The Hindu : Funding for panchayats

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Apr 22, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Funding for panchayats — II

By George Mathew

Entrusting MPs with rural area development is something the country can ill-afford... They are votaries of centralisation. Decentralisation is anathema to them.

THE BUDGET allocations to the Ministry of Rural Development are next only to those made to Defence. The Ministry implements programmes annually for poverty alleviation and development of infrastructure, habitats and land resources in the rural areas to the tune of more than Rs. 20,000 crores. The Members of Parliament also want a hand in the utilisation of these funds. Therefore the MPs demand a "greater role in the implementation of rural development programmes".

The Government has kept the MPs in good humour. There is a move to set up district vigilance and monitoring committees (DV&MCs) for rural development programmes with Members of Parliament as Chairpersons. Perhaps the biggest blow to the constitutional status and autonomy of the panchayats, the move was made during the tenure of Shanta Kumar, another veteran BJP leader, who has now resigned.

On December 20, 2002, Mr. Kumar wrote to MPs, appointing them chairpersons of DV&MCs and explained the rationale thus: "There is scope for improving the implementation of rural development programmes in terms of both effectiveness and efficiency, which is the primary challenge we are facing today'' and wherein "the Members of Parliament will have a far greater role to play''. The Government, he said, believes that the MPs are in a position to discharge the new role effectively and therefore their nomination as chairpersons is expected to be very effective.

The constitution of the committee needs mention here because it reflects the Government thinking. The Member-Secretary is the District Collector and in the committee of about 20, the chairman of the Zilla Panchayat is also a member along with the officers-in-charge of line departments. On reading the text of the Minister's letter and the guidelines for the committees, one gets the impression that in the Ministry's scheme of things, the panchayats as institutions of self-government do not exist at all. Mr. Kumar conveniently forgot that the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, had categorically stated that the panchayats are the third tier of governance in the Indian federal system. The proposal was discussed at a meeting of State Secretaries, convened by the Ministry of Rural Development, and almost all the Secretaries opposed the idea of MPs becoming chairpersons of DV&MC.

The first Chief Minister to react strongly to the move was Digvijay Singh of Madhya Pradesh. He said that DV&MC was against the spirit of federalism and betrayed the distrust of the Ministry on the bonafides and ability of local governments in the implementation of the rural development schemes. Mr. Singh found it ironical that the Ministry had come forward with such an inappropriate action which would undermine the spirit of the 73rd amendment to the Constitution. The most important point raised by him relates to the theory and practice of our democratic institutions. The terms of reference of the DV&MC are co-terminus with the functions and responsibilities of the Zilla Parishad. Is it not inappropriate to assign a superior position to a nominated body over an elected body, the Zilla Parishad? Moreover, MPs and MLAs are members of the Zilla Parishad. The Zilla Parishad is presided over by a person elected by the people of the district. Bringing in an MP to oversee the rural development programmes of a district is a deliberate move to erode the constitutional authority of the Zilla Parishad, according to Mr. Singh.

Evidently, more than the Government, the people of this country are concerned about the proper implementation of the development schemes and utilisation of over Rs.20,000 crores a year. It goes without saying that ordinary people have greater faith in panchayat's representatives than MPs for the simple reason that MPs are mostly inaccessible. The panchayat representatives are closer to the people; there is face-to-face interaction and they can watch their day-to-day activities. All over the country, the panchayat elections attract a very high percentage of voter turnout.

Entrusting MPs with rural area development is something the country can ill-afford. Take the case of MPs' Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) started in 1993. Under this programme, local MPs have exclusive rights over the allocation of funds for projects, disregarding the priorities of the panchayats. MPLADS, along with the MLALADS, gets funds worth about Rs.3,000 crores a year, seriously undermining the role of panchayats. In recent years, while the demands for raising the budget for MPLADS are never ending, the financial autonomy of panchayats remains totally neglected. Year after year, people hear that either the funds from MPLADS are not spent or if they are `spent', there are serious questions in the minds of the people about the way they are utilised. The Mayawati tapes reveal another side of the story of MPs' genuine interest in rural development. The moral of the story beginning from Sundarlal Patwa to Mayawati seems to be that MPs want to control things from top. They are the votaries of centralisation. Decentralisation is anathema to them.

There are numerous elaborate mechanisms at the Central and State levels to ensure accountability and efficient utilisation of public funds. There are time-tested institutional mechanisms for audit. So are vigilance committees sponsored by the Government and supported by civil society organisations. At another level, India has the unique distinction of creating a constitutional forum for direct democracy — the `Gram Sabha' with special powers for overseeing the local development and expenditure. The concept of `social audit' has emerged from these innovative steps.

Not that all these instrumentalities are functioning well. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to streamline the existing structures to make them effective? For instance, the Constitution Review Commission had taken note of the inadequate provisions in law relating to audit of accounts of public bodies resulting in delay, misuse of funds, tardy implementation of projects and over-all weakening of the system. It had recommended that necessary provisions be made for auditing panchayat accounts to ensure that works related to audit are completed within a year of the close of the financial year. Also, the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India should be empowered to conduct the audit or lay down accounting standards for the panchayats. If only the Ministry had implemented these recommendations and then found the system wanting, all the arguments to bring in MPs from above would have made sense. But by bringing in MPs from nowhere, the Government is only trying to further undermine the Panchayati Raj institutions.

Despite many impediments and the Government's efforts to undermine the panchayats, the balance sheet of the three-tier structure is quite positive. Ten years is a short period to pass judgments. But rural India is going through a silent revolution. A new leadership is emerging. Excluded groups and marginalised sections of society are now demanding a share in the national cake. The ordinary men and women have now become players in the system, which is changing the very grammar of Indian politics. On the tenth anniversary of panchayats becoming the third tier of governance in the federal polity, may be they have something to rejoice about.

(Concluded)

( Funding for panchayats - I )

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Mr. Vajpayee's visit

An expansion for peace

Arms control regimes

Funding for panchayats — II

Managing the transition in Iraq

Well done, Prime Minister

Truckers' strike

Black humour

Alarmist views

Dealing with dissidence