世界银行 -二十五万个民主政体-印度乡村政府述评

PublicDisclosureAuthorizedPublicDisclosureAuthorized

PolicyResearchWorkingPaper10793

TwoHundredandFifty-ThousandDemocraciesAReviewofVillageGovernmentinIndia

SiddharthGeorgeVijayendraRaoM.R.Sharan

WORLDBANKGROUP

DevelopmentEconomics

DevelopmentResearchGroupJune2024

PolicyResearchWorkingPaper10793

Abstract

In1992,the73rdAmendmenttotheIndianConstitutioncreated250,000villagedemocracies(calledGramPancha-yats)covering800millioncitizens.Itmandatedregularelections,deliberativespaces,andpoliticalreservationsforwomenanddisadvantagedcastes.Theunprecedentedvari-ationindemocraticexperiencethatemergedfromthishasresultedinalargebodyofresearchthatprovidesinsightsintotheintersectionbetweendemocracy,governance,anddevelopment.Thispaperreviewsthisliterature,showingthatIndia’sdemocratictrajectoryhasbeenshapedbyfourbroadforces:a3,000yeartraditionofdebateanddelib-eration,colonialpolicies,thecontrastingideologiesof

centralplayersintheformationofmodernIndia—GandhiandAmbedkar—andthe73rdAmendment.Thepaperdistillskeyfindingsfromtheempiricalliteratureontheeffectivenessoflocalpoliticiansandbureaucrats,politicalreservations,publicfinance,deliberativedemocracy,andservicedelivery.Itconcludeswithasetofpolicyrecommen-dationsforimprovingthefunctioningofthePanchayatsinIndia,emphasizingtheneedforgreaterdevolutionandimprovedlocalfiscalcapacity.Italsoarguesthaturbangov-ernmentsinIndiawouldbenefitfromlearningfromtheexperienceofGramPanchayats.

ThispaperisaproductoftheDevelopmentResearchGroup,DevelopmentEconomics.ItispartofalargereffortbytheWorldBanktoprovideopenaccesstoitsresearchandmakeacontributiontodevelopmentpolicydiscussionsaroundtheworld.PolicyResearchWorkingPapersarealsopostedontheWebat

/prwp

.Theauthorsmaybecontactedatvrao@.

ThePolicyResearchWorkingPaperSeriesdisseminatesthefindingsofworkinprogresstoencouragetheexchangeofideasaboutdevelopmentissues.Anobjectiveoftheseriesistogetthefindingsoutquickly,evenifthepresentationsarelessthanfullypolished.Thepaperscarrythenamesoftheauthorsandshouldbecitedaccordingly.Thefindings,interpretations,andconclusionsexpressedinthispaperareentirelythoseoftheauthors.TheydonotnecessarilyrepresenttheviewsoftheInternationalBankforReconstructionandDevelopment/WorldBankanditsaffiliatedorganizations,orthoseoftheExecutiveDirectorsoftheWorldBankorthegovernmentstheyrepresent.

ProducedbytheResearchSupportTeam

TwoHundredandFifty-ThousandDemocracies:AReviewofVillageGovernmentinIndia*

SiddharthGeorge†VijayendraRao‡M.R.Sharan§

JELcodes:O12,H7,H11

Keywords:Democracy,Deliberation,LocalGovernment,India,Panchayats

*WearegratefultoNiveditaManthaandSudarshanAitreyaforexcellentresearchassistance,andtotheWorldBank’sResearchSupportBudgetforfinancialassistance.WethankPranabBardhan,DilipMookherjeeandtheIndiaCountryManagementUnitoftheWorldBankforvaluablecom-ments.AmuchshorterversionofthispaperisforthcomingintheCambridgeCompaniontoIndianPoliticsandSocietyeditedbyManaliDesaiandIndrajitRoy.

