Power
to the People: The Sociological Conundrum
George Mathew*
I consider it an honour and privilege to deliver the 20th Dr.
M. A. Thomas Memorial Lecture this year when we are celebrating Achen’s birth
centenary as well as the golden jubilee of the Ecumenical Christian Centre.
During my most formative years I got the wonderful opportunity to work in this
Centre. The extraordinary opportunities ECC provided to critically look at the
emerging socio-political and religious situation in the country and the
intellectual and practical experience I got during those years are
unforgettable. I could build on those foundations, whatever humble
contributions I could make, ever since I moved to Delhi in 1974. I remember
participating in the 25th anniversary celebrations of the
Ecumenical Christian Centre in 1988 along with Mr. Mannam Samuel, Archbishop
Most Rev. Dr. Alphonsus, Mr. Pratap Reddy, Prof. K C. G. Sudarshan, and others.
M.A. Thomas Achen’s statement on that occasion was: “Collapse of values and
sacrifices of love had necessitated the creation of the institution [ECC]. It
was the only way religion could become relevant to the society”.[i]
He used to ask: Where are values today? Where are the ethics? It was great
_____________________________________________________
* Dr. George Mathew is Chairman, Institute of
Social Sciences, New Delhi.
E-mail: gemathew@yahoo.co.in
working with M. A. Thomas Achen who gave
inspiration to look at society in a broad perspective leading to adventurous
ventures. M.A. Thomas Achen was a practical visionary who responded to emerging
challenges in church and society. On this occasion I remember a very dear
friend of us, Mr. Jonathan Gnanadason, who worked with us in those years.
Today, when three great events converge – the birth centenary of
M. A. Thomas Achen, 20th anniversary lecture in his memory
and the golden jubilee of the Ecumenical Christian Centre – I have chosen the
theme: “Power to the People: The Sociological Conundrum,” because
Achen, who was my Guru in the early 70s, was always talking
about power to the people and raising the question: why they are powerless
today. This gave birth to the Vigil India Movement, a pioneering venture for
human rights issues in the country.
The late 1960s and the early 70s was the time when Jayaprakash
Narayan began to challenge the powers-that-be and brought forward people’s
power or Jan Shakti to the centrestage through Sarvodaya.
JP’s concerns attracted nationwide attention and it was emerging as a national
movement. When M. A. Thomas Achen came to know that Jayaprakashji was coming to
Bangalore, Achen called me to his room and mentioned that it would have been
great if JP could visit our Centre. I took it as a challenge and the happiest
moment in my four years’ work in ECC was when I succeeded in bringing
Jayaprakashji with his wife Prabhavati Devi to this campus. He inaugurated our
library building. The meeting and interactive sessions we had
with Jayaprakashji raised one question: why people are powerless in spite of
our democracy? It was in July, 1972.
Then it was S. K. Dey, who was the Community Development
Minister in Jawaharlal Nehru’s cabinet, who told me all about the phenomenon of ‘power
to the people’. That was in Delhi from mid-70s onwards. The time I spent with
S.K.Dey in his Lajpat Nagar flat in New Delhi was always an occasion to discuss
who is responsible for the distressing condition of the ordinary
people in the villages of India. Both JP’s and S. K. Dey’s idea of giving
power to the people which is their constitutional right, converged on one
instrumentality, and that was “the village Panchayats,” because
the majority of the people of this country – marginalized, oppressed and
exploited − live in the villages.
When we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of
ECC, it is a great occasion for us to look back and take stock of how the
majority of the people experience their power today. Is power to the
people a mere slogan, rhetoric or has it really seeped into their lives through
practical narrative, the development agenda? Or after 60 years
of S.K. Dey’s community development programme and 40 years of Jayaprakash
Narayan’s Movement, is power to the people still a pipe dream?
