Power to the People

Democracy was the greatest gift of our freedom struggle to the people of India. Independence the nation free. Democracy made our people free.

A free people are a people who choose their own representatives. A free people are a people who are governed by their will and ruled their consent. A free people are a people who participate in decisions affecting their lives and their destinies.

Gandhiji believed that democratic freedoms have to be founded in institutions of self - government in every village of India. He drew his inspiration and his vision from the Pachayats, the traditional "Village republics" of India. Panditji established the institutions of Panchayati Raj as the primary instrument for bringing development to the doorstep of rural India. Indiraji stressed the need for the people's participation in the processes of economic and social transformation.

Yet, there is no denying that, in most parts of the country, we have failed to fulfil the high hopes we had vested thirty years ago in the institutions of Panchayati Raj. Elections have been irregular. They are often unnecessarily delayed and frequently postponed.

This is not a matter of political will. The best record of regular elections to Panchayati Raj institutions is of two Sate Governments which, since the inception of Panchayati Raj, have almost continuously been ruled by the Congress Party: Gujrat and Maharashtra. In recent times, some State Governments run by Opposition parties, such as the CPI (M) in West Bengal, the Telegu Desam Party in Andhra Pradesh and the Janata Party in Karnataka, have held regular elections. In other States, the record or non - Congress parties and coalitions has not been much better than that of Congress - run State Governments. This is not a matter of political parties.

The essence of democracy is elections. Elections to Panchayati Raj institutions have been woefully irregular and uncertain. A mandatory provision in the Constitution is sacrosanct. A statutory provision in the State law does not quite have the same sanctity. We propose through this Bill to enshrine in the Constitution regular, periodic elections to Panchayati Raj institutions. We also propose through this Bill to end the other sickness which has overtaken Panchayati Raj in many parts of the country. That is the sickness of unending suspension and dissolution's. In the absence of any compelling provision to reconstitute Panchayats within a reasonable period of time, by democratic elections, suspended Panchayats have remained suspended for years on end, and dissolved Panchayats have remained dissolved for a decade and more. In the existing municipal law on the subject, State Legislatures have given the executive authority such wide powers to abort the institutions of Panchayati Raj, and delay reconstituting them, that these institutions have been leached of their ability to stand on their own as representative forums of the people's will. Their existence has depended less on the mandate of the people than the whims of State Governments.

Our Bill leaves it to the States to determine the grounds and conditions on which Panchayates may be suspended or dissolved. We expect State Legislatures to specify the grounds on which the Governor may suspend or dissolve a Panchayat. That is a matter for the Governor acting, in accordance with the Constitution, on the aid and advice of the State Government. Our concern is to ensure that a dissolved Panchayat is reconstituted within a reasonable period of time.

Our Bill would make it mandatory through the Constitution for all Panchayats dissolved before the expiry of their term of office to be reconstituted through democratic elections based on adult suffrage within six months of the dissolution to complete the remaining term. No more will Panchayats remain the plaything of the arbitrary exercise of executive power. It is the people who will determine, within a matter of months, the profile of the reconstituted Panchayat.

It is the Constitution which ensures that the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies are constituted by the vote of the people on the basis of universal adult suffrage. It is the Constitution which ensures, that, if an Assembly is dissolved, it is reconstituted by a procedure and within a time - frame specified in the Constitution itself. These are essential safeguards to ensure the strength and vitality of democratic institutions. The institutions of Panchayati Raj have lacked strength and vitality precisely because they have lacked Constitutional safeguards.

Our Bill will ensure that Panchayati Raj has a democratic character similar to the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies and Constitutional protection for their functioning as representative institutions of the people.

The single greatest event in the evolution of democracy in India was the enactment of the Constitution which established democracy in Parliament and in the State Legislatures. This historic, revolutionary Bill takes its place alongside that great event as the enthronement in the Constitution of democracy at the grassroots.

Till now, there have been weaknesses in the structure of our democracy because, although the superstructure is strong, the foundation has been weak.

Putting together both Houses of Parliament and all the State Legislatures, we have only about 5000 to 6000 persons representing a population of nearly 800 million.

This has had two serious consequences. First, the number of persons holding elective office in well - founded institutions of democracy has been far too small in relation to the size of our electorate. Once we accord to democracy in the Panchayats the same sanctity as is now enjoyed by Parliament and the State Legislatures, we will opening the doors to the participation in democratic institutions of something like seven lakh elected representatives. The people's stake in democracy will be increased by a factor of approximately one hundred and fifteen.

There is a second deleterious consequence of the vast chasm that separates the general body of the electorate from the small number of its elected representatives. This gap had been occupied by the power - brokers, the middlemen, the vested interests. For the minutest municipal function, the people have had to run around finding persons with the right connections who would intercede for them with the distant sources of power. The system has been captured by the power - brokers. It is being protected by the power - brokers. The power brokers have established their vice - like grip only because democracy has not functioned at the grassroots. The only way of breaking their stranglehold is for democracy to fill the vacuum which the power - brokers have occupied. Once the people have their own elected representatives from electorates as small as a hundred to five hundred persons, the source of power will lie only as far away as the Panchayat Ghar, not some distant State capital or even more distant capital of the country.

To end any role for power - brokers in the system, the Bill provides for the direct election of members to Panchayats at all levels. Every voter will have his own representative in the Gram Panchayat, the midlevel Panchayat, and the Zila Panchayat. That representative will be responsible to a small and well - recognised electorate. If he fulfils the mandate of the people, he will re - elected. If he fails, the people will throw him out of office. The power of the vote will become the power of enforcement. The will of the people will render the power - broker superfluous.

