Panchayati raj (New Delhi, October 1989) RAJIV GANDHI (1944–1991)

Panchayati raj (New Delhi, October 1989)
RAJIV GANDHI (1944–1991)

By pursuing in earnest the project of institutionalizing village selfgovernance
through panchayats, Rajiv Gandhi was carrying forward an idea
that was close to Mahatma Gandhi’s heart. Even though Nehru and Indira
Gandhi had not been too keen on panchayats, the process had made
significant advances in West Bengal, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Rajiv
Gandhi, as Prime Minister, attempted to give a national dimension to the
process. e political calculation behind it was that it would enable
Congress governments at the centre to bypass hostile state governments and
give money directly to the people. is was one of Rajiv Gandhi’s most
important political contributions and the process continues albeit at a
slower pace than what he would have liked.

MAIN SPEECH

I have been following with the closest interest this important debate on the

Panchayati Raj and Nagarpalika Bills. ese constitutional amendments,

which I had the honour to introduce at the last session, are of truly historic

and revolutionary significance. It is, therefore, not surprising that the debate

should have been sometimes stormy, sometimes incisive, sometimes

reflective, but at all times lively. I wish to thank all members on both sides

of the House for the important contributions they have made to this debate

which is bound to adorn textbooks on constitutional history for many years

to come.

By and large, it appears to me there is general acceptance of the need for

maximum democracy and maximum devolution. What is disputed is

matters of constitutional jurisdiction, political propriety, electoral

d l l d l All d d l h h f

motivation, and legislative detail. Allow me, madam, to deal with each of

these apprehensions in turn.

It has now been well established in both Houses that there can be no doubt

about the Union Government’s competence to introduce these

constitutional amendments. We have displayed the utmost rectitude in not

impinging upon the essential constitutional relationship established

between the union and the states. Our basic aim is to secure constitutional

sanctity for democracy in the panchayats and nagarpalikas and devolution to

them of adequate power and finances to ensure the people’s participation in

the development process.

First, we have left entry five of the State List exactly as it is and where it is.

e competence of state legislatures to deal with all municipal legislation

relating to rural and urban local bodies has not been tampered with in any

way. Second, care has been taken to so draft the constitutional amendments

as to leave it entirely to state legislatures to draft the law on the subject, and

state governments to formulate and pass the necessary orders to realize the

objectives of these, constitutional amendments. e only point I would wish

to stress is that all municipal law has to conform to the provisions of the

constitution. ese two amendments, when passed, will set the

constitutional stage on the basis of which state legislatures will undertake

detailed legislation…

ird, it is erroneous and misleading to say, as some members opposite have

alleged, that what we have attempted to do is to draft a detailed municipal

legislation by the back door of detailed constitutional amendments. We

have restricted ourselves to essential features such as regularity in elections

and the forestalling of arbitrary and prolonged suspensions. We have been

asked why we have prescribed in such detail a common structure of

panchayats at village, intermediate and district levels, as also a common

structure of nagarpalikas for different sizes of population. e answer is

simple. A uniform structure means uniform pattern and degree of

democratic representation in the local bodies. Why would the pattern and

degree of democracy differ from one part of the country to the other? We

are, after all, one country. Another major objective we have in mind is to

reduce the vast gap that now separates the voter from his representative. In

a vast country like ours, there are at present not more than about 5,500

persons—5,000 in the state legislatures and around 500 in Parliament—to

d l ll l  b f k h

directly represent 800 million people. e number of voters seeking the

assistance of the elected representative is so large that there is no way the

representative can really give his personal attention to his electorate as a

whole. Also, it means the people have to approach their MLA, or even MP,

to get grassroot problems attended to. e Panchayati Raj and Nagarpalika

Bills will generate so many lakhs of elected grassroot representatives that the

distance between the voters and his representative would be drastically

reduced, the power brokers would be driven from their perches and

grassroot problems would receive grassroot attention. ere is no reason

why these benefits should not reach the people in a more or less uniform

manner throughout the country. at objective can only be secured by

uniformity in the structure of local bodies.

