PREFACE
The special Assistance Programme of the Department is conducting various research projects in the thrust areas Indian Government and Politics and Development Administration. We had published some occasional papers and monographs in the first two phases of this programme. The third phase of the programme commenced from April 2002. Papers based on research undertaken during the third phase are now being published under this third series. Publication grant made available by the UGC for the third phase has facilitated publication of this series. The author of this paper is on the faculty of the Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Pune.
Co-ordinator
Special Assistance Programme
Department of Politics and Public Administration
University of Pune.
Devolution of Power : Facilitating withdrawal of the state :
A Critique of Seventy third Amendment
Rajendra Vora
Indian political discourse since the days of the nationalist movement is over burdened by the critique of parliamentary democracy. The most obvious shortcoming of parliamentary democracy is seen in its tendency towards centralism. Mahatma Gandhi believed that decentralization in which a self-sufficient and autonomous village capable of managing all its affairs is the only way to escape from the evils of the democracy of the western type. Vinoba Bhave’s Sarvodaya movement was aimed to localise production, distribution and achieve decentralization through regional and local self sufficiency. J ayprakash Narayan proposed a communitarian democracy of self regulating and self determining communities. M. N. Roy thought that in democracy power remains concentrated in the hands of the ruling coterie and felt that political power should reside in primary organization of the people such as peoples’ committees. The debate was pitched to such a high level that decentralization of power became the inevitable plank of organising the structure of government.
QUESTION OF LEGITIMACY
The dominant section of Indian society probably, therefore, did not consider parliamentary democracy sufficient enough to generate a belief in the legitimacy of Indian state and along with distributing power between the centre and constituent regional units, also made constitutional provision for the decentralization of power even though only as one of the directive principles of state policy.
While many important directive principles remained on paper Article 40 concerning organising panchayat system was taken up ‘on the agenda by Nehru’s government in 1957 and by 1959-60 the panchayat raj was established in many constituent states.
It was a question not only of creating legitimacy in the eyes of people but also in the eyes of local elites. The social character of the dominant classes in fact necessitated some kind of panchayat raj. There was a perceived and actual distinction between the dominant classes at national level and those at the regional and local level in terms of economic class and castes. To seek the support of the rich peasantry castes it was felt necessary to expand the network of power and accommodate them into it at the same time making that local power more decorative than real. The local elites coming from the rich peasantry castes were taken up at a point from where they would be able to aspire to move towards higher level. In one sense it was sven as an apprenticeship whereby the. best among them could be picked up at an appropriate time.
If the Congress bosses at the centre worked as arbitrators for the regional elites regional elites in turn became arbitrators for the local elites. If Nehru wanted the support of the regional elites the regional elites sought the following of activists at the local level. The Panchayat raj, the term coined by Nehru, thus worked as an ideology, which conferred legitimacy to the liberal democratic structures by creating political linkages between the regional and local administrative units.
This model of political linkages and notional power at the local tier in effect strengthened the regional bosses so much so that they started challenging the high command at Delhi. With Indira Gandhi’s coming to power this pyramid was shaken for the first time. Indira Gandhi’s populism where people mattered had no use for Panchayat structures or layers of power. In her strategy the poor and minorities were the target groups and therefore had little significance for the rich peasantry caste elites. During her regime we see that many developmental schemes for the benefit of the rural population were organised without giving any important role to the local political elites. Centralisation of power within the party and within the government became the dominant theme in her era. The local elites became subservient because their bosses at the regional level themselves were relegated to background. No won: der the panchayat raj became less effective and probably lost even the notional power.
It was only during the Janata phase that the panchayat raj institutions again figured in the political discourse. The Janata experiment was effected mainly by the backward and peasantry caste elites at the regional and local level and therefore was more concerned with the decentralisation theme. Ashok Mehta committee’s report on Panchayat Raj (1978) reflected this social and political character of the Janata party. The prodecentralization and pro-peasantry caste Janata politics was juxtaposed with pro-centralization and populist regime of Indira. But the Janata experiment failed giving another term for Indira’s revived populism.
Rajeev Gandhi in late 80’s brought the panchayat raj again on agenda. His strategy of technological revolution with centralism had no place for regional power, however, he wanted a direct access to village elites. Rajeev’s technological revolution could take his image to the villages through television while his 64th (constitutional) Amendment Bill of 1989 aimed to reach directly to the panchayats bypassing the regional elites. It would have been an overhead shot.