†NUS,Singapore

‡DevelopmentResearchGroup,WorldBank§UniversityofMaryland

2

1Introduction

Thirty-twoyearsago,inApril1992,the73rdamendmenttotheIndianConstitutionwaspassed.ItmandatedthatallofIndia’sapproximatelyonemillionvillagesbepartofasystemoflocalgovernment,withregularlyscheduledelectionsforvillagecouncilsandpresidencies,deliberativespaceswherecitizenscouldmakecollectivedecisions,andpoliticalreservationsforwomenanddisadvantagedcastes.Thisresultedinthecreationofmorethan250,000(2.5lakh)localdemocracies

1

withbothelectoralanddeliberativeelementsthatnowcoverabout900millionruralIndian

citizens.Theunprecedentedvariationindemocraticexperiencethatemergedfromthishasresultedinalargebodyofresearchthatprovidesanumberofinsightsintodemocraticfunctioning,andtheintersectionbetweendemocracy,governanceanddevelopment.Webelievethatthisliterature,whilegreatlyrelevantforIndia,alsoprovideskeyinsightsintopoliticaleconomyandthemechanismsofdemocracyatlarge.Thispaperisanattempttoreviewthisliterature,placeitinhistoricalcontext,anddrawsomepolicyrecommendations.

VillagegovernmentinIndiahasalong,variedanddynamichistory(

Mukerjee

(

1923

)).Kautilya’sArthashastra,atreatiseongovernancethatdatesbacktoaround200BCE,describesadecentralisedsystemofgovernmentwherevillageswereruledbyvillageheadmenwhowerecalledbyvariousnamesgramika,gramakutaorad-hyaksha(

Kangle

(1965),

VenkatarangaiyaandPattabhiram

(1969))

.Scholars,bothWesternandIndian,haverecentlyrevivedargumentsthatIndiahadparticipatoryanddeliberativeinstitutionsthatpredatedAthenianGreece(

Trautmann

(

2023

),

TanwarandKadam

(

2022

)).BothHinduandBuddhistssacredtextsspeaktothevalueofdebateanddeliberationtomakecollectivedecisions(

Sen

(

2012

),

Mook-

erji

(1919))

.TheRigVeda,aVedictextwhichisover3,000yearsold,referstothreetypesofinstitutions-vidhata,sabha,andsamiti,whichwereallassembliesofadultswhogathertovoicetheirviewsandparticipateindecisionmaking(

Nadkarnietal.

(

2018

)).However,atleastsincetheadventofBritishrule,thinkersandpolicymak-ershaveengagedinaheateddebate(sometimeswithinthemselves)aboutwhetherrepresentativelocalgovernmentwasamodelsuitabletoIndians(

Tinker,

1954

).

The19thcenturyjurist,imperialistandliberalthinker,SirHenryMaine,record-ingthewidespreadprevalenceofself-governingvillageinstitutionsinthesub-

1AlmostallIndianstateshavemultiplevillagesinacouncil.

3

continentsaid,”Ihavegoodauthorityforsayingthat,inthosepartsofIndiainwhichthevillage-communityismostperfectandinwhichtherearetheclearestsignsofanoriginalproprietaryequalitybetweenallfamilies..,theauthorityexer-cisedelsewherebytheHeadmanislodgedwithintheVillageCouncil.Itisalwaysviewedasarepresentativebody,andnotasabodypossessinginherentauthority,anditalwaysbearsanamewhichrecallsitsancientconstitutionofFivepersons”(

Maine

(

1880

),page123).ThenameMainewasreferringtowas”Panchayat,”whichhasthewordpancha(Sanskritforfive)asitsroot.ModernIndianvillagedemocracyiscalledPanchayatiRajandwewillhenceforthusethetermsvillagedemocracyandPanchayatiRajinterchangeably.