During the Indian Independence movement, one of the main emphasis
of the leaders was the transfer of power from the governments to the ordinary
people. In the Congress sessions during 1910-1913, the calls were for
increasing the powers and resources of the local bodies. A powerful plea for
panchayats came from Dr. Annie Besant when she said, presiding over the 32nd session
of the INC at Calcutta in 1917, “economic and moral deterioration can only be
checked by the re-establishment of a healthy and interesting village life, and
this depends upon the re-establishment of the panchayat as the unit of government”.[ii] In
the same session, Surendra Nath Banerji strongly attacked the government saying
that it has emasculated the institution of local self- government. From 1920
till 1947, under Gandhiji’s leadership, panchayat was at the centrestage
ideologically as well as the vision and mission of the Congress party. All of
us are aware of Gandhiji’s idea of Gram Swaraj, the village republic. In 1942 when
the American journalist Louis Fischer interviewed Gandhiji (A Week with
Gandhi), he said
You see, the centre of power now is in New
Delhi, or in Calcutta and Bombay, in the big cities. I would have distributed
it [powers] in the seven hundred thousand villages of India…… … In other words,
I want the seven hundred thousand dollars now invested in the Imperial Bank
withdrawn and distributed among the seven hundred thousand villages. Then each
village will have its one dollar which cannot be lost.[iii]
In 1943, he said, the
roots of democracy were to be found in the panchayat system and not in
Great Britain.
In July 1946, to a question, “Would you kindly give a broad but
a comprehensive picture of the Independent India of your own conception,” Gandhi
answered:
Indian
independence must begin at the bottom. Thus, every village will be a republic
or panchayat, having full powers. It allows, therefore, that every village has
to be self-sustained and capable of managing its affairs, even to the extent of
defending itself against the whole world.[iv]
Despite the commitment of national movement for independence
from the British rule and its leaders for democratic decentralization in the
first half of 19th century and Gandhiji’s unequivocal
commitment to the ideal of “village republics,” panchayats did not find a place
in the first draft of independent India’s Constitution. Finally,
in response to the argument of all those who pleaded for the inclusion of
village panchayats in the Constitution, a provision was included in the
Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution which is not
justiciable.
The critical issue I would like to raise here is: whenever a
political party is out of power they become champions of power to the people.
When they come to power, the concern is their own power and not people’s power.
Perhaps in independent India’s history, there are only very few political
parties which are exception to it.
But India went on to become a democracy and eventually the
biggest democracy in the world. But soon, in the first few years of India
becoming the Republic, our leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and S. K. Dey realised
that for the ideology of “power to the people” to become
effective, we need more than Parliament or the state assemblies. And
that is possible only through the 7 lakh villages coming to the forefront. While
inaugurating the new panchayati raj in Nagaur, Rajasthan, in 1959, Jawaharlal
Nehru said:
We
are going to lay the foundations of democracy or panchayati raj in our
country…. It is a historic event. It is fitting that the programme of
panchayati raj should be inaugurated on Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday…. The
progress of our country is bound up with the progress in our villages…. we
decided that in every village there should be a village panchayat with more
powers... which will help its economic effort… . The time has come when the
responsibility for planning and executing development schemes should be
entrusted to the people… in our panchayats also everyone should be considered
equal; there should be no distinction between man and woman, high and low.[v]
Jawaharlal Nehru passed away in 1964 and since then the whole
country saw a defunct panchayat system.
In the late 1970’s and 80’s, state governments like
West Bengal and Karnataka took important steps to devolve powers to the village
panchayats, some of which became success stories. The most successful was
Karnataka under the leadership of Ramakrishna Hegde and Abdul Nazir Sab and the
state of Karnataka had become a role model at that time.
When we talk about sociological conundrum of “power to the
people”, three issues come to the fore.
First, the gender inequality.
The biggest challenge of independent India was women entering
public life. In our first Parliament we had 23 women members (Lok Sabha). No
questions were raised. We accepted it. After 37 years of India getting
independence, in 1984 it was Karnataka, which came forward with 25 per cent
reservation for women in the panchayats and municipalities. I remember, the big
debate at that time was: whether there will be women to contest these seats at
all. The general feeling was that these seats reserved for women will go
vacant! But when the elections were held in 1987, on an average 3 women were
contesting one seat![vi]
This revolutionary step was taken in Karnataka because
there was a political will. But just a political will is not enough. Popular
awareness about the issues affecting the lives of people and the building of
healthy conventions and traditions are necessary conditions. The Karnataka
political action was possible because there was a congenial social ferment
created by social reformers, civil society, writers, thinkers, academics, think
tanks and centres of learning and research. What Karnataka did in
empowering women through the panchayats paved the way for the rest of the
country to follow its pioneering steps.