Today, opportunity for democratically elected leadership is confined to the few thousands who succeed in entering the portals of the State Legislatures and the Parliament. Once this Bill becomes an integral part of the Constitution, a huge, country - wide reservoir of leadership potential will be created. At each Panchayat election, approximately half a crore men and women, most of them young, will present themselves to the electorate seeking the people's mandate. Some will succeed and some will fall by the wayside. Those who do not succeed will get another opportunity five years later.

There is a vast uncultivated field of talent lying fallow in rural India. It is that fallow field we now propose to see. That field will be watered by the votes of the Members of this House and of your colleagues in Rajya Sabha. The crop of talent you raise will give us the bountiful harvest to take our nation forward to a prosperous, glorious future. There is no country richer than ours in the most precious asset of humankind - the human resource. We, in India, have not flourished as we should because we have not nurtured our greatest resource. This Bill makes it possible for the bulk of the nation's talent to be given opportunity. Throughout the country, there will be a ferment. In every one of our six hundred thousand villages, in every one of our five thousand blocks, in in every one of our four hundred districts, democracy will groom the men and women whose experience will subsequently become available to Legislatures at the State level and to the Parliament of the Union of India.

Our proposed Constitutional amendment lays the Constitutional injunction upon the State Legislatures. It is for the Sate Legislatures to enact the appropriate law. A quite unnecessary controversy has been raised about the role of the Governor in the proposed Panchayati Raj system. The Constitution is unambiguous on this point.

Article 154 (I) States that: "The executive power of the State shall be vested in the Governor." Article 163 (I) clarifies that: "There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions…" Therefore, the word Governor in the Constitution refers to the Governor exercising his executive powers only Ministers, with one exception. The exception is provided for in the remainder of Clause (I) of Article 163, which reads: "…except insofar as (the Governor) is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion."

The distinction between the expression "the Governor" and the expression "the Governor in his discretion" is such a well - known matter of Constitutional law that it is amazing there should be any confusion on this point. After all, the expression. "the Governor, "appears at scores of places throughout the Constitution and has nowhere been misconstrued or misinterpreted. We are confident that in this Parliament, acting in the exercise of its inherent constituent powers, there will be no confusion between the functions of a Governor acting in accordance with the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers and of a Governor acting in his discretion wherever the Constitution requires him to do so.

In establishing the institutions of democracy in Parliament and in the State Legislatures, our founding fathers gave particular recognition to the disabilities suffered by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, Provision was made for the reservation of seats for them in accordance with the proportion of their population in the total electorate. This is a principle which has not been incorporated in most of the Panchayati Raj legislation's enacted by the State Legislatures.

In my discussions with Panchayati Raj representatives, both during my extensive tours of rural India and in the numerous Panchayati Raj sammelans We have held, it was brought home to me most forcefully that the democratic rights of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes cannot be secured by good intentions alone. At this stage, it has to be secured; in the first instance, by reservations in Panchayati Raj institutions on the same basis as reservations are given in the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies. I see that a certain section of the House is not happy about this. There is a widespread and justified apprehension on the part of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes that if their due representation in these bodies is not assured, Panchayati Raj could become an instrument of oppression in the hands of the rural elite. Experience in different parts of the country has shown how, in the absence of reservations, vested interests and feudal interests have been able to capture these institutions. Their hold on these institutions has been reinforced by the failure to hold regular elections. The people's mandate has been perverted into an instrument to exploitation.

To forestall such a perversion of the process, our Bill proposes to make it mandatory for Sate Legislatures to ensure reservation for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population in the relevant Panchayat area. Our Bill also proposes a significant departure from the Constitution, as it exists today. We propose the reservation in Panchayats at all levels of 30 per cent of the seats for women.

There are three major reasons for which we believe the Constitutional innovation to be necessary. First, women constitute half the population and are involved in rather more than half the economic life of rural India. However, to our shame, their share of assets and income is much less than their share of the population but the toil and sweat imposed upon them is rather more than half. Second, the sound finance of the household has traditionally been the responsibility of the women. Financial discipline and fiscal responsibility are ingrained in the habits and outlook of the women of rural India.

These are qualities badly needed in Panchayati Raj institutions. We believe the presence of women in large numbers in the Panchayats will not only make the Panchayats more representative but will also make them more efficient, honest, disciplined and more responsible. Third, it is the women of India, in their role as grandmothers and mothers, who have been the repository of India's ancient culture and traditions. It is to them that is entrusted the responsibility of transmitting to the next generation the quintessential values, standards and ideals which have enabled our civilization to survive and flourish without a break despite vicissitudes of many kinds. It is that strength of moral character which women will bring to the Panchayats. Let us give them a warm welcome.

I now turn to the heart of the matter: devolution and sound finance. Respecting the right of the States to legislate provision for devolution, we have deliberately refrained from tampering with their rights. We have no intention of attempting to rule the districts from the Centre. But we do expect the State Legislatures to enact such measures as are required to devolve powers and authority upon the Panchayats, keeping in mind the provisions of this Bill and the spirit in which this Amendment is being brought forward.

First is the power and authority of the Panchayats to draw up plans within the framework of guidelines and conditions to be stipulated by the State Governments. These plans will constitute the basic inputs for the planning process at higher levels. Thus will we ensure that the voice of the people, their felt needs, their aspirations, their priorities become the building blocks of the edifice of planning. We must put an end to planning from above. We must put an end to priorities being conceived and decided at ethereal heights, far removed from the realities on the ground. We must put an end to paternalistic planning. We must initiate a process of people's planning.

Our Bill goes beyond merely planning for economic development. It lays upon the Panchayats even heavier responsibility of planning for social justice. It will not do to romanticise life in our villages. Life there is hard. Life there is exacting. Life there is, in many ways, exploitative and oppressive.