Maine,however,alsoarguedthat“ConsideringhowNative[Indian]societywasdividedintocastes,andsects,andreligions,andraces,itwassurprisingthatthereshouldbepracticable,anywhere,asystemofmunicipalelectionatoncefairandfree”((

Stokes,

1869

),page127).Nearlyacenturylater,DrBRAmbedkar–lawyer,anti-imperialist,progressive–famouslyarguedintheIndianConstituentAssemblyagainstvillagedemocracies.Hesaid:“IholdthatthesevillagerepublicshavebeentheruinationofIndia.Iamthereforesurprisedthatthosewhocondemnprovin-cialismandcommunalismshouldcomeforwardaschampionsofthevillage.Whatisthevillage,butasinkoflocalism,adenofignorance,narrowmindendnessandcommunalism?”(

Ambedkar,

1948

)

MohandasKarmachandGandhi,anothermanofthelaw,whoselifewasalmostexactlybook-endedbythosetwoquotes,emergedasanearlymodernfigurewhochallengedthisreadingofvillagelife.ForGandhi,theforemostleaderoftheIn-dianfreedomstruggle,thevillageformedthebedrockofhisideaofafreeIndia.India,hefamouslydeclared,”istobefoundnotinitsfewcitiesbutinits700,000villages.”(

Gandhi,

1936

).Wherecriticsidentifieddangers,GandhiperceivedinIndianvillagestheseedsofanalternativemodeloforganisingsociety,onethatavoidedthepitfallsofwesternindustrialcivilization.Gandhienvisionedavillagelifecentredaroundthreekeytenets:self-sufficiencyandfrugality,deliberativeandrepresentativedemocracy,andcommunity-spiritedness(

Nadkarnietal.

(

2018

)).

Interestingly,Gandhi’sthinkingonthesematterswasshapedbothbyhispersonalexperienceofvillagelifeand,innosmallmeasure,byHenryMaine(

Mantena

(

2012

).Servinginthesubcontinentinlate1800s,Mainehad,throughaccountsofBritishadministrators,familiarisedhimselfwithIndia’sself-reliantvillagecom-

4

munities.InfluencedalsobyJ.S.Mill’stheoriesofthevalueofdemocracyatthelocallevel,Mainecametoarticulateatheorythatoffereduplocalself-sufficientvillagecommunitiesasanalternativetothecentralisedstateinboth”EastandWest”(

Maine

(

1880

),(

Mantena

(

2010

)).Gandhi,whowasatonceanever-stridentcriticofconcentratedpowerandasteadfastdemocrat,elevatedMaine’sconceptu-alizationofself-reliantvillagecommunitiesbyleaveningthemwiththepromiseofdeliberativedemocracywhichhebelievedwasreflectiveofIndia’sancientself-governinginstitutions.

InGandhi’sownlifetime,therewereadiversityofinstitutionsgoverningvillages.Somehadeffectivelocalgovernments,butwereuppercastedominated(

Aziz

(

2000

),

Srinivasetal.

(

1960

)).Othersmainlyinthenorth,ravagedbycolonialrevenuepoli-ciesandtornapartbycaste,creedandgender,wereheldtogetherbyfeudalnormsandasetofhierarchicalrelationships(

Retzlaffetal.,

1962

).

TheGandhianideaofvillage-ledfreedemocraticIndiawasrejectedbytheprincipalarchitectsofpost-independentIndia.DrAmbedkarprevailedupontheconstituentassemblytorelegatevillage-basedsemi-autonomousrepresentativeinstitutions–“PanchayatiRajInstitutions”(PRIs)–tothe”directiveprinciples”oftheIndianConstitution.Bydoingso,theconstitutiondidnotmandatethecreationofsuchinstitutions,butmerelysuggestedthatregionalgovernmentsconsiderestablish-ingthem.Ambedkar’scritiqueofvillageIndiawasgroundedinabottom-upviewofthevillage.Ambedkar,borninavillagehimself,belongedtothehistoricallymarginalisedDalitor“untouchable”caste.Hewrote:“[Theuntouchables]havenorightsbecausetheyareoutsidethevillagerepublicandbecausetheyareout-sidetheso-calledvillagerepublic,theyareoutsidetheHindufold.”(

Ambedkar,

1989

).Thus,Ambedkarsawvillagesnotasemancipatoryideals,butasundemo-craticspacesunworthyofanylegalrecognition.

Ambedkar’sapatheticviewofIndianvillagesjoinedforceswiththegrandNehru-vianvisionofamodernIndia–oneofcentrallyrunheavyindustriesandlargein-frastructureprojects(

Rao

(

1990

))–toedgeouttheGandhian“smallisbeautiful”(

Schumacher,

1973

)bottom-upviewofdevelopment.Bystymieingtheopportu-nitiesofvillageIndiatoself-govern,freeIndiadenieditselfarealopportunitytoempiricallyexaminethefeasibilityoftheGandhianvision.