e third point is perhaps, of the greatest significance. We are determined

to ensure just representation for the weaker sections of society through

reservations in all our local bodies. e only way of ensuring uniformity in

reservations is by ensuring a uniform structure of local government. Let me

give you an example to illustrate the complications that would have arisen if

we had tried to secure a uniform system of reservations without having a

uniform structure of local government. At present in some states including

Congress-run Maharashtra and non-Congress-run West Bengal, the

panchayat samiti is a body directly elected by the people at large. In some

other states, however, the panchayat samiti is not a directly elected body but

a committee of the Chairman of village panchayats. In a directly elected

panchayat samiti it is entirely feasible to reserve seats for scheduled castes

and scheduled tribes in proportion to their population, as also to reserve

thirty percent of the seats for women. If, however, the panchayat samiti is

not a directly elected body but only a committee of the chairman of the

village panchayats how is one to secure proportionate representation for

scheduled castes and scheduled tribes or thirty percent reservation for

women? In prescribing a uniform structure of local government, for the

country as a whole, our aim is not to arbitrarily impose a uniform structure

on a diverse country. It is only to ensure that there is uniformity of

reservations throughout the country for the scheduled castes, the scheduled

tribes and women. We are second to none in recognizing the diversity of

our country. We are second to none in celebrating the variegated cultures of

our country. We are second to none in being the most passionate advocates

of our unity in diversity, in recognizing and affirming that, in a country like

I d h l h bl b l h d f

India, the only unity that is possible is by a large hearted acceptance of

diversity. Respect for diversity means recognizing that palm trees grow in

some parts of the country and the chinar grows in others. But what has this

to do with the oppression of harijans or adivasis or discrimination against

women? Surely, the ladies of Kerala deserve equal treatment in the

panchayats as the ladies of Kashmir, even as scheduled castes and scheduled

tribes everywhere are entitled to equal representation. Diversity means

respect for a Carnatic kriti in anjavur, a baul in Bengal, a dhrupad in

Gwalior and a manganiar lok geet in Rajasthan. But does this mean

reservations in Tamil Nadu should be different to reservations in Bengal?

Does this mean that the adivasis of Rajasthan should be treated differently

to the adivasis of Madhya Pradesh or that the scheduled castes in one part

of the country should get reservations in proportion to their population but

be denied the same privilege in other parts of the country? To do this would

be to make a farce of the noble precept of unity in diversity.

We celebrate the intellectual, spiritual, and cultural diversity of our country.

But, as I said a minute ago, we are one country. When it comes to

oppression and discrimination, the people of India are united in demanding

a uniform end to all oppression, all suppression, all social tyranny, all

obsolete social morals. I repeat, madam, that it is to secure a uniform system

of reservations that we were obliged to prescribe a uniform structure of local

government.

I now turn to questions of political propriety which appears to have agitated

the feelings of our friends opposite. We have been asked: how dare the

Prime Minister interact directly with district magistrates? I answer: What

call has the Prime Minister of a country like India to remain as Prime

Minister unless he feels at home in the humblest hut of the humblest,

remotest village of our vast and varied country? I toured hundreds of

villages. I spoke to countless people. ere, in their hearths and homes, I

experienced the cruelty of an unresponsive administration, the oppression of

an administration without a heart, the callous lack of compassion that most

of our people find at the hands of much of our administration. I then

looked at the administrators themselves—most of them dedicated young

men and women, of extraordinarily high intelligence, deeply concerned

about the people placed in their charge and yet, apparently incapable of

converting their enthusiasm and personal compassion into a responsive

administration. I sought an answer to this riddle, a solution to this

d  h I d d d h h d

conundrum. at is how I decided to pose the question to the district

magistrates themselves. How could this possibly be wrong?

In any case, there was nothing clandestine about my encounters with

district magistrates. e first one was held at Bhopal. I invited Chief

Minister Motilal Vora, to join us. He accepted and was with us in the

meeting. e second one was at Hyderabad.

I invited Chief Minister N.T. Rama Rao to accompany me to the

encounter. For reasons best known to him, he haughtily declined… I asked

him once again at Hyderabad airport. He once again refused to come with

me. How can the Opposition…now turn around and say I went behind the

backs of chief ministers to talk to district magistrates?