In driving the power - brokers out of the power - houses, in rendering the Panchayats to the people, we lay upon the people's representatives the solemn responsibility of Turing their attention, first and foremost, to the needs of the poorest, the most deprived and the most in need. Each plan for economic development will be accompanied by a plan for social justice. No plan for economic development will merit attention until its social justice component is clear. This is a charter not merely for our villages to become prosperous but also for our villages to become just.

The second major responsibility of the Panchayats will be the implementation of development schemes assigned to them by the State Governments on such conditions as may be specified by the Sate Governments. These schemes should cover the major economic concerns of rural India, commencing with agriculture and land improvement and going on to irrigation and watershed management. It must comprise the diversification of the rural economy into animal husbandry, daring, poultry and fisheries. It must incorporate industrial activity in rural India. It must extend to minor forest produce, which is the chief source of income for our entire tribal populace. It must encompass the day - to - day concerns of rural India: housing, drinking water, fuel and fodder. Devolution must deal with the basic infrastructure of communication and power in rural India. We have suggested the inclusion in the Panchayat's area of competence, development schemes relating to non - conventional energy sources.

The proposed Eleventh Schedule seeks to vest in the Panchayats, the major responsibility for the administration of poverty - alleviation programs. It would entrust the Panchayats with education and culture, as well as health and family welfare, woman and child development. We propose to request the State Legislatures to make social welfare programs for all the weaker and handicapped sections, a functional responsibility of the Panchayats. We also propose to give to the Panchayats the responsibility for the public distribution system, which is so crucial to the survival of the weaest and the poorest, as also to the general health of the rural economy.

The Bill proposes that the Panchayats be entrusted with the most neglected area of our community life, namely the maintenance of community assets. I would like to stress that the Eleventh Schedule is not an exhaustive list. We hope that the States will progressively devolve many more powers and authority upon the Panchayats so that whatever can be looked after at the local level is looked after at that level and not remitted upstairs.

The single greatest danger we have to guard against is the devolution of powers to the Panchayats being followed by the transfer of these powers out of the Panchayati Raj system into other bodies constituted outside the system and placed under the direct control of State Governments. Almost all State Governments, whether Congress or non - Congress, who have established impact by constituting bodies outside the Panchayati Raj system where real powers of decision - making are vested and where the elected representatives of Panchayati Raj are overshadowed by Ministers appointed by the State Governments or, as in the case of Karnataka, by the MLA becoming the ex - officio Chairman of the Taluka Panchayat Samiti.

It is the purpose of our Bill to ensure that powers delegated to the Panchayats remain within the Panchayats and are not channeled outside the system. By the same token, our Bill is designed to ensure that all development agencies are brought within the framework of the Panchayati Raj institutions and made responsive to the elected authority. There are two basic reasons for administration at the district and sub - district levels having become so unresponsive to the people. One is the fragmentation of the district administration into a large number of agencies vertically owing responsibility to State Governments without adequate co - ordination at a Single focal point at the district level. The other has been the absence of an elected authority to function at that focal point.

The House would recall that our Government was returned to office with the largest mandate ever accorded to any party in the history of Independent India. I, as Head of that Government, pledged to make a number of structural changes. I very quickly discovered that the system could not cope with the demands which we were making upon it. There was too much ossification. Mere tinkering with the system would not do; a systemic transformation was essential. Indeed, the starting point of the exercise which has led to the presentation of this Bill was my search for a way of fulfilling the 20th point of our revised 20 - point Program of 1986, which promised to the people a responsive administration. At my instance, the Department of Personnel organised a series of Workshops on Responsive Administration to which were invited all the District Magistrates, Deputy Commissioners and Collectors of the country. I spent over 20 hours in discussion with them.

It emerged that we could not make our administration responsive merely by simplifying procedures or establishing grievance redressed machinery or opening complaint windows. Every such step only led to the one more power centre for the power - brokers to occupy. The sine qua non of the electorate. Such responsive administration in rural India can only be secured thorough genuine Panchayati Raj. It is this that our Bill seeks to achieve. Devolution of administrative powers must go hand - in - hand with sound finance. Too often in the past, Panchayati Raj has had functions without finances, responsibilities without funds, duties without the means of carrying them out. Our Bill empowers State Legislatures to ensure the sound finance of the Panchayats by endowing them with the revenues of taxes that might be appropriated by, or assigned to them, as also with grants - in aid from the Consolidated Fund of the State. To assist State Legislatures and the executive authority in determining which taxes to assign or leave for appropriation, as also the grants - in - aid to be given, the Bill proposes the establishment of a Finance Commission to make suitable recommendations.

I would stress the importance of determining the taxes which will be levied, collected and appropriated by the Panchayats. Nothing will inculcate in the Panchayats a greater sense of fiscal responsibility than the possibility of retaining with them the moneys that they raise for such use as they best deem fit. United grants make for local - level planning. So far, the tendency has been to confine appropriation to ceases. We hope State Legislatures will go further and identify taxes, duties, tolls and fees which might be appropriated by the Panchayats.

We are asking the State Legislatures no more than we are ourselves ready to do as a Union Jawahar Rozagar Yojna. Eighty percent of the fund are being devolved on the village panchayats. We propose to extend this principle to other Centrally - sponsored schemes. There can be no better way of involving the people in their own development. There can be no better way of reducing corruption and nepotism. The system we propose is a transparent system. The bulk of the electorate in a Village is composed of the intended beneficiary of development schemes. Each intended beneficiary will know what schemes are available, how much money there is in the scheme, whether and how the moneys are being spent. Any Panch or Sarpanch who cheats the people will be removed by the people. There is no way he can escape the consequences of malfeasance.