In1992,thedevolutionofformalpowertoPanchayatscommencedwiththepassage

5

ofthe73rdamendment.ItbuiltonsignificantreformsimplementedinthestateofKarnatakainthe1980sundertheChiefMinistershipofRamakrishnaHegdeandhisMinisterofPanchayatiRaj,AbdulNazirsaab(

Aziz

(

2000

)).Amongthesignifi-cantchangesproposedbytheamendment,fourkeyprovisionsstandout:firstly,itmandatedthecreationofademocraticallyelectedvillagecouncilforeveryvillage(”GramPanchayat”;henceforth“GP”)thatwouldserveafive-yearterm;secondly,aspecifiednumberofseatsweretobemandatedtobereservedforwomenandmarginalizedcommunities(ScheduledCastes(SCs)andScheduledTribes(STs));thirdly,itrequiredtheestablishmentofaFinanceCommissiontooverseethede-volutionoffundstoPanchayats;andfourthly,itintroducedparticipatorydecision-makinginPanchayats,whereinvillagerswouldconveneina”GramSabha”–apub-licmeeting–tocollectivelydeterminethecourseofvillagedevelopmentalongsidetheirleaders.

Earlyscholarsoflocalself-governmentinindependentIndiacharacterizedfivedis-tinctfeaturesoflocalgovernment(

VenkatarangaiyaandPattabhiram,

1969)

.These

are:(a)alocalbody(b)localinhabitantselectingandultimatelycontrollingthatbody,(c)autonomyofthatbodyinthesenseoffreedomfromthecontrolofhigherauthoritieswithinatleastalimitedsphere(d)arecognitionofthedistinctionbe-tweenlocalandnon-localservicesand(e)localtaxation.The73rdAmendmentformallymandatedtheintroductionofallthese.

Inthedecadesthathavefollowedsince,akeyquestionrevolvesaroundhowthesedejureruleshavetranslatedtodefactopractices.WhilecriticshavearguedthatPanchayatsremainmereimplementationoutpostsofcentrallyformulatedpolicies(

Raghunandan,

2012),thereisnodenyingthatlocalelectionssystemsacrossthe

countryremain,withsomeexceptions,robustandreasonablywell-contested.More-over,villageshaveseentheemergenceofanewclassoflocalpoliticaleliteswhoarediverseandmorerepresentativeoftheunderlyingpopulationthantheirhigher-tieredcounterparts.

Overtheyears,scholarsfromacrossdisciplineshavestudiedPanchayatiRajinsti-tutions.Anearlysetofstudiesattheturnofthe20thcenturycamefromhistori-ansandpoliticalscientists,whousedarchivalmaterialtoshinealightonIndia’slocalinstitutions,bothpresentandpast(

Davids

(

1903

),

Altekar

(

1927

),

Sharma

(

1991

)).Post-independence,socialanthropologistspioneeredvillagestudies,thatbecamethefoundationfortheunderstandingofvillageIndia(

Srinivas

(

1960

),

6

Gough

(1955),

Thorner

(1954),

Retzlaffetal.

(1962))

.Earlyscholars,however,grappledwithdatalacunae:whilevillagestudiesofferedextraordinarilyrichde-scriptionsoflocalproblems,lingeringdoubtsremainedabouthowgeneralthein-sightswere.

Thepassingofthe73rdAmendmentcoincidedwiththedatarevolutionofthenewmillennium,whichallowedarenewedengagementwithquestionsoldandnew.Thiswasexemplifiedbytheemergenceofthefieldofempiricalpoliticaleconomyofdevelopment.Thisfieldusesarangeofquantitativeempiricaltools–regres-sionandtextanalysis,causalinferenceandincreasinglymachinelearning–topro-videnewanswers–oftenbroadbutprecise–onahostoflong-debatedquestions.Theseinclude,interalia,theroleofdeliberationinimprovingPanchayatfunctioning

(Banetal.