And then came the 73rd Amendment not only giving constitutional status to the panchayat raj institutions but also making them politically and financially selfreliant and autonomous. I need not dwell upon the provisions of the Amendment since they are already well-known. However what I intend to do here is to contextualise the 73rd Amendment so that we could grasp the purport of its provisions. By doing so we would be able to know why the recommendations of various commissions regarding devolution of power, autonomy, financial viability or self sufficiency were kept aside from early 1960's to early 1990’s for almost thirty years and suddenly in 1992-3 they are considered worth implementing and why this move secured consensual support. We would also come to know why power is being transferred to the panchayats when there has not been any major agitation demanding such a transfer.
GLOBALISATION PACKAGE
The seventy third amendment is a logical corollary of the globalisation package. It all began in mid-eighties when Rajeev said goodbye to socialism. He gave clear indication that the Indian capital no more needed the state support and that privatisation and efficiency go together. This orientation was reflected in his attempt to make panchayats powerful while criticizing the interventionist state. But the genuine change in the economic policy took place in Manmohan Singh’s finance ministership between 1991 to 1995. Since then the successive governments have followed more or less the same policy and have preferred to go ahead on the path of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation. The neo-liberal doctrine has come to play dominant role in India. It believes in curbing state intervention, reducing welfare, restoring state run enterprise to private sector, restricting power of trade unions, restoring competitive individualism, downsizing of bureaucracy and curtailing public expenditure. In nutshell the neo-liberal doctrine believes in withdrawal of state from economic and social sector.
The devolution of power implied in the seventy third amendment facilitates the process of this withdrawal. The neo-liberal state in India wants to get rid of many responsibilities and functions. In this endeavour it finds that there are only two facilitators : the panchayat raj institutions and the non-governmental organisations. In this process of self-nullification the state does not abrogate itself as a repressive apparatus. In fact the neo-liberal state which functions as manager to globalisation uses its repressive apparatus as and when the marginalized sections come out on streets to challenge its withdrawal from the economic and social sectors. The twenty nine items which are being brought under the purview of the panchayat raj institutions include subjects such as agriculture, small scale industries, infrastructure, education , health and social welfare. It clearly indicates that the central and state governments no more want to take any major responsibility with tegard to these items and that the panchayats are expected to bear the burden and that too when neo-liberal doctrine which looks down upon state intervention and bureaucracy dominates the political scene. Thus devolution of power implied in the seventy third amendment basically aims at facilitating the withdrawal of State.
RADICAL POTENTIAL
But this very amendment contains radical potential which might produce good results in the long rune. The new panchayats are going to bring politics down to the villages. The villagers, if they collectively decide might use the instruments created by the amendment to acquire greater control over local resources. They eventually might stand-up against the governmental bodies at the higher level. In the state of Maharashtra the Maharashtra, Industrial Development Act has given power to the state government to acquire land for the purpose of starting industrial projects. This Act is being used to grab land from the villages for the benefit of MNCs. While developing industrial estates the government not only acquires huge tracts of land but also obtains control over resources such as water. The new panchayats and the gramsabhas might unitedly oppose such encroachment on their resources and might insist that their resources should be used for their benefit.
However, the disparities and inequalities inherent in the class and caste based village societies hamper any possibility of formation of a community at the village level. The unseen threat and concealed repression by the ruling clans of the dominant castes makes it simply impossible for the masses to enter into the collective decision making in the gramsabhas. In many villages the leaders coming from the ruling clans are seen as benefactors by the villagers. In reality these so-called benefactors control the lives of the villagers who are under the spell of the idea that the leader is doing something great for the village as a whole. What probably is not realised is that his definition of village excludes the poor and downtrodden sections.
Nevertheless taking politics to the villages, not the usual politics of periodical elections to assemblies and parliament but the politics of the empowered gramsabhas, might in course of time bring to surface the contradictions in the village society. The poorer and downtrodden groups might thereby become conscious of their right over the local resources. When the state is refusing to do anything for them in the neo-liberal era they encouraged by their ‘majorities in the gram-sabhas might ask for their share in the resources which are at the disposal of the panchayats. Thus instead of joining struggles against abstract entity named state they might Pr to fight battles against the dominant sections in their own village.