When representation of women in Parliament and state
assemblies is less than 10 per cent, local governments have gone a long way in
opening a brave new world for women. Today, nearly 12 million women are
getting elected to the three tiers of panchayats and municipalities. More than
36 million women are contesting the elections. Majority of the states have
given 50 per cent seats to women while the Constitutional Amendment
mandates that not less that one-third of the seats should be reserved for
women. Local government elections are increasingly witnessing women defeating
men in the elections from the unreserved seats. Now there is a
move to amend the Constitution to bring 50 per cent reservation for women in
the panchayats and municipalities.
The most disturbing question is: how women are treated by our
patriarchal society when they enter public life? In the recent book by
Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen titled An Uncertain Glory: India and Its
Contradictions, it is stated:
There are many manifestations of India’s patriarchal form of social and cultural relations: property inheritance is resolutely patrilineal, post-marital residence remains overwhelmingly patrilocal, women’s freedom of movement continues to be quite restricted and violence against women (including domestic violence) is still pervasive… In fact, some of these patriarchal norms have had a tendency to spread rather than to vanish.[vii]
I would like to add here that all religions endorse this state
of affairs in our society and in many cases, sanctify the above patriarchal
trends.
How many women have lost their lives since 1994 when the
panchayat elections began to take place after the 73rd and 74th
Amendment, because they contested the elections or won the seats?
Second, the caste-ridden social structure.
The most serious sociological puzzle is how do we implement
“power to the people” ideology in a highly stratified society that is ours. According
to Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen,
Caste
has a peculiar role in India that separates it out from the rest of the world.
India seems to be quite unique in terms of the centrality of caste hierarchies
and in terms of their continuing hold in modern society. And caste stratification
often reinforces class inequality, giving it a resilience that is hard to
conquer… it is the mutual reinforcement of severe inequalities of different
kinds that creates an extremely oppressive social system where those at the
bottom of these multiple layers of disadvantage live in conditions of extreme
disempowerment.[viii]
Certainly there is increased participation of the hitherto
excluded sections of the population (tribals, lower castes, etc.). However,
even today the landlords and upper castes have control over social life in
rural areas. Barring a few states, land reforms are only on paper. At the
all-India level 41.6 per cent households are landless. If we take a typical
village panchayat in North India, land lords and upper caste leaders control
everything from village assembly to higher levels. Government officials are
happy to work with the landowners. In a village, on an average 15-20
per cent are the Scheduled Castes and they don’t own land. In such
situations, elected panchayats function for name sake. It is the landlords who
get elected as members and presidents. When the former untouchables, (today
they are commonly known as Dalits)or courageous women or people
with idealism, after getting elected to the panchayats,
question the actions of the powerful and try to bring changes, they are at the
receiving end. The Dalits have been facing the landlords’ ire,
intimidation, threats and violence because of their passion to come to public
life and contribute to their community and villages or towns. Very often the
government prefers to sweep these tragedies under the carpet or refuse to
recognize what it means for the oppressed when panchayats are at work.
Sociologically it can be interpreted as conflict dimension of social change in
traditional societies but the poor are paying a heavy price today. That too,
after the emergence of democratic institutions at the local level (panchayats),
the cruelty and intensity have intensified.
Third, the elite capture.
The government has so many programmes for the poor and
maginalised. But why are they not reaching the people? Because the elites in
the society take them and control them. A study conducted in
Karnataka by the Centre for Decentralisation and Development, Institute for
Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Bangalore, about MGNREGS and housing
programmes in the grama panchayats had the following findings: In
the focus group discussions nobody wanted to mention the names of elites
who capture the programmes meant for the poor or protest against them.