(2012),

Parthasarathyetal.

(2019)),theimpactsofquotasformarginal

-izedgroupsinvillagegovernment(

ChattopadhyayandDuflo

(2004),

Gulzaretal.

(

2020

),

Chauchard

(

2017

))andmechanismstoimprovetargetingofwelfarebene-fits(

BardhanandMookherjee

(2006))

.

Yet,asthisreviewdocuments,gapsremain.Theavailabilityofdata,whileprovingtobeatreasure-troveforcausalinference-stylework,hasnotautomaticallytrans-latedtoarich,descriptivecharacterizationofthestateofPanchayatiRajinstitu-tions,withacomparativefocusacrossstates’variedexperiences.Moreover,re-searchcouldalsoshedlightonhowPRIshaveevolvedovertimeandthelong-runsteady-stateconsequencesofthe73rdAmendment(

Lanjouwetal.,

2018)

.

Turningtospecificthemes,morecouldbedonetounpackwhobecomesalocalpoliticianandhowlocalpoliticalentrydiffersfromthatathighertiers.Thisneedstobefollowedupbythepositivequestionofhowtoencouragehigh-abilityindivid-ualsfromallstrataofsocietytocontest.ThereisalsoaneedforthickerdescriptionsofvariedexperienceacrossIndiaindevolutionofservicestolocallevelsandtheirrelativesuccessesandfailures.Devolutionandautonomyoflocalgovernmentsarecloselytiedtotheirabilitytoraiselocalrevenues:buildingacareful,empiricallygroundedunderstandingofthedriversoflocaltaxrevenues,particularlyinthepost-73rdamendmentera,isanimportantareaoffurtherresearch.Finally,moreworkneedstobedonetounderstandhowthedigitizationofgovernmentfunc-tioning–theproliferationofMIS,digitalexhaustfromfinancialtransactions,theintroductionofbiometrics–hasaffectedthenatureoffunctioningofPanchayatiRajinstitutions.

7

Thisreview

2

willproceedasfollows.WewilltracethehistoryofPanchayatsinIndiaacrossthreeeras:pre-1947,1947-1993and1993onwards.Foreachofthesephases,wewillcharacterisethenatureofinstitutions,theirrolesandresponsibili-tiesandthecompositionoftheirleadershipclass.WethenarguethatPRIs,astheyexisttoday,areneitheremblematicofthelocalismandignoranceoftheAmbed-kariannightmarenortheself-sufficientspiritoftheGandhianideal.Instead,theseinstitutionshaveforgedapathoftheirown,onethatdrawsfromthehistoricalforcesthatshapedtheirearlydevelopmentandthesweepingradicalchangesofthemodernera.Weconcludebyofferingsomeprescriptivesuggestionsonthewayforward.

2Pre-1947

2.1AncientandMedievalIndia

ThereisevidenceofrelativelyautonomousvillagegovernmentsintheIndiansub-continentgoingbacktoitsearliestrecordedhistory(

Nadkarnietal.

(

2018

))withavarietyofwaysofachievingconsensus,includingthepracticeofpublicreasoninganddeliberation.Earlydebates—insabhas,samitis,panchayatsandsamajs—oftenincludedbothnotablebigmenandpeasants,incontestationwitheachotherandinoppositiontothestate.Indeed,“thetermsabha(association)itselforiginallyindicatedameetinginwhichdifferentqualitiesofpeopleandopinionsweretested,ratherthanthesceneofapronunciamentobycasteelders”(

Bayly

(1996)p

.187).

Thetrope,widespreadinpublicperception,andinthewritingsofmanyscholars(e.g.

Buitron-Oliveretal.

(

1992

),

Raaflaubetal.

(

2007

)),thatdemocracyisawest-ernideawithoriginsinAthenianGreeceisanoverstatementandhasincreasinglycomeunderdispute(

Stasavage

(2020))

.Thepracticeofpublicreasoningandde-liberationinIndiapredatestheancientGreeksdatingbacktoatleastthefifthcen-turyBCE(

TanwarandKadam

(

2022

),

Trautmann

(

2023

)),andpossiblyathousandyearsbeforethatgoingbythereferencestodeliberativepracticesintheRigVeda.