MAHARASHTRA
After having reviewed the purport of the seventy third amendment and after locating its radical potential let me take up for discussion a case of western Indian state of Maharashtra. It is a state which was among the very first to welcome and follow the new economic policy at the regional level. Mumbai the state capital is being projected as the main corridor of globalisation. Out of total industrial output of the country, around 25 per cent comes from Maharashtra alone. The per capita value added due to the industries is Rs. 870 in the state while the Indian average is only Rs. 308. With the new economic policy about 1535 industrial projects having an investment worth Rs. 196708 crores are being set up in the state. Maharashtra and Gujarat account for 63 per cent of the total NRI investment in India. The proportion of urbanisation in the state is around 40 per cent whereas the Indian average is 26 percent. On the other hand the contribution of the agriculture sector to the state income has declined from 33 percent in 1950’s to 20 per cent in midnineties. Maharashtra stands 9th in the agriculture productivity in the country and proportion of irrigation is as low as 15 per cent. The cooperatives which once occupied prime position in the rural economy are in total disarray today. This transformation in the economy has affected the rural sector so much so that a kind of shift of power is taking place in the polity of the state from rural to the urban sector. Empowering of panchayat raj institutions implied in the seventy third amendment therefore has a limited significance because these institutions belong to the rural sector which is losing its importance in the economy and hence in the polity of the state.
So far as the Government of Maharashtra is concerned the new provisions about the panchayat raj have come up at an opportune momeni. The government has almost reached a stage of bankruptcy and want to jettison as many responsibilities and functions as possible. The state government, therefore has very conveniently transferred many of the subjects to the panchayat raj.
Much has been said about how the social character of the panchayats has changed due to the provisions of the amendment. Let me examine this observation with reference to Maharashtra. Y. B. Chavan who became the first chief Minister of the newly formed state of Maharashtra in 1960 believed in ‘politics of aggregation’ (Berjeche Rajkaran) which meant bringing together multiple castes and communities under the leadership of the rich Maratha peasantry. It could be termed as a pluralist model of power whereby various social sections are co-opted in the network which finally stabilises and cements the authority of the dominant group. In his case it was the rich Maratha peasantry. He always used the idiom of ‘bahujan’ which for him meant all the castes and communities in the state. Chavan claimed that his regime was a rule of the ‘bahujan’ which literally meant rule of those who are in majority i.e. the peasantry castes, the backward castes and the ex-untouchables. This kind of ideology of Chavan influenced the political process in the state not only at the regional level but also at the local level. The politics of aggregation had percolated down to the level of the village panchayats thereby making these panchayats socially representative in terms of caste, community and gender.
The backward caste leaders owning sizeable land could find place in the panchayats well before the seventythird amendment came into effect. Same is the case with women. In number of villages women used to work on the panchayats. Their real entry into the panchayat raj, however, was made possible in the late eighties. The shetkari sanghatana the peasant organisation took lead in 1987 to form a women front in order to have all women panels for the panchayat elections. In 1989 nine such panels contested the village panchayat election and out of these seven were elected and out of these seven five belonged to the women front of the peasant organisation. Taking cue from this action Sharad Pawar government passed the bill to give 30 per cent reservation to women in the local government bodies.
Thus some of the radical provisions of the seventy third amendment were introduced in Maharashtra before 1993. The amendment in a way completed the process which had begun right in the early sixties under the influence of the Chavan model of politics.
THREE VILLAGES
I substantiate this observation with the help of data collected from three villages situated in Aurangabad and Latur districts of Marathwada region of the state. I am borrowing this data from a larger study entitled ‘Land, Caste and Political Power in Rural Maharashtra conducted by my Department. This study shows that the land ownership is a determining factor so far as distribution of power in the village is concerned. It also brings to the light the fact that the political power at the village level is basically controlled by one or two clans belonging to the dominant caste of that village _ and that in a particular village even other backward castes also could occupy a position of a dominant caste. The study reveals that the Muslims and ex-untouchable clans also can claim place on the panchayat due to their control over land and also due to the their proportion in the population. Our study suggests that the rich Maratha peasantry has been able to control political power in the villages due to their strategy of co-option of other castes and communities not only in the panchayats but also in the village co-operatives.
