Decentralisation in India: Poverty, Politics and Panchayati Raj
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Working Paper 199 Decentralisation in India: Poverty, Politics and Panchayati Raj Craig Johnson Department of Political Science University of Guelph, Ontario February 2003 Overseas Development Institute 111 Westminster Bridge Road London SE1 7JD UK Formerly a Research Officer with ODI, Craig Johnson is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Guelph, Canada. This paper is a Background Report for the Livelihood Options Study, which can be accessed on www.livelihoodoptions.info. Correspondence can be sent to [email protected]. The author would like to acknowledge the insightful comments provided by Amitabh Behar and Rene Veron. Neither, of course, should be implicated in the text that follows: the views expressed in this paper are those of the author alone. ISBN 0 85003 642 9 © Overseas Development Institute 2003 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publishers. ii Contents Acronyms iv Glossary v Abstract vi 1 Introduction 1 2 Decentralisation: Concepts and Theories 4 2.1 Terms and concepts 4 2.2 The case for decentralisation 5 2.3 Decentralisation and poverty reduction 6 2.4 What makes local institutions accountable? 10 2.5 Summing up 15 3 Decentralisation in India 16 3.1 The 73rd Amendment 17 3.2 Is the 73rd Amendment decentralisation? 18 3.3 Agrarian change? 31 4 A Tale of Two States 36 4.1 Political histories 36 4.2 Funds, functions, functionaries 40 4.3 Prospects for accountability 43 5 Concluding Remarks and Hypotheses for Research 46 References 49 Annex 1 Decentralisation in AP and MP 54 Annex 2 Governance Interview Guide 59 List of Boxes and Tables Box 1 Political, administrative and fiscal decentralisation 4 Box 2 Milestones in Indian decentralisation 17 Box 3 The 73rd Amendment: major provisions 17 Box 4 Milestones in AP’s decentralisation 37 Box 5 Gram Panchayat elections and administration ca. 1970 37 Box 6 Gram Swaraj in Madhya Pradesh: major provisions 39 Box 7 Milestones in MP’s decentralisation 39 Table 1 Decentralisation in five Indian States 21 Table A1 District level: District Planning Committees and District Rural Development Agencies 54 Table A2 District level: Zilla Parishads55 Table A3 Sub-district level Mandal, Taluka and Janpad Parishads56 Table A4 Village level: Gram PanchayatsandGram Sabhas57 iii Acronyms AP Andhra Pradesh BC Backward Castes BDO Block Development Officer BJP Bharatiya Janata Party (a Hindu nationalist political party) CBO Community Based Organisations CEO Chief Executive Officer CFC Central Finance Commission CM Chief Minister CPI(M) Communist Party of India (Marxist) CPO Chief Planning Officer DC District Collector DDRC District Development and Review Committee DPB District Planning Boards DPC District Planning Committee DRDA District Rural Development Agency DWCRA Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas EAS Employment Assurance Scheme EGS Education Guarantee Scheme EO Executive Officer FFW Food for Work GoI Government of India GP Gram Panchayat GS Gram Sabha IAS Indian Administrative Service IRDP Integrated Rural Development Programme JB Janmabhoomi JP Janpad Panchayat MDO Mandal Development Officer MKSS Mazdoor Kishan Shakti Sangathan (Organisation of worker’s and farmer’s power) MLA Member of Legislative Assembly (State) MLC Member of the Legislative Council MP Member of Parliament (National) or Madhya Pradesh MPDO Mandal Parishad Development Officer MPP Mandal Praja Parishad NGO Non Governmental Organisation NSAP National Social Assistance Programme NSS National Sample Survey OBC Other Backward Castes ODI Overseas Development Institute PDS Public Distribution System PRI Panchayati Raj Institution PS Panchayati Samithi RD Rural Development SC Scheduled Castes SEC State Election Commission SFC State Finance Commission SHG Self-Help Group SRP Sector Reform Programme (GoI) ST Scheduled Tribes TDP Telugu Desam Party (a regional party in power in AP) UP Uttar Pradesh USAID United States Agency for International Development iv VAO Village Accounts Officer VDO Village Development Officer VEO Village Extension Officer ZP Zilla Parishad ZPP Zilla Parishad President Glossary Dalit Untouchable caste Gram Village Gram Panchayat Village Panchayat; the third tier of the Panchayat Raj system; Panchayat being a representative body Gram Sabha Village assembly Gram Swaraj Village self-rule Janmabhoomi Literally, ‘Land of one’s birth’, a State-sponsored, people-centred participatory development programme in AP Janpad Block, an administrative subdivision of the district Janpad Panchayat (Adhyaksh) Block-level government (President) Lok Sabha Lower House of Parliament (Central Government), in