I would now like to turn to those parts of the country we are proposing to exempt from the system, or in respect of which special provision is made for modification. In the North - East, there is one sparsely populated tribal State which has no difficulty in adopting Panchayati Raj without modification. This is the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The Bill recognises that in three other States of the North - East - Nagaland, Meghalaya and Mizoram - there are traditional systems of self - government, akin to Panchayati Raj, which must be preserved. Indeed, the rest of the country would be well - advised to study and learn from the Village Development Boards of Nagaland. In these three States, the traditional systems will be left undisturbed.

Similarly, in areas covered by the Sixth Schedule, where autonomous District Councils have been established, we would not wish to disturb the system so carefully structured. On the same principle, we are not extending the Bill to the District Council areas of Mnipur and the areas covered by the Gorkha Hill Council in the Darjeeling district of West Bengal. As regards the Union territories, the Bill empowers the President to withhold, extend or modify the application of the provisions of the Bill to a part or the whole of the Union Territories. This is designed to ensure that traditional or nascent institutions in areas like the Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and Pondicherry are not adversely affected and that the special characteristics of Union Territories like Delhi are taken into account.

Similarly, in tribal areas covered by the Fifth Schedule, the Governor in his discretion (and not on advice of his Council of Ministers) may determine the conditions on which Panchayati Raj would be extended to these areas. Sir, the Bill proposes that all State Legislatures bring their State Legislation into conformity with the proposed Part IX of the Constitution within a year of the commencement of operation of the amendment. We recognize, however, that Panchayati Raj institutions have been elected in most States, some as recently as this year. The Bill authorizes the continuance of these Panchayats till the expiry of their terms, unless State Legislatures decide otherwise.

The interregnum between the passage of this Bill and the alignment of State Governments to give deep thought to the working of the new system. Panchayats will have to be given the staff they require. We do not propose that the annual confidential reports of the bureaucracy be written by elected representatives at the Panchayat level but the district bureaucracy will have to be trained and oriented towards discharging its new responsibilities in changed conditions. We have to build trust and mutual respect between the district bureaucracy and the elected Panchayats. At other levels of our democracy, in the States and at the Centre, the bureaucracy and the elected authority have learnt to work together in mutual co - operation. Such a harmonious relationship must also subsist between the district bureaucracy and the Panchayats. We hope State Governments will resist the temptation to effect a cleavage between the regulatory and development functions of district administration. There will have to be co - ordination because it is only through development administration that a regulating officer can establish the contacts and linkages essential to forestalling a law - and - order crisis or resolving it when it occurs.

We are deeply conscious, Sir, that this Bill restricts itself to democracy and development at the grassroots in rural India. We democracy and development at the grassroots in rural India. We must extend the same concern to the growing urban and semi - urban population of the country. To this end, Government proposes to bring forward major legislation in the next session of the Lok Sabha. We shall also turn our attention to recasting, revamping an rejuvenating the co - operative movement, which Panditji had always regarded as the essential complement to Panchayati Raj.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, we come to this House after long consideration and a national debate without precedent. We have consulted with more than ten thousand representatives of Panchayati Raj institutions from all over the country. We have discussed Panchayati Raj with the bureaucracy at different echelons, including district officers, Chief Secretaries and Secretaries to the Government of India. We have held meetings with Panchayati Raj Ministers and the Chief Ministers of the States. We have extended the debate to political levels, within Party forums and in a Parliamentary Consultative Committee. Our proposals are before you but our mind is not closed. In the months to come, we hope there will be intensive debate about these proposals all over the country. We are prepared to carry forward such discussions with Opposition parties and Chief Ministers. We will, of course, listen with the utmost care to suggestions made on the floor of the House. We seek consensus, but we are prepared to face the challenge of confrontation. We shall fight for democracy for the people. We shall fight for development for the people. It is the people of India who are our first and foremost concern.

The proposals we place before the House are not really our proposals. They are the proposals of the people of India. We have drawn on the accumulated experience of Panchayati Raj from all over the country, the good experience as well as the bad, the experience of Congress run Governments as much as of State Governments run by other parties. This experience has been pooled and churned. Out of this manthan has emerged the amrit which we now propose to share.

Our democracy has reached the stage where the full participation of the people brooks no further delay. We are accused of rushing through this Bill. There has been no rush. For several years now, we have been holding well - publicised consultations at several different levels on Panchayati Raj. No one in the public life of this country could have been unaware of our intentions. Our respected Rashtrapatiji, in his address to both Houses of Parliament, had specifically referred to the major legislation on the subject which Government proposed to bring forward; We now fulfil that promise. Those who decry this as an election gimmick are precisely those whose feudal interests will be over - thrown by power reaching the people. We trust then people. We have faith in the people. It is the people who must determine their own destinies and the destiny of the nation. 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.

Towards a Responsive and Representative
Municipal Administration

THE LEADERSHIP of freedom movement was in many ways nurtured in the civic bodies. Among the stalwarts who, so to speak, cut their teeth on municipal Administration were Dadabhai Naoroji and Pherozeshah Mehta, Tilak and Gokhale, Chittaranjan Das and Subhash Bose, and Panditji.

Panditji was particularly enthused with the kind of grassroots work involved in democratic municipal administration. He said in words that are perhaps even more relevant today than when he spoke: "Corporations and municipalities seem to bring one in more intimate touch with the life of the people… When you go to Delhi, you get farther away from the common man, sitting, as it were, on some legislative mountain top…. The poor people are sometimes completely forgotten… Government departments grow, till one department hardly knows and recognizes the other or becomes jealous of the other."

