting
up of a Social Justice Committee to safeguard and promote the interests of the
vulnerable social and economic groups, imparting training to Panchayat members
etc.
The
recommendations of the Ashok Mehta Committee were not honoured by the
Government of Mrs. Indira Gandhi. In 1985, another Committee under the
chairmanship of G. V. K. Rao was constituted. The G. V. K. Rao Committee
recommended that (1) PRIs have to be activated and provided with all the
required support to become effective organisations, (2) PRIs at district and
block levels should be assigned the work of planning, implementation and
monitoring of rural development programmes, and (3) Block Development Office
should be the spinal chord of the rural development process.
A
high-powered Committee was set up by the Government of India in 1986 under the
chairmanship of Dr. L.M. Singhvi. The L.M. Singhvi Committee observed that a
host of factors like lack of political will, lack of evaluation and feedback,
reluctance to raise revenue resources through exercising taxing powers,
indifference to corrective measures were responsible for the failure of the
Panchayati Raj Institutions.
The
Committee suggested locating means to ensure availability of adequate financial
resources for Panchayati Raj Institutions. It suggested a pattern of compulsory
and optional levies for PRIs in order to enable them to function effectively.
It laid
stress on the training, research and public education inputs to strengthen the
institutions of Panchayati Raj. The Committee also attached importance to the
performance capabilities of persons connected with Panchayati Raj Institutions
such as voters, elected representatives, administrative officials, voluntary
workers etc.
In May,
1989, the Rajiv Gandhi Government introduced in Parliament 64th Amendment Bill
which sought to reinvigorate and streamline the Panchayati Raj Institutions. It
sought to provide wider powers and adequate funds to the Panchayats. But the
Bill could not be passed due to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. V. P. Singh
Government also indicated its intention to introduce a new Panchayat Bill in
the Parliament.
However,
the Lok Sabha was dissolved and the bill could not be passed. In 1992,
Narasimha Rao Government finally decided to amend the Constitution. This
amendment was made by the Lok Sabha in December, 1992, by the Rajya Sabha in
December, 1993 and after being ratified by 17 State Assemblies, it came to be
known as 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1993. The 73rd Constitutional
Amendment made in 1993 came into operation in April, 1994.
No comments:
Post a Comment