Why? “Touching the elites would be equivalent to touching ‘high-voltage wires’
… any complaint against the elites would have disastrous
consequences” because they have money power, muscle power and political
connections.[ix] The
conclusion says:
The
elite need not necessarily belong to the upper castes; they can as well come
from backward or even depressed castes. But one common feature is that they are
wealthy, have political connections…. The checks and balances incorporated into
the schemes did not come to the rescue of the poor because the officials
themselves often colluded with the elite in subverting the rules.
As a result of the elite capture, the poor have become even more
vulnerable.[x] This is a case study
applicable all over the country; in almost all the states.
Why were the panchayats not under the legally enforceable part
of the Constitution till 1993? Why was it not given the constitutional status
and recognition it deserved? The answer lies in the fact that the urban as well
as the rural elite and their representatives in politics from the time of the
national freedom movement onwards and the bureaucracy conditioned by its class
character had a disdain for devolving powers to the local level. This has ever
since remained intact.
On the eve of India’s independence from the British rule,
Mahatma Gandhi wrote:
When Panchayat Raj is established, public opinion will do what
violence can never do. The present power of the zamindars, the
capitalists and the rajas can hold sway so long as the common people do not
realize their own strength. If the people non-co-operate with the
evil of zamindari or capitalism, it must die of inanition”.[xi]
Whatever genuine attempts were made for the devolution of power,
these interests saw to it that the attempts did not succeed. It took more
than four decades after Independence for this impasse to break. That happened
because of the unrelenting, continuous upsurge of people’s struggle for
meaningful democracy at the grassroots level and demand for people’s involvement
in governance as well as their development.
Even after India has entered the 7th decade of
Independence and nearly two decades of the new generation of panchayats, the
upper castes, the zamindars, capitalists (corporate sector) and newavatars (incarnations)
of rajas hold sway on Indian society and politics. In many a situation, local
governments have become a victim of these forces. The greatest threat is the
resistance put up by the traditional social forces and their manifestations at
various levels of society and government. It is a social reality that there is
resistance from dominating class to share power with the disadvantaged groups.[xii]
The Members of Parliament (MPs) and State Legislative Assemblies
(MLAs) are eager to act as micro development agents. When five crore rupees per
year is allocated to a Member of Parliament in the name of local area
development, the local governments are starved of funds. The MPs and
MLAs use this money to create their vote banks through patronage and clientelism.
The MPs/MLAs would like to see their names on a bus stand, a culvert, a temple
stone or a toilet block while the local development is the mandatory role of
local governments. . In most cases, the MPs and MLAs put strong resistance
against devolving powers as well as finances to the local governments. Very few
elected representatives in the state assemblies or Parliament are change
agents. Most of them have vote banks and keeping that intact will be possible
only through maintaining status quo.
The bureaucracy is rarely happy to see panchayats emerge as
institutions of self-government or the third stratum of governance. Our
administrative culture is to retain the powers of the line departments and not
to give power to the people. Their structure and procedures are deeply mired in
the imperial model of governance and they retain their distrust of local
governments. There is a strong belief that the nexus between politicians and
officials at various levels needs to be eradicated; otherwise power to the people
will remain a pipe dream.
The power-brokers continue to hold sway. They appear in various
ways as contractors, middlemen, lobbyists, mafia and so on. They always prefer
centralised corridors of power and not decentralisation. In India, in
Parliament and state assemblies there are 4,962 elected members. It is much
easier to deal with them and the officials in the national and state capitals
than nearly 32 lakh representatives and presidents in 2.5 lakh local
governments. The contractors are omnipresent. The much-acclaimed Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Scheme (MNREGS) which is to be implemented by
panchayats has banned contractors. But the collusion between officials and
contractors has given sizeable space to the latter.
The corporate sector is also working without respect to the
hopes and aspirations of the ordinary people in the villages. Since profit is
their main concern, corporate social responsibility takes a back seat. Whether
it is about the use of natural resources – forests, water, farm land, etc. – or
human resources – skilled or unskilled workers – the corporate sector seldom
takes the view of the local governments. The case of Dupont in Goa and Coca
Cola in Plachimada in Kerala are cases in point. The corporate
sector in cooperation with the officials and elected members of Parliament and
state legislative assemblies works against giving power to the people.