The commencement of our freedom struggle virtually coincided in time with Lord Rippon's attempt in 1882 to organise local self - government in urban India. Interestingly, from 1882 till Independence the proportion of our urban population to the total population remained virtually the same, at something under 10 percent. Through much of this period, the total urban population of India was not much more than that of Greater Bombay alone today. India, as Gandhiji said, lived in her villages and it is to democratic local self - government in rural India that Gandhiji concentrated his attention. Therefore, although the municipalities were the nurseries of administrative experience for our freedom fighters, the role of municipalities in the life of the nation was limited.

However, in the four decades that we have been free and independent, the demographic profile of the country has changed vastly. Already, almost a quarter of our population is urbanised and the number of Indians living in urban settlements is nearly 200 million. The urban population is growing at around 4 percent per annum, as against 1.5 percent for the rural population. By the turn of the century, something like one Indian in three will be living in urban India. Inevitably, this proportion will grow till, as in developed countries, around ¾ of the population will become urban, leaving not much more than a quarter in the rural countryside. It, therefore, becomes incumbent on us to confer on urban Indian the same kind of advantages and benefits of democracy and devolution as we are seeking to secure for rural India through the Panchayati Raj Bill.

It is our expectation that the development process will receive a new impetus and a new thrust through democratic decentralization. Planning will become more finely - tuned to the needs of the people and the realities on the ground. Implementation will become more efficient and less prone to corruption through the involvement of the people and their representatives at the grassroots level. Since urbanization constitutes one of the most important motors of growth and modernization, it follows that the development benefits of democratic decentralization require the process to incorporate urban as much as rural areas. Also, it is growth in the towns and cities that comprises many of the agents of change and transformation. For change to be democratic and transformation to be cognizant of ground realities.

We have before us three options for urban renewal. One is to leave the system and structure as it is and pray that it will somehow dynamize itself, by a process of internal combustion, as it were. To do so would, however, be utterly unrealistic. Urban local bodies are in as advanced a stage of decay as the management of urban development is in crying need of rejuvenation. In these circumstances, persistence with the status quo would be nothing short of a prescription for disaster.

The second option would be fore the Centre to resume all powers for urban development and push through its plans for change by direction and enforcement from above. I have no doubt that this could be done efficiently but it would not be democratic. I would prefer to trust the people and their elected representatives.

This brings us to the only remaining option, the third option which we are now pursuing, that is, Constitutional sanction for ensuring democracy in urban local bodies and Constitutional sanction to endow them with the responsibilities and finances required to ensure that urban Indian flourishes and leads the country forward to progress and prosperity.

How far removed urban local self - government is from present realities might be gauged from the fact that the essential structure of such self - government is seven years older than Jawaharlal Nehru, whose centenary we are celebrating this year ! A structure conceived in Imperial times for a relatively tiny urban population, which was almost wholly dependent on the requirements of Imperial administration and imperial trade, has persisted through four decades of freedom. In the Constitution, while the Directive Principles of State Policy refer, albeit glancingly, to village panchayats, the reference to urban local self - government is confined to an implicit mention in Entry Five of the State List.

The consequences of the absence of adequate Constitutional provision for urban local self - government can be seen in the mess in which municipal administration in much of the country finds itself. More than half the Corporations stand suspended. Some of the suspensions, as in the case of Madras and Lucknow, stretch back to 15 to 16 years. The Bhagalpur Corporation heads the list, having been suspended eighteen years ago. That is, the youngest voter who will cast his vote in the next general election was born after the Bhagalpur Corporation, was superseded !

This is not a matter of political party or political persuasion. If it is a fact that three - quarters of the suspended Corporations in States run by the Congress Party, it is equally a fact that three - quarters of the Corporations that are in operation are also operating in Congress - run States. Prolonged and arbitrary suspension is not the consequence of party policy. It is the consequence of weak Constitutional base for local self - government.

The Panchayati Raj Bill, which I introduced in Parliament on the 15th May, 1989, holds out the promise of maximum democracy and the maximum devolution to 75 percent of our population which lives in rural India.

There is no reason in principle, and every reason in equity, for these essential democratic rights to also reach our rapidly growing urban population. The concept of Panchayati Raj must change to incorporate the country's changing demographic profile, and must expand to incorporate the country's growing urban population.

That is not merely a matter of figures and ratios. Impulses for the generation of wealth, income and employment are strongest in urban centres. Much of the country's best talent is being attracted to our towns and cities. The best educated, the young to take risks, those willing to place the highest stakes upon their own abilities, those with enthusiasm, enterprise, zeal and ambition are migrating in droves from rural to urban India. While we must do something to moderate this inflow and ensure that rural India too enjoys the benefits of this precious human capital, we must at the same time give to these dynamic forces un urban Indian the democratic voice and participation in development which we have sought to ensure for rural India through the Panchayati Raj Bill.

It is to consider how best this might be done that we have called you to this conference. We are beginning the process of consultations on Panchayati Raj with the district bureaucracy. Subsequent phases of the consultative process will include the elected representatives of the municipal bodies and the State Governments. The reason we begin with you is that we have reason to believe that you share with the district bureaucracy two characterises which powerfully impressed me when I participated in the District Magistrates Workshops on Responsive Administration.

The first was the deep sense of dedication to duty which the district bureaucracy displayed. We know that a similar sense of discipline and devotion characterises the approach of the municipal bureaucracy. Yet, even as the district bureaucracy itself felt that the individual merits of the officers not with-standing, district administration is insufficiently responsive, sub-optimally efficient, and skewed away from the people's priorities, so also do we imagine the municipal bureaucracy is less than satisfied with the functioning of municipal administration and would wish to suggest ways of making it more responsive, more efficient, and more relevant to the people's needs.