When it came to meetings with village pradhans and sarpanches, panchayat

samiti chairmen and presidents of zila parshads, we took care to seek the

cooperation of at least two Opposition-run state governments in holding

these sammelans (meetings). Chief Minister Jyoti Basu kindly agreed to

cooperate and we held a most informative and useful sammelan in Calcutta,

in full view, I might add, of the representatives of that state’s non-Congress

government. We were making arrangements with an Opposition-run

government for the south zone sammelan in Bangalore when that

government crumbled under the weight of its own inconsistencies. If the

Janata Dal failed to host the south zone sammelan that was not on account

of any failing on our part but only because of their own inability to hold out

until the panchayat representatives arrived.

We have consulted openly, frankly and freely with every echelon concerned:

beginning with the common folk of our villages to whom I spoke; then the

bureaucracy, including district magistrates, chief secretaries and secretaries

to the Government of India; and then the panchayat and local selfgovernment

ministers and chief ministers of states. It was never we who

shied away from meeting them. Regrettably, however, some Opposition-run

state governments refused to send officials and even elected representatives

to these encounters and then, in a shameful act of abnegation of

governmental responsibility, failed to participate in the conference of chief

ministers which I called in early July.

We come to this House, madam, at the culmination of a process of open,

transparent consultation without precedent in the history of independent

India. e amendments we present are the distilled essence of the views of

h d f l d l l b d h d d f d

thousands of elected local body representatives, hundreds of district

magistrates, scores of senior government servants and dozens of ministers

and chief ministers. ere is no impropriety on our part. e only

impropriety has lain in the discourtesy with which a well-intentioned

invitation was turned down.

Madam, much play has been made by the Opposition of the proximity of

the forthcoming general elections to the important legislation which this

House will shortly be voting upon. I do not quite understand the point at

issue here. Is it not a fact that we were elected to govern and legislate for a

five-year period?…

Is it not a fact that we were elected to serve the people of their development

and progress for a five-year period? Should we stop governing and

legislating only because elections are in the offing? It is the people who have

given us this responsibility. It is to the people and the people alone—that

we are responsible…. We reject this artful misinterpretation of

parliamentary practice that would require us to desist from legislation

because of the proximity of the polls.

In any case, madam, it was at the very beginning of our present term of

office, in the first broadcast I made to the nation in January 1985 that I

outlined the plan we had in mind to make our administration responsive to

the people’s needs. I raised these issues in my speech at the Congress

centenary in Bombay in December 1985. In August 1986 this intention of

government was enshrined as the twentieth point of the 20-point

programme under the rubric ‘Responsive Administration’.

At that time, I must confess, we were in quest of managerial solutions to an

unresponsive administration. We were looking to a simplification of

procedures, grievance redressal machinery, single-window clearances,

computerization and courtesy as the answers to the problem. As we went

along, we discovered that a managerial solution would not do. What was

needed was a systematic solution.

e Panchayati Raj and Nagarpalika Bills constitute the most signifciant

systemic transformation in the governance of the Indian polity since the

Constitution entered into force just under forty years ago. We learnt that a

paternalistic administration cannot be a responsive administration. We

learnt that a grassroot administration without political authority was like a

meal without salt. We learnt that however well-intentioned our district

b h b h ff l d h h b

bureaucracy might be, without effective elected authority the gap between

the people and the bureaucracy could not be closed. We learnt that the

vacuum created by the absence of local level political authority had spawned

the power brokers who occupy the gap between the people and their

representatives in distant Vidhan Sabhas and the ever more remote

Parliament. We learnt that corruption could only be ended by giving power

to the panchayats and making panchayats responsible to the people. We

learnt that inefficiency could only be ended by entrusting the people at the

grassroot level with the responsibility for their own development. We learnt

that callousness could only be ended by empowering the people to send

their own representatives to institutions of local self-government, by

empowering the people to reject those who betray their mandate.

e Panchayati Raj and Nagarpalika Bills are not only instruments for

bringing democracy and devolution of every chaupal (square) and every

chabutra (pillar), to every angan (verandah) and every dalan, they are also a

charter for ending bureaucratic oppression, technocratic tyranny, crass

inefficiency, bribery, jobbery, nepotism, corruption and the million other

malfeasances that afflict the poor of our villages, towns and cities. e bills

are the warrant for ending the reign of the power brokers, of the

intermediaries whom Shakespeare called ‘the caterpillars of the

commonwealth’.