‘Here I am restricting myself to only three villages and that too for a limited purpose of comparing the social composition of the panchayats before and after the seventy third amendment came into effect. The data from these villages point out that the candidates belonging to backward or scheduled castes and women candidates used to get elected on the panchayats even before the seventy third amendment came into effect. The seats were reserved for scheduled castes even before the amendment. What has happened due to the new provisions is that the number of other backward castes candidate in some villages has increased up to the number required by the reservation. This is more true in case of women. The number of women members has certainly increased. Due to reservation by rotation of the sarpanch positions the number of scheduled or backward castes candidates becoming Sarpanch has increased. The women becoming Sarpanch is a new thing introduced by the amendment. The data also shows that the OBC or scheduled caste or women member who were elected before the -amendment or who are elected after the amendment mostly come from the land owning clans of the village.
The first village I take up for analysis is Bharadi. It is situated in Sillod tehsil of Aurangabad district in Marathwada region ‘of the state. The agriculture land of the village is under the control of few clans belonging to Maratha (middle peasantry caste) Mali (OBC) Muslims and Dhangars (OBC) though there are many other clans who also own land in a small proportion. Gram Panchayat from 1967to 1989 was dominated by the two clans of Marathas, one clan of Muslims, two clans of Malis, one clan of Rajputs two clans of Mahar (scheduled caste) one clan each of Marwadi, Kalar (OBC) and Dhangar (OBC). Out of six terms only once Maratha clan member was elected as sarpanch. While three terms a Kalar clan member got that position. This clan has 51 hectare land that is all the land belonging their caste and in addition to that they also have business, which gives them added advantage. Muslim land holder clan member was elected as Sarpanch once and Rajput (OBC) landholder clan got that position once. Whenever Kalar clan member was elected as Sarpanch Maratha clan member was chosen as vice-Sarpanch. In two recent elections held in 1995 and 2000 the picture has not changed in any major way except that instead of two women elected in 1989 four women have been elected. Thus even though there was no reservation for the OBC Malis could elect nine members and four other backward castes could elect 13 members among themselves. While Kalar also belonging to the OBC category could have their Sarpanch 3 times from 1967 to 1989.
Second village I have chosen to discuss is Wahegaon from Gangapur tehsil of Aurangabad district. The agriculture land in the village is owned basically by few clan of Maratha, Mali (OBC), Mahar (SC) Dhangar (OBC) along with others. Gram panchayat elections were held for seven times from 1960 to 1989, Out of 73 members elected during this period 32 belonged to two clans of Marathas 13 belonged. to three clans of Malis, 14 to one clan of Mahars (SC) 6 to Dhangar (OBC) Among the Sarpanch we find 6 belonging to one clan of Marathas and one belong to one clan of Malis. Among the vice Sarpanchas we find one Mahar (SC) one Dhangar (OBC). In all 12 women were elected to the panchayat during this period. In last two elections the picture has remained more or less the same except that the number of women has almost doubled. Interesting fact of the land ownership pattern of the village is that out of 149 hectare land beionging to Mahars around 87 percent land is owned by one clan. This clan has been able to send 20 members to the panchayat from 1960 to the last election held in 2000.
The third village taken here for analysis is Khuntegaon from Ausa tehsil of Latur district in Marathwada region. In this village we find that the agriculture land is mainly controlled by the few clans from Yellam, Maratha, and Dhangar caste. Yellams is a backward caste from state of A.P. They are found in this region because this region it is on boarder of that state. The gram panchayat of the village is dominated by the Yellama and Dhangar clans. During six © terms from 1960 almost 57 per cent member of the panchayats came from the clans from Yellamas and 20 per cent. from Dhangar clans. Marathas could send only 8 per cent of the members. The point that in some villages one finds a backward caste in control of land and also political power is substantiated by the data from this village.
This study of three villages shows that many of the radical elements of the seventy third amendment were introduced in Maharashtra right from the beginning of the panchayat raj and that the Chavan model of accommodating various castes and communities and also women within the fold of local power structure was at work in the state since sixties. The seventy third amendment has completed the process. Our study also points out that the members of the panchayat come basically from few clans who own most of the land in the village and that backward castes are also in control of land and have prospered to gain power in many villages. Marathas seem to dominate politics in the state as a whole with the help of policy of accommodation at the local level.
P.U.P.—-75-3-2003 (6889)[pc-6]
--------------------------------------------------
म ( ) मध्ये प्रकाशित