The second characteristic which we noted in the approach of the district bureaucracy was the pervading conviction that responsive district administration is not possible without representative district administration. Twenty or thirty years ago, and certainly before Independence, the Civil Services used to regard the political authority as an interfering nuisance. In contrast, the young men and women of the IAS and the Provincial Civil Services whom we met at the Workshops were almost unanimous in the view that bureaucratic administration, however well-intentioned, is no substitute for democratic administration. It is with their wholehearted backing that we have introduced the Panchayati Raj Bill.

We have reason the believe that the municipal bureaucracy like its counterparts in the district administration, also believes that sine qua non of responsive municipal administration is democratic municipal administration. But, in practice, democracy in municipal administration is either totally abrogated by arbitrary and prolonged suspensions, or is weakened, even nullified, by various provision which dilute the representative character of those bodies. There is the device of nomination and other such non - representational means of packing these bodies. There is the vesting of effective powers of decision - making in non - elected officials. There is the host of agencies that have sprung up outside the framework of democratically - elected municipal bodies to undertake not only the discretionary tasks of these bodies but even many of their obligatory tasks.

We would like you to advise us on how best we can make maximum democracy and maximum devolution, the leitmotif of our municipal administration.

At this stage of the consultative process, we have no proposals to put to you. We only have issues which we would like to pose for your consideration. We are open to suggestions regarding other issues which you think might be germane to our tasks. There is a substantial body of literature on the subject. There are the background papers to this conference which are in your hands. But above all we look to your rich personal experience to gain an understanding and an insight into the steps that must be taken to make municipal administration responsive, representative and responsible.

The first set of issues relates to the structure of municipal administration. The practice varies widely from one part of the country to the other. There is generally no accepted set of criteria regarding even what constitutes an urban agglomeration, let alone the manner in which it should be run.

At what stage, in your opinion, does a rural area start assuming an urban character? Is this merely a question of population - or are there other factors which would warrant a rural area being redesignates as urban? Further, are the existing gradations from a notified area to town to municipality to corporation appropriate and adequate? Indeed, are they meaningful at all? If they are, should there be some uniformity in determining the criteria which would distinguish, say, a town area committee from municipality?

Associated with this is the question of uniformity and diversity. Given a country as geographically diverse as ours is, with wide variations in such key variables as climate, natural geographic features, occupation patterns, density of population, and other factors perhaps it would be best to restrict the search for uniformity to basic principles and leave the rest to the immense variety of the country. But, put this way, the query really begs the question, because the moot point is: what are the basic principles that ought to be uniform?

In the Panchayati Raj system that we envisage for rural India, the basic unit of local self - government is the village panchayat, with each panch representing an electorate of somewhere between a hundred and five hundred voters.

Such a small electorate ensures ready access for every voter to the elected representative. It also ensures that the basic unit of decision making and implementation is intimately responsible to the people. There would be a transparency about the administrative actions of the unit because the general body of the electorates is aware of what are the functions that are to be performed. What is the money available for performing these functions, who are the entitled beneficiaries, and whether undue functions, who are the entitled beneficiaries, and whether undue favoritism is being shown or unjustified discrimination is being practiced. The system is bound to lead to more efficient implementation, less exploitation, reduced corruption and, we hope, the elimination of nepotism.

By the same token, should not the basic unit of urban administration be the equivalent of a village panchayat, say, a mohalla panchayat? There are, of course, many dissimilarities between the rural and the urban situation, notably the relative isolation of one village from another compared to the very strong linkages between one mohalla and the other, and the integrated nature of most of the services required by an urban agglomeration. Therefore, there can be no mere imitative replication of the village panchayat in the urban setting. But we would like you to consider what might be the optimal size of population for the basic unit of urban administration, and what might be the functions vested in this unit.

From this follows the question of the remaining levels of urban administration. Would the intermediate panchayat of the Panchyati Raj Bill find equivalent in the median size of population served by say, a notified area committee or a town committee? If so, should there be a two - tier system of local self - government for these bodies and, possibly, a three - tier system for Municipalities and Corporations? In considering the questions of levels of local self - government, we would like you to draw on your own experience, the historical experience of urban local self - government in India and other countries, as well as the imperative necessity of ensuring responsive democratic institutions at the grassroots level in urban India as in rural India.

The kind of suppressions we have experienced in municipal administration are incompatible with the norms of democracy. The Panchyati Raj Bill provides for regular elections every five years. It requires dissolved panchayats to be reconstituted within six months of dissolution to serve out the remainder of the term. And it establishes a system whereby all panchayats at all levels will simultaneously go to the polls at the expiry of their tenure. Should similar provisions be built into the Bill we are proposing to introduce to set the Constitutional framework for urban local self - government?

Existing practice in regard to reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and women in urban local bodies varies considerably from State to State. Some States like Goa, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Rajasthan provide for the reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their proportion of the total population. Other states use other formulae. Yet other States have no provisions at all for SC/ST reservations.

As regards reservations for women, no State can claim to have done justice to half of our population. At best, a token number of seats are reserved for women.

There are wide variations in the manner of choosing representatives to fill reserved seats. In some places, this is by straight - forward direct election; in many others, by nomination. Much the same position obtains in respect of Corporations, for which most States have separate Acts.

It is impossible for the weaker sections of society to secure adequate representation, full participation and an equitable share of the benefits of municipal administration unless there are reserved seats for SC/STs, at least in proportion to their proportion of the population, and a substantial share of reserved seats for women, Moreover, it is crucial that reserved seats for SC/STs be filled by direct election from reserved constituencies and not by nomination. Similarly, reserved seats for women also need to be filled by direct election and not nomination. How, in your view, should reservations operate?