ese bills fill a yawning gap in the country’s polity. ey are the result of a

process that was started in the immediate aftermath of our great electoral

victory and has been carried forward in carefully considered stages till it has

ripened for consideration by our august houses of Parliament. ere is

nothing sudden or surprising about the timing of these Bills.

ere is another point I would wish to stress. Elections come and go. e

consequences of these constitutional amendments will far outlast the

outcome of the forthcoming general elections. ese amendments will

become a sacred obligation on the governments, whether at the centre or in

the states, whether run by the Congress or by any Opposition party. ere is

nothing gimmicky about our intentions. We are making democracy at the

grassroots a solemn and ineluctable constitutional obligation. Equally, we

are making the devolution of administrative and financial powers to the

local bodies an inescapable responsibility of all governments, now and in the

future, here at the centre and there in the states, a responsibility as much of

C f b h A l

Congress run governments as of governments run by others. An election

gimmick is a trick of the trade. A constitutional amendment is a solemn,

long-term pledge, ours is a pledge to the people. ose who thwart the

people do so at grave risk to themselves. When the voter stands in the

seclusion of the voting booth, his hand will go down on the hand which

clasps his as a friend.

With your permission madam, I would now like to deal with some of the

matters of detail touched upon by participants in this debate.

It has been alleged that Schedules eleven and twelve infringe in some

manner upon the legislative sovereignty of the state legislatures and the

freedom of action of state governments in regard to responsibilities assigned

to them by the constitution. e confusion appears to arise out of

confounding the legislative lists of schedule seven and the lists incorporated

in the proposed schedules eleven and twelve. e Union, State, and

Concurrent Lists detailed in schedule seven deal with the respective

legislative competence of the union, the states, and the union and the states

together. Schedules eleven and twelve on the other hand constitute an

illustrative list of subjects in respect to which development programmes

might be implemented by panchayats and nagarpalikas respectively. ese

are subjects regarding which understanding at the local level is likely to be

much more profound at that level than in some distant state capital and

where implementation by local elected bodies is likely to be much more

responsive to articulated public need than the cold administrations of

official agencies.

Schedules eleven and twelve do not confer any legislative competence upon

the local bodies. Nothing is taken away from the legislative competence of

state legislatures. All that is indicated by these schedules is the path along

which effective devolution might be pursued to render the panchayats and

nagarpalikas into vibrant, dynamic, meaningful institutions of local selfgovernment.

It is explicitly stated in the constitutional amendments now

before the House that it would be for the state legislatures to lay down the

legislative parameters of devolution and for state governments to give

practical effect to these parameters. We recognize that the precise pattern of

devolution might vary from state to state. We leave it to the good sense of

our people to endorse or reject through their vote the degree and nature of

devolution conferred upon the panchayats and nagarpalikas by different

l l d  h l

state legislatures and state governments. ose state governments that live

up to the expectations of the people will receive the endorsement of the

people. ose who fail the people will receive the rejection they deserve.

Our sanction is the people’s vote. e only threat we hold out to state

governments is the threat of their being rejected at the polls by the people

whose constitutional rights they transgress, by the people who feel deprived

of the opportunities given to them by constitutional amendments.