Hindi ‘people’s assembly’ Mandal Territorial and administrative unit (with a population of about 50,000 to 70,000) between the village and district levels Mandal Praja Parishad Intermediate level council in the Panchayati Raj system, made up of the heads of the Panchayats and representatives of the territorial constituencies (MPTCs) within the Mandal Nizam Muslim ruler Panchayat Samithi Block level Panchayat. A middle-level unit of rural local government existing prior to 1986, made up of the heads of village Panchayats Panchayati Raj System of rural local government with three ascending tiers, viz., Gram Panchayat, Mandal or Panchayat Samithi and Zilla Parishad Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam Local self government act Panchayats An institution of self-government for the rural areas Rajya Sabha The upper chamber of India’s Parliament; in Hindi, ‘States assembly’ Samithi Block level. An association or committee, especially one formed to organise political activity Sarpanch Head of a Panchayat Shiksha karmi The local schoolteacher Taluk See Tehsil Tehsildar The chief revenue officer for a Tehsil Tehsil Sub-unit of a sub-division of a District, also Taluk Upasarpanch Vice Chairman of the Gram Panchayat Zilla District Zilla Abhivrudhi Sameeksha District Progress Review Boards Mandals Zilla Praja A body of elected representatives for governance at district level Panchayat/Parishads Zilla Pranalika Abhivrudhi District Systems Progress Review Board Sameekha (Mandal) v Abstract Assertions in favour of democratic decentralisation are often founded upon the notion that the democratisation and empowerment of local political bodies will create institutions that are more accountable to local citizens and more appropriate to local needs and preferences. However, international experience has shown that even the most ambitious attempts at decentralisation have failed to overcome regional and local dimensions of poverty and inequality. Moreover, the power to decide local development initiatives is often highly dependent on a state apparatus that respects the autonomy of local political institutions. Because of its size and its relatively ambitious efforts to decentralise government, India provides an important context for understanding the ways in which decentralisation can improve the performance and accountability of local government institutions. In 1993, the Government of India passed a series of constitutional reforms, designed to democratise and empower local political bodies – the Panchayats. Since this time, the experience has been highly variable, ranging from ambitious attempts at Gram Swaraj (or village self-rule) in Madhya Pradesh to political re- centralisation in Karnataka. A central aim of this paper is to review the literature on Indian decentralisation, and to assess the extent to which the Indian States of Andhra Pradesh (AP) and Madhya Pradesh (MP) have devolved political, administrative and fiscal authority to local Panchayats. In so doing, it aims to inform ODI’s ‘Livelihood Options’ study of livelihood diversification and democratic decentralisation in South Asia (www.livelihoodoptions.info). The principal focus is on the 73rd Amendment, which deals with district, sub-district and village level institutions in rural areas. AP and MP provide an important context for understanding the ways in which decentralisation can affect informal institutions governing the quality and reach of poverty alleviation programmes. Both States have respected the basic stipulations of the 73rd Amendment, holding two rounds of Panchayat elections since 1993. Both have great variation and diversity, reflecting their own unique mix of colonial administration, feudal legacy and agrarian transition. Finally, both States have taken very different approaches to the question of ‘self-government,’ particularly at the village level. Since 1994, the Government of MP has legislated a series of reforms, designed to improve the power of the Gram Sabha (the village electorate) and the accountability of the Gram Panchayat. This culminated in 2001 with the legislation of Gram Swaraj, or village self-rule. AP, in contrast, has pursued a policy that has effectively bypassed the locally elected institutions, using the non- elected bureaucracy as a principal means of delivering poverty programmes. Not only has the Government of AP failed to enact comparable reforms, it is also thought to have diluted the power and autonomy of the Panchayats through its Janmabhoomi programme. The two states thus provide a fascinating basis for comparing the ways in which democratic institutions affect the quality and reach of government-sponsored poverty programmes. This paper lays out the political dynamics