We would like your views on whether the Chief Executive and his colleagues should be directly elected by the electorate or elected by, and from amongst, the elected members of the local bodies? Also, what in your view should be other forms of representation to be permitted in urban local bodies? Related to this is the issue of whether the Municipal commissioner or other Municipal officer should be responsible to the elected Chief Executive or to the State Government.

If democracy is to be assured through suitable constitutional provisions relating to the structure of local administration, elections and reservations, the kernel of responsive administration lies in the powers devolved to municipal bodies.

In the Panchayati Raj Bill, there are two broad stipulations in respect of the devolution of powers. First, plans drawn up by the panchayats are to constitute the basic inputs for the planning process. Moreover, each panchayat is to dovetail its plan for economic development into plans for social justice. We would like your views on these two separate but related points in respect of planning at different levels of municipal administration.

We would like you to share with us the role which you envisage for elected local bodies in the planning process. At present, there exist many different agencies outside the framework of democratically elected local bodies, to whom is entrusted most of the major tasks of urban planning. These include City Development Authorities and City Improvement Trusts, besides a number of State agencies, owing responsibilities to the State Government above, but not to the people below. If planning for economic development and social justice is to become the centerpiece of the activities of democratic local bodies, should all these other agencies be dissolved or merged into the elected local bodies? Or should they be kept separate and above the system, as at present? The answer you give should be compatible with our basic principle of maximum democracy and maximum devolution.

The second point relating to planning is the methodology for co - ordinating urban planning with rural planning. While it would, of course, be appropriate for urban and rural bodies respectively to plan matters which fall exclusively within their respective jurisdictions, it has to be recognised that growth impulses largely stem from the interaction between urban agglomerations and their rural hinterland. It is because the linkages between town and country are so crucial to growth that many state Governments have established bodies like the District Planning Board or the District Planning and Development Council to identify and strengthen these linkages. The tragedy is that, in the name of co - ordination, District planning Boards and DPDCs have been established outside the framework of democratically elected local bodies and generally placed under the control of a Minister appointed by the State Government.

Thus, the most crucial planning functions and much of the effective decision - making power, as also the allocation of the bulk of finances, has been vested in bodies which are outside the democratic framework of local government and are dominated by Ministers appointed by the State Government. I call it a tragedy because it is through these agencies that the elected authority is bypassed or over - ruled. In the name of co - ordination, the democracy is being sabotaged. In the name of coordination the will of elected local bodies is being subordinated to the will of the State Government. In the name of co - ordination, the people's will is being replaced by the will of officialdom.

What measure would you suggest to establish a democratic district planning body that would take account of linkages between town and country in the formulation of district plans? Should such a body be directly elected by the people? Or should the DPDC be elected by an electoral college comprising all the elected members of both the rural and the urban panchayats? Or should it be composed ex - official? We would need to be guide by your experience in this matter.

The second major act of devolution envisaged in the Panchayati Raj Bill is the implementation of development schemes relating to the subjects set out in the proposed Eleventh Schedule. We would wish you to pool your experience of the different State of India and suggest the subject which might be set out in a separate Schedule in respect of which Constitutional authority would be available for the meaningful devolution of powers to urban panchayats.

The financial condition of municipal bodies at all levels is pitiable. They most barely have the funds to sustain themselves. They are unable to even maintain community assets and services, let alone create new ones. Debt and default are widespread. There is fiscal irresponsibility allied to financial indiscipline.

The sound finances of urban institutions of local self - government is a matter of critical importance. Much of the wealth of India is generated in urban India. Its rates of which municipal bodies sit on, namely, urban land, is a very valuable commodity whose value goes on increasing rapidly. We would like you to examine in depth all questions relating to the financial health of urban bodies. You have numerous reports on the subject prepared by Committees established by both the Central and State Governments. You have in the Panchayati Raj Bill the proposal for the establishment of a State Finance Commission to set out principles on the basis of which taxes may be assigned to, or appropriated by the Panchayati Raj institutions at different levels. Then there are the grants - in aid from the Consolidated Fund of the State and funds from Centrally - sponsored schemes. Should the proposed State Finance Commission also set out similar principals for financial devolution to urban local bodies? Should there be Centrally - sponsored schemes for urban areas? There is also the question of access for municipal bodies to institutional finance and the capital market.

We would like your consideration of these financial questions to be guided by the sentiments expressed by Jawaharlal Nehru when he presented his first report as Chairman of the Allahabad Municipality sixty six years ago. He said: "The first necessity of a municipal administration is financial equilibrium… But we want to stand on our own legs and do not believe in a municipality being habitually carried on promise of doles."

Finally, we would like you to consider issues that are vital for efficient municipal administration but are not, perhaps, amendable to settlement through a Constitutional provision.

For example, what should be the relationship between the municipal bureaucracy and the elected municipal representatives? How does one ensure harmony and co - operative relations between the municipal bureaucracy and the democratically administration be carried out at the behest of the elected representatives rather than by bureaucratic fiat, however benevolent and well - intentioned? And what mechanisms of co - ordination are required between the district bureaucracy and the municipal bureaucracy?

We would also wish you to consider the sort of training and orientation the municipal bureaucracy would require to fit itself in with the new democratic system. In this context, would it be advisable to have municipal civil service separate from the existing Provincial Civil Service and the IAS?

I am posing several questions. I do not wish to pre - empty the answers. We have hypothesis in our mind, some of which are implicit in the issues I have raised and in the points set out in the issues paper. But our mind is open. We have not closed any options.