Surprisingly, little has been said in this debate about the heart of the

amendments, which is the provisions of planning and implementation. It is

undeniable that our planning has become increasingly removed from the

perceptions and aspirations of our people at the grassroots. Such district

planning as is taking place is largely formalistic in nature, a putting together

by bureaucrats and technocrats of what they perceive to be in the interests

of the people. e people themselves are not consulted at all, or are

consulted but perfunctorily. rough these amendments, the primary

responsibility for planning would devolve upon the panchayats at every

level, and each tier of the nagarpalikas. Each local community, whether in a

small village covered by a village panchayat or in a village turning into a

town governed by a nagar panchayat, or in a town governed by the

municipal councillor in a city governed by a corporation would prepare its

own plan for its own development. I would particularly draw the attention

of the House to the wording of the relevant provision. It provides in effect

for any plan for economic development to incorporate its social justice

component. As it is, the provision for reservation ensures that the panchayat

and the nagarpalika undertaking the planning exercise will be adequately

weighed with the weaker sections of society. at in itself will contribute to

a heightened social consciousness in the preparation of plans. But these

constitutional provisions go even further. ey make the completion of any

plan prepared by a panchayat or a nagarpalika contingent upon the

incorporation in the plan of its social justice component. In other words,

whereas up till now, even in so progressive a state as Gujarat, which has

pioneered the social justice committees in panchayats, social justice has been

an adjunct to the planning process. ese constitutional amendments make

social justice an integral element of the planning process. Plans prepared by

panchayats, panchayat samitis and nagarpalikas will then be filtered

upwards to the zila parishads for harmonizing and consolidation by a

committee elected by the members of the zila parishads and the

l k  f d l b f

nagarpalikas. is committee for district planning incorporates members of

the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in proportion to their population

in the district and reserves thirty percent of the seats for women. us the

very composition of the district planning committee is such as to ensure the

integration of social justice with economic planning in district plans. is

holds true equally of the elected body being established for metropolitan

planning. ese constitutional amendments presage an entirely new era in

planning not only in terms of detailed consultations at the grassroots but

also in terms of ensuring social justice as an integral component of the

development process. As regards implementation, there has been a halfhearted

attempt by some members of the Opposition to raise an alarm by

pointing to one lacuna or the other in the eleventh and the twelfth

schedule. ese digs would have a purpose if there had been any attempt to

make these schedules either comprehensive or obligatory. We have made it

amply clear that these two schedules are illustrative in nature aimed at

indicating practical ways in which the implementation of the programmes

and projects might be entrusted to elected local bodies, instead of being

carried out as at present by cold, remote official agencies. It is by being held

responsible for the implementation of programmes that local bodies will

become truly responsible to the people. It is when representativeness is

combined with responsibility that responsive administration follows.

Moreover, the location of the district planning committee in the zila

parishad and indeed its very creation provides the first ever platform of

rural-urban interaction of developmental issues. is in itself will contribute

to a higher awareness of various problems of social injustice and the

remedial measures required to rectify them. rough the proposed

metropolitan planning authority, India becomes one of the first developing

countries in the world to provide a platform for interaction between state

and central authorities and the elected representative of urban and adjacent

rural local bodies, thus integrating the demands of social justice with the

imperatives of economic growth. We have left it to state legislatures and

state governments to determine the precise contours of the responsibility

that will devolve on local bodies for the implementation of programmes.

Some states will go further than others. Some variations in the degree and

pattern of devolution would be justified and acceptable. But any state

government which transgresses the spirit of these amendments will have to

face the wrath of the people. We at the Centre have made a beginning in

h l l b d l h  J h

trusting the local bodies to implement their own programmes. e Jawahar

Rozgar Yojna and the Nehru Rozgar Yojna are the earnest of our

commitment of placing responsibility for development administration

squarely in the hands of the elected representatives of the people at the

grassroots. No longer will the people have to run from one bureaucratic

closed door to another, from one indifferent official to another. No longer

will they have to bribe and cajole their way to securing their legitimate

rights. We are bringing to an end the Kafkaesque nightmare through which

the people at the grassroots have lived. eir problems will now be solved at

their doorsteps. Answerability will be within the very villages where they

live. Accountability would be nailed to the panchayat ghar and the

nagarpalika. Truth will not be hidden in ever more voluminous files and

cupboards bursting at the seams but will be revealed on the floor of the

panchayat ghar and at the village hustings, on the floor of the town hall and

the hustings in every mohalla (area).

As regards the sound finances of the panchayats and nagar-palikas, we

propose entrusting this responsibility to the finance commissions envisaged

in the constitutional amendment. Here again, some of the comments made

by members opposite would appear to indicate that while they have

glimpsed some of the parallel features between the Finance Commission

established under Article 280 of the Constitution and the finance

commissions proposed in the present amendment, they have not

comprehended the essential differences between the two. Whereas the

Finance Commission established under Article 280 affects the actual

allocation of resources between the Centre and the states, the finance

commissions referred to in this amendment would limit themselves to the

principles on the basis of which allocation might be made between the

states and the local bodies. e actual allocations will be made by the state

governments in the light of state legislation on the subject and the

principles recommended by the finance commissions.

