Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992 aimed to establish Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) as units of self-government, fostering democratic participation at the grassroots level. This landmark legislation envisioned PRIs as institutions capable of planning and implementing schemes for the economic development and social justice of their respective areas. However, despite constitutional safeguards, the operational reality of PRIs often falls short of this ideal. The continued influence of state governments and the dominance of the bureaucracy remain significant challenges, hindering the true decentralization of power and resources. This answer will assess the validity of the statement that PRIs are still affected by state control and bureaucratic domination.
Constitutional Framework and the Promise of Decentralization
Part IX of the Constitution, added by the 73rd Amendment, provides for the constitution of Panchayats at the village, intermediate, and district levels. Article 243G guarantees the independence of Panchayats to function as units of self-government. However, the Constitution also allows state legislatures to make provisions with respect to the composition, election, functions, and powers of Panchayats, creating room for state-level variations and potential control.
Areas of State Control and Bureaucratic Domination
Financial Control
Financial dependence is a major impediment to PRI autonomy. PRIs largely rely on funds devolved by state governments, often with strings attached. The State Finance Commissions (SFCs), though mandated by the Constitution, often lack the teeth to ensure adequate and untied funding to PRIs. A 2015 report by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj noted that only 22% of total central and state government funds flowed directly to PRIs.
Administrative Control
Administrative oversight by state departments remains pervasive. Many schemes are implemented through line departments, bypassing PRIs and reducing their role to mere facilitators. For example, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), while implemented through PRIs, often sees significant control exercised by district-level officials. The implementation of centrally sponsored schemes is often dictated by state guidelines, limiting PRI flexibility.
Personnel Control
Lack of dedicated cadre of personnel is a critical issue. PRIs often rely on state government employees on deputation, who remain accountable to their parent departments rather than the PRIs. This creates a situation where PRI decisions are often influenced by bureaucratic considerations. The absence of a clear service structure and training programs for PRI functionaries further exacerbates the problem. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008) highlighted the need for a dedicated cadre of PRI personnel.
Political Interference
Political interference from state-level politicians and bureaucrats can undermine PRI autonomy. Frequent supersession of elected bodies, delayed elections, and arbitrary transfers of PRI functionaries are common occurrences in many states. This creates an environment of uncertainty and discourages effective local governance.
Variations Across States
The extent of state control varies significantly across states. States like Kerala and Karnataka have devolved more powers and resources to PRIs compared to states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Kerala’s ‘People’s Plan Campaign’ (1996) is a notable example of successful decentralization, where PRIs were empowered to prepare and implement development plans based on local needs. However, even in these progressive states, challenges related to financial sustainability and bureaucratic interference persist.
Recent Developments and Initiatives
The 15th Finance Commission (2020-2026) recommended a substantial increase in the share of local bodies in the divisible pool of taxes, aiming to strengthen their financial position. The Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Rurban Mission (2016) aims to develop rural clusters, but its success hinges on effective PRI participation and ownership. Digital initiatives like e-Panchayat are intended to improve transparency and accountability, but their impact is limited by digital literacy and infrastructure gaps.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the 73rd Amendment provided a constitutional framework for empowering PRIs, the reality on the ground reveals significant limitations. State control and bureaucratic domination continue to affect their functioning, particularly in areas of finance, administration, and personnel. Addressing these challenges requires a concerted effort to ensure adequate and untied funding, devolve administrative powers, create a dedicated cadre of PRI personnel, and foster a political environment conducive to local self-governance. Strengthening PRIs is crucial for achieving inclusive and sustainable development, and realizing the true potential of democratic decentralization in India.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.