I look forward to spending several hours with you in panel discussions. I hope you will be frank and uninhibited. We seek your advice because we value your advice. We hope you will give us your advice freely and frankly. We shall then carry the debate forward to political levels. The final decisions will, of course, be ours, but they will be based on a consultative process without precedent in regard to either its intensity or its extent.

We are determined to give power to the people. But in determining the mode and modalities of doing so, we wish to begin with the Municipal officers who, by virtue of their experience and expertise, are best suited to set the ball rolling.

Dimensions of Panchayati Raj and
Nagarpalika Bills

I HAVE BEEN following with the closest interest this important debate on the Panchayati Raj and Nagarpalika Bills. These 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 than 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 andlarge, it appears to me, there is general acceptance of the need for maximum democracy and maximum devolution. What is disputed are matters of Constitutional jurisdiction, political propriety, electoral motivation and legislative detail. Allow me 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. The competence of State legislatures to deal with all municipal legislation relying 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 Governments to formulate and pass the necessary orders to realise the objectives of these Constitutional Amendments. The only point I would wish to stress is that all municipal law has to conform to the provisions of the Constitution. These two Amendments, when passed, will set the Constitutional stage on the basis of which State Legislatures will undertake detailed legislation.

Third, it is erroneous and misleading to say, as some members opposite have alleged, that what we have attempted to do is to draft detailed municipal legislation by the backdoor 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. The answer is simple.

A uniform structure means a uniform pattern and degrees of democratic representation in the local bodies. Why should 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 no more than about five thousand five hundred persons - five thousand in the State Legislatures and around five hundred in Parliament - to directly represent 800 million people. The 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 grassroots problems attended to. The Panchayati Raj and Nagarpalika Bills will generate so many lakhs of elected grassroots representatives that the distance between the voter and his representative would be drastically reduced, the power - brokers would be driven from their perches, and grassroots problems would receive grassroots attention. There is no reason why these benefits should not reach the people in a more or less uniform manner throughout the country. That objective can only be secured by uniformity in the structure of local bodies.

The 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. The 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 or 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 Chairmen of Village Panchayats. In a directly elected Panchayat Samiti it is entirely feasible to reserve seats for Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population, as also to reserve 30 percent of the seats for women, If, however, the Panchayat Samiti is not a directly elected body but only a committee of the Chairmen of the Village Panchayats, how is one to secure proportionate representation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or 30 percents 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 recognising 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 recognising and affirming that, in a country like India, the only unity that is possible is by a large - hearted acceptance of diversity. Respect for diversity means recognishing that palm tress grow in some parts of the country and the chinar grows elsewhere. But what has this to do with the oppression of Harijans or Advisees or discriminations 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 Carnation Kriti in Thanjavur, 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?

That the Advises of Rajasthan should be treated differently to the Advises of Madhya Pradesh? That 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 mores. I repeat 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 appear 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 remotest village of our vast and varied country? I toured hundreds of villages. I spoke to countless people. There, 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 conundrum. That 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. The first one was held at Bhopal. I invited Chief Minister Vora to join us - he accepted. The second one was held 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 Minister to talk to District Magistrates?

When it came to meetings with village pradhans and sarpanches, Panchayat Samiti Chairmen and Presidents of Zila Parishads, we took care to seek the co - operation of at least two Opposition - run State Governments in holding these Sammelans. Chief Minister Jyoti Basu kindly greed to co - operate 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 Government failed to host the South Zone Sammelan that was not on account of any failings 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, them the bureaucracy, including District Magistrates, Chief Secretaries and Secretaries to the Government of India; and then the Panchayat and Local Self - Government 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 have come to his House, at the culmination of a process of open, transparent consultation without precedent in the history of independent India. The Amendments we present are the distilled essence of the views of thousands of elected local body representatives, hundreds of District Magistrates, scores of senior Government servants, and dozens of Ministers and Chief Ministers. There is no impropriety on our part. The only impropriety has lain in the discourtesy with which a well - intentioned invitation was turned down.

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 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, 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 Program under the rubric "Responsive Administration".

At that time, I must confess, we were in quest of managerial solutions to unresponsive administration. We were looking to a simplification of procedures, grievance redressal machinery, single - window clearances, computerisation and courtesy as the answers to the problem. As we went along, we discovered that managerial solution would not do, What was needed was a systemic solution.

The Panchayati Raj and Nagarpalika Bills constitute the most significant 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 grassroots administration without political authority was like a meal without salt. We learnt that however well - intentioned our district 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 even 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 grassroots with the responsibility for their own development. We learnt that callousness could 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.

The Panchayati Raj and Nagarpalika Bill are not only instruments for bringing democracy and devolution to every chaupal, every chabutra, to angan and dalan. They are also a charter for ending bureaucratic oppression, technocratic tyranny, crass inefficiency, bribery, re - tapism, nepotism, corruption and the million other malfeasance's that afflict the poor of our villages, towns and cities. The Bills are the warrant for ending the reign of the power - brokers, of the intermediaries whom Shakespeare called "the caterpillars of the common - wealth".

These Bills fill a yawning gap in the country's polity. They 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 repined for consideration by our august Houses of Parliament. There is nothing sudden or surprising about the timing of these Bills.

There is another point I would wish to stess. Elections come and go. The consequences of these Constitutional Amendments will far outlast the outcome of the forthcoming general elections. These Amendments will become a sacred obligation on all Governments, whether at the Centre or in the States, whether run by the Congress or any Opposition Party. There 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 Center and there in the States, a responsibility as much of 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. Those 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.

I would now like to deal with some of the matters in 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 State Governments in regard to responsibilities assigned to them by the