Consensual,deliberative,anddemocraticdecision-makinghaslongbeenpreva-lentintheIndiansub-continentinavarietyofspheres.Religiouscouncilshosted

2Forbroaderreviewsofthepoliticaldecentralizationliteraturesee

Mookherjee

(2015

)and

MansuriandRao

(2012

).

8

byearlyIndianBuddhists,forexample,oftenfocusedonresolvingdebateswithinandacrossreligioustraditions.Importantly,they“alsoaddressedthedemandsofsocialandcivicduties,andfurthermorehelped,inageneralway,toconsolidateandpromotethetraditionofopendiscussiononcontentiousissues”(

Sen

(

2012

)p.15).SomescholarshavearguedthatcollectionsofvillageswerebroughttogethertoformrepublicscalledGanaswhichweregovernedbyrepresentativeassemblies(

Nadkarnietal.

(

2018

)).

InthethirdcenturyBCE,suchpracticesbecamecelebratedunderthereignofAshoka,whosoughttocodifyrulesforpublicdiscussionthatemphasizedmutualrespectandhonor(

Lahiri

(

2015

)).Bythe16thcenturyCE,underthereignofAkbar,inter-faithdialogueswereexplicitlyaimedatthepursuitofreasonratherthanrelianceontradition.Theprioritygiventoequalityandreasonindeliberationechoesstan-dardsincontemporarydeliberativetheory.Perhapsevenmoresignificantly,theirexplicitsponsorshipbythestaterevealstheextentofsuchdeliberativecouncils’structuralimportanceinancientandmedievalIndia.Thepresenceofabounded,butcriticalpublicspheresuggestsanimportantfoundationforfutureparticipatoryanddemocraticpolitics.

InTamilNaduinthePallavaandPandyaperiodinthe7thand8thcenturiesCE,autonomousvillagegovernmentsexistedwheredecisionsweremadebyaprocessofdeliberativeconsensus,though–likeAthens–onlylandownerswereallowedtoparticipate(

Mahalingam

(1955))

.IntheCholaperiodinthe9thcenturyCE,inscriptionsfromUthiramerurdescribenotonlytheroleofconsensusviadeliber-ationbutalsoatransparentelectionprocessforvillagecouncilusingsealedbal-lotboxes.Additionally,theinscriptionsmentionthepresenceofvariouscommit-teesresponsibleforhandlingdifferentaspectsofvillagelife,includingthemanage-mentofwaterbodiesandagriculturalland.Whilecandidacyrequirements,suchaslandownershipandknowledgeoftheVedas,effectivelyexcludedlowercastesandclassesfromthevillageassembly,theseinscriptionshighlighttheexistenceofarobust,deliberativeadministrativesysteminlocalvillagebodiesinmedievalIndia(

Mahalingam

(1955))

.

SimilarinstitutionsexistedintheVijayanagaraempireinSouthIndia(

Ratnam

(

1972

))withdetailedlistsofvillageleadersandadministrativeofficials.Regularvillage

meetingswereheldinapublicplacesuchasatemplehalltomakecollectivedeci-sions.ThereisevenarecordedinstanceofawomannamedJirleMallammawho

9

wasconferredwiththeheadshipofavillage.VillagebodiesinboththeCholaandVijayanagaraempireshadaclearandwell-definedpowers-controlofland-holdings,managementofirrigationandwaterbodies,managementofgardensandpublicspaces,andthecollectionandremissionoftaxes.WiththeadventoftheMughalsintheNorth,thetraditionalsystemofvillagePanchayats-inallitsmyr-iadforms-wasleftlargelyuntouched(

VenkatarangaiyaandPattabhiram,

1969)

.And,evenintheperiodof”anarchy”thatfollowedthecollapseofMughalrulein-dependentvillagegovernmentsprevailedinmostpartsofthesub-continent(

Tin-

ker

(

1954

),

Nadkarnietal.

(

2018

)).

