Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts (1992) aimed to institutionalize local governments (Panchayats and Municipalities) as units of self-governance. However, over the years, a discernible trend has emerged where the Union government increasingly administers existing local government services directly, often bypassing local initiatives and curtailing discretionary powers. This is largely achieved through centrally sponsored schemes (CSS) and direct fund transfers, ostensibly to ensure efficiency and accountability. This approach, while intending to improve service delivery, raises concerns about the erosion of local autonomy and the principles of cooperative federalism enshrined in the Constitution.
Strategies Employed by the Union Government
The Union government employs several strategies to administer local government services directly:
- Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS): A significant portion of funds for local government functions like sanitation, education, and healthcare are channeled through CSS. These schemes often come with detailed guidelines and monitoring mechanisms, limiting local discretion in implementation. For example, the Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban & Rural) dictates specific implementation models, reducing the flexibility of local bodies.
- Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT): While DBT aims to reduce leakages, it often bypasses local governments, directly transferring funds to beneficiaries’ accounts. This diminishes the role of local bodies in identifying beneficiaries and monitoring implementation.
- National Digital Missions: Initiatives like the Digital India Mission and the National Urban Housing Mission involve centralized platforms and data management, potentially sidelining local government’s role in data collection and service delivery.
- Capacity Building Programs: While intended to strengthen local governance, Union government-led capacity building programs can sometimes impose standardized approaches, neglecting local contexts and needs.
- Financial Conditionalities: Funds are often tied to the adoption of specific reforms or policies dictated by the Union government, effectively limiting local autonomy. The 15th Finance Commission’s recommendations regarding tied grants exemplify this.
Consequences of Centralized Administration
The increasing centralization of local government service administration has several consequences:
- Erosion of Local Autonomy: Reduced discretionary powers and limited control over funds undermine the principles of self-governance enshrined in the Constitution.
- Reduced Responsiveness to Local Needs: Standardized approaches often fail to address the unique challenges and priorities of different localities.
- Diminished Local Capacity: Bypassing local governments weakens their institutional capacity and reduces their incentive to develop local solutions.
- Accountability Deficits: When the Union government directly administers services, accountability becomes diffused, making it difficult to pinpoint responsibility for failures.
- Strain on Federal Relations: This trend can exacerbate tensions between the Union and States, undermining cooperative federalism.
Case of Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM)
The Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM), launched in 2019, aims to provide functional household tap water connections to all rural households. While a laudable goal, the implementation of JJM has been criticized for its top-down approach. The Union government sets stringent targets and monitors progress closely, often bypassing local Panchayats in decision-making regarding water source selection and distribution networks. This has led to concerns about the sustainability of the scheme and its alignment with local water management practices.
Balancing Central Guidance and Local Autonomy
A balanced approach is crucial. The Union government should focus on providing broad policy frameworks and financial resources, while empowering local governments to tailor implementation strategies to their specific contexts. Strengthening local capacity through training and technical assistance, promoting participatory planning, and ensuring transparent fund transfers are essential steps. The principle of subsidiarity – decisions should be taken at the lowest appropriate level – should guide the design and implementation of local government programs.
Conclusion
The Union government’s increasing involvement in administering local government services is a complex issue with both potential benefits and drawbacks. While centralized initiatives can improve efficiency and accountability, they risk undermining local autonomy and responsiveness. A shift towards a more collaborative and decentralized approach, respecting the principles of cooperative federalism and empowering local governments, is essential for realizing the full potential of local self-governance in India. This requires a re-evaluation of the current framework of CSS and a greater emphasis on building the capacity of local institutions.
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.