We at the Centre are undertaking an exercise to review nagarpalika and

panchayat finances with a view to seeing what steps might be taken to

augment the availability of financial resources for local self-government. We

would hope, the state governments, both those run by our party and those

run by the Opposition parties would undertake a similar exercise in selfenlightenment.

 l d h ll d d

e constitutional amendment entrusts to the comptroller and auditorgeneral

the responsibility for causing the accounts of the local bodies to be

prepared and audited in such manner as he deems fit. Members opposite

appear to have jumped to the conclusion that this means dismantling the

existing state machinery for the examination and auditing of local bodies’

accounts. In our view, unless the CAG in his wisdom deems otherwise,

there would be no need to dismantle the existing state machinery, nor

undertake any substantial augmentation of the staff in the CAG’s office.

What the CAG is being asked, being mandated to do, is to examine

existing procedures in different states for the preparation and audit of local

bodies’ accounts and prescribe methods by which such accounts and

auditing might be made stricter and less prone to abuse. ere is no

question of requiring the CAG to himself take over the direct responsibility

for accounting and auditing. e state local fund auditing bodies would

continue to exercise their functions but under the overall guidance and

direction of the comptroller and auditor-general.

I now turn to the dust being raised by the Opposition over the role of the

Election Commission. Here again, it is a total misreading of the

constitutional amendment to suggest that the existing machinery for the

conduct of elections of local bodies would have to be dismantled. e

Election Commissioner will conduct the elections through the state

electoral officers and their staff. Also, as elections are going to be regular,

and arbitrarily prolonged suspensions are to be outlawed, it would be

essential to further strengthen the existing machinery. e important

change we are effecting is not in centralizing the conduct of elections but in

bringing the process of elections to the local bodies under the purview of

the Election Commission.

In recent months the burden of responsibility on the Election Commission

has been considerably increased. Legislative amendments undertaken in

respect of the Representation of the People Act and other legislations have

greatly added to the workload of the commission. e responsibilities

envisaged for them under the Panchayati Raj and the Nagarpalika Bills will

further increase the Chief Election Commissioner’s responsibilities.

Mr Chairman, Sir, we seek no confrontation on these Bills. In preparing

these Bills we have drawn upon the experience of all Congress states as

much as of non-Congress states. We have freely and repeatedly

k l d d d b O l k h W

acknowledged our debt to Opposition governments like those in West

Bengal and Andhra Pradesh and the earlier Janata government in

Karnataka who have made innovative contributions to the improvement of

Panchayati Raj in our country… Equally do we owe a debt of gratitude to

the pioneering Congress stalwarts in Gujarat and Maharashtra who have

the longest, unbroken and unblemished record of Panchayati Raj in the

country. ere are negative lessons, too, to be learnt, as we have freely and

fully admitted, from inadequate or insufficient Panchayati Raj and

Nagarpalika Administration in some non-Congress as well as in some

Congress states. ere is no partisan politics in this. Our only interest is the

national interest—the interest of development, the interest of the poor, the

interest of the weak. We admit also that the objectives we seek to achieve

are objectives, which at various times in the past have been espoused by

Opposition parties ranging all across the spectrum, from the Bharatiya

Janata Party and its forebears to the two Communist parties and their

forebears. We invite all the parties in the House to join hands with us in

passing these Bills.

e Bills are for the people. e Bills are for their welfare, their benefit. e

Bills are to give power in the hands of the people. e Bills are to end the

reign of power brokers. e Bills are to entrust responsibility to the

grassroots. e Bills are to give representative administration. e Bills are

to involve the people’s participation in planning and implementation in

development and social justice. e Bills are designed to entrench

democracy in the very foundations of our polity so that the superstructure of

democracy in state capitals, and the national capital might be stable, sound,

well-founded. e Bills represent the realization of Mahatma Gandhi’s

vision. e Bills represent the fulfilment of Pandit Jawaharlal’s dreams. e

Bills are the outgrowth of Indiraji’s endeavours. Sir, I invite the House to

pass these Bills unanimously. ose who support these Bills will earn the

people’s gratitude. ose who oppose these Bills will fail the people and live

to rue their lapse.

Mr Chairman, I commend to this House, the Constitution (Sixtyfourth

Amendment) Bill, 1989 and the Constitution (Sixty-fifth Amendment)

Bill, 1989.

ank you, Sir.