Although the 73rd amendment envisages
panchayats as local self-governments, in every sense of the term, in many
states, the governments treat them as low-level administrative units to be kept
under strict bureaucratic control. There is very little autonomy, no funds and
no functionaries, in spite of the fact that all experts on the subject have
stated that panchayats are the third stratum of governance. Every attempt to
give power and prestige to panchayats is being thwarted by vested interests.
This is the big sociological conundrum today.
After Independence, the main concern of our leaders like Mahatma
Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Jayaprakash Narayan, Ram Manohar Lohia, EMS
Namboodiripad and many others was bringing about social change so that every
Indian can live with freedom and dignity. But when our people become active
players to bring about that social change, instead of society changing, society
removes them with impunity.
When the power to the people programme began to move from a
concept to reality, hundreds of men and women have lost their lives. In 1978,
Karpoori Thakur was the Chief Minister of Bihar. Panchyat elections
were held in the state and more than 750 people lost their lives because of the
violence during the panchayat elections.[xiii]
After the 73rd Constitutional Amendment when the first election
was held in the same state in 2001, 136 people were killed. In the neighbouring
state of Tamil Nadu, Keeripatti, Pappapatty, Natarmangalam, Melavalavu and the
Madurai town witnessed bloodshed because of the movement for giving power to
the people. In almost all the states, this has been the story. The latest was
in a state which was a role model at one time - West Bengal. There 31 persons
lost their lives in the panchayat elections which concluded a few days back, on
25 July. Perhaps the only exceptions are Karnataka and Kerala. The stories of
the killings and dishonouring of women and SCs and STs bring to the fore the
question: In spite of being the world’s largest democracy, when democracy is at
work, what it means for the poor and the oppressed?
Are these hundreds of men and women, who lost their lives for
bringing power to the people, martyrs? Does anyone remember them? The answer
is: ‘No’.
This is the sociological conundrum the socially concerned
citizens, think tanks and social institutions like the Ecumenical Christian
Centre must ponder over.
The judiciary in India has been playing a critical and positive
role in upholding the interests of the people through the institutions of
local governments. Since the panchayats are to protect the interests of the
local people, the people at the grassroots feel frustrated by the concerted
efforts of vested interests. The judicial response has all along
been in favour of local bodies and reflects a clear acknowledgement of treating
local governments according to the true spirit of the Constitution. The courts
have taken a very strong stand against state governments, which have made
all-out attempts to withhold and postpone elections to the local governments
and place them under administrators. It has played a pro-active role whenever
the concerned citizens have sought its intervention in saving the institutions
of local government from becoming defunct and lifeless by the callous attitude
of state governments. Due to this, people have been frequently approaching the
courts for justice. However, in many states justice is delayed and thus justice
is denied[xiv].
For many in our country, giving power to the people is the
mantra. How do we see its future?
Today people’s demand, which is slowly but steadily emerging, is
based on the principle of subsidiarity. That is, what could be done at the
local level must be done there. Only those matters which cannot be done at the
lower level must go to the higher levels. Moreover, there is a
strengthening of the relationship between the civil society and local
governments, with the former increasingly coming to the fore to strengthen
grassroots democracy.
Monopolisation of power and building of colonies and empire have
brought about strong centralized administrative systems. In modern times, the
tendency of the governments is: they are urban-centric, pro-elite, supportive
of free market economy and militarization. Their policies are
oriented towards middle class, rich and powerful, sidelining the rural people
and urban underclass. Spread of democracy, pluralism and appreciation of
diversity as both principles and values must become compelling
factors for national and sub-national governments to pay attention to revival
and strengthening of local governments.
But our society has a long way to go. Some of the challenges of
elite capture within local government system, failure of the last mile service
delivery system and lack of transparency and accountability are seriously
eroding the confidence of the poor or marginalized in local governments.