2.2BritishIndia

VillagedemocracyasitexistsinIndiatoday,uniformlyappliedacrossthecountrywithlegalandconstitutionalsanction,wasgivenitsinitialimpetusintheBritishera(

Tinker,

1954

).Intheearly1800s,theintroductionofnewrevenuecollectionsystems,whichprivilegedthedistrictcollectorasthenodalofficerwhooftendealtdirectlywithpeasantsandcircumventedthePanchayats,beganweakeningthetra-ditionalPanchayatsystems.Startinginthelatterhalfofthe19thcentury,duetothefinancialdistresscausedbytheFirstWarofIndianIndependencein1857,theBritishsporadicallyintroducedasystemoflocalgovernanceinvillages,withsomesuc-cessparticularlyintheprovincesofBengalandMadras.Thissystemattemptedtoguaranteethatasectionoflocalservicesbeprovidedbylocalgovernments,anen-deavourtheyhopedwouldbeprimarilyfundedthroughlocaltaxesalone,therebyreducingtheburdenonthecolonialtreasury.

3

Duringthisperiod,aprimaryforcedrivingthedevelopmentofPanchayatswasLordRipon’sResolutiononLocalSelf-Governmentin1882,whichsignificantlyshapedfuturediscussionsonlocalgovernanceinIndia.LordRipon

4

emphasizedtheimportanceofpoliticaleducation,creationofruralboardsatadecentralisedlevel,thepresenceof“non-official”(i.enon-bureaucratic)membersandtheimpor-

3Justifyingthis,JamesWilson,thefirstfinancialministertotheIndiancouncil,noted:“ItisofthefirstimportancetobreakthroughthehabitofkeepingeverythingindependenceonCalcutta,andtoteachpeoplenottolooktoGovernmentforthingswhichtheycandofarbetterthemselves.”(ascitedby

Tinker

(1954),pg35

.

4LordRiponwasarguablythemostliberalandreformistpersontobeappointedViceroyofIndia.Hisfouryear(1880-1884)tenureisconsideredthe”mostimportantViceroyaltyinBritishIndianhistory,”andisthesubjectofabookbythehistorianSarvepalliGopal(whowasthesonofIndia’ssecondpresidentSarvepalliRadhakrishnan)(

Gopal

(1953

)).

10

tanceoftheintroductionofelections.Aroundthistime–andinlinewithRipon’srecommendations–theBritishalsointroducedthethree-tiersystemoflocalgov-ernment,featuringgoverningbodiesforPanchayats,Taluks,andDistricts.Theyin-troducedthesystemof“reservation”ofseatsforminorities(Muslims,lowcastes)whereverpossible.Eventually,theBritishbeganmakinggrantstoPanchayatsforimplementinglocalprojectsandprovidingservices.

Followingthis,the’RoyalCommissiononDecentralisationinIndia’wasestab-lishedin1907toassessscopeforfurtherdecentralizationingovernance.ThisCom-missionwastaskedwithexaminingthefinancialandadministrativerelationshipsbetweentheGovernmentofIndia,provincialgovernments,andvarioussubordi-nateentities.Afterthoroughinvestigationsandthecompilationofnumerousre-portsby1909,theCommissionrecommendedthecautiousandgradualintroduc-tionofanewsystemtostrengthenlocalself-governance.DismissingthepopulardemandtorevivetheancientsystemofPanchayats,theCommissionstated:”Wedonotthinkitpossible,norwoulditbeexpedient,torestoretheancientvillagesystem,butanattemptshouldbemadetoconstituteanddevelopvillagePanchay-atsfortheadministrationoflocalvillageaffairs”(RoyalCommission1909,p.239).This,eventually,pavedthewayforthepassageoftheVillagePanchayatActin1920.

However,throughoutthisperiod,thepowersofPanchayatswerelimited.Theyhadrestrictedautonomyindecidingtheirconstitutionregardingthenumberandtypeofmembersorthetimingofelections.TheexecutivegovernmentcontrolledthePanchayats’borrowingability,couldremoveofficersatwill,andhadthepowertosuspendorcanceltheordersoflocalboards.TheCollectorhad