Suffice it to say that we may have all the necessary institutions or mechanisms
in place but those by themselves do not create a successful cohesive local
government system. The people at the fringes, those citizens of our country who
are ‘missing’ from the grand reports and analysis of the Planning Commission of
India and who are treated with scant respect by those who govern this country -
they are the ones who have to take up the reins and demand their share. But
when and how it will happen? How many more have to be killed or
maimed or have their livelihoods destroyed, their family and loved ones wiped
out before they can begin to live with dignity? The noble ideals of
“institutions of self-government” as expounded in the famous 73 Constitutional
Amendment cannot be translated into reality in the present iniquitous society.
We cannot even begin to draw the picture of panchayati raj which can give power
to the people on a canvas where the caste system is still strong, feudal values
hold forth and gender inequality and inhuman poverty conditions continue to
exist.
Finally, I would like to remind ourselves what Dr. Ambedkar said
on 4 November, 1948 in the Constituent Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar vehemently
criticized the villages then and went on to say:
…
I hold that these village republics have been the ruination of India. I am,
therefore, surprised that those who condemn provincialism and communalism
should come forward as champions of the village. What is the village but a stink
of localism and a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism?[xv]
We were all working hard over the years to prove Dr. Ambedkar
wrong. That was through political actions, administrative and policy changes
coupled with creating awareness among the people for the need to take democracy
down to the grassroots and creating local government system for and by the
people. But have we succeeded in this mission? Or can we say that even after 65
years of Dr. Ambedkar’s statement, today it rings true? This is an important
question when we have entered the 67th year of Independence of
our country.
Let me conclude by quoting Rajiv Gandhi who said while
introducing the 64th Constitution Amendment Bill on 15 May, 1989:
“To the people of India,
let us ensure maximum democracy and maximum devolution. Let there be an end to
the power brokers. Let us give power to the people.”[xvi]
Visionaries like M.A. Thomas have shown us the way. The civil
society, research and study centres, social activists, academics and
intellectuals must take it forward.
[i] “Bid to spread cosmic unity thro’ religion”,
Indian Express, Bangalore, 6
January1988, p.3.
[ii] Malaviya, H. D., Village Panchayats in India, All India Congress Committee, New
Delhi,
1956, p. 217.
[iii] Malaviya,
Op. cit., pp. 249.
[iv] Malaviya,
Op. cit., pp. 244-45.
[v] Jawaharlal Nehru: Selected Speeches,
Volume Four, 19571963, Publications Division, Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Government of India, August 1964, pp.92-94.
[vi] George Mathew,
“Panchayat Poll in Karnataka”, The Hindustan Times, February 9,
1987
[vii] Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen, An Uncertain Glory: India and Its
Contradictions, Allen Lane (Penguin Books), England, 2013, p. 226.
[ix] Report of the Study on “Elite and programme
Capture in Grama Panchayats of Karnataka” by Dr. Rajasekhar, M. Devendra Babu
and R. Manjula, Centre for Decentralisation and Development, Institute of
Social and Economic Chagne, Bangalore, March 2011, p. 73.
[x] Ibid.,
P. 105
[xi] Malaviya,
Op. cit., pp. 252.
[xii] "Enemies of Panchayati Raj", The
Hindu, 11 January 2002; Mainstream, Vol. xxxx No. 8, 9 February
2002; "Panchayati Raj ke dushman", Dainik Jagaran, 7
February 2002.
[xiii] See, M.
L. Majumdar, Emerging Grassroots Power,
Institute of Social Sciences and Concept Pubishing Co., New Delhi, 2005.
[xiv] George Mathew, “Indian Judiciary and Local
Governments” in B. D. Dua, M.P. Singh, Rekha Saxena (eds.), Indian Judiciary and Politics: The Changing
Landscape, Manohar Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, 2007,
pp.321-339.
[xv] Malaviya,
Op. cit.,p. 258.
[xvi] Rajiv Gandhi: Selected Speeches
and Writings, Volume
V, January to November 1989, Publications
Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, New
Delhi, August 1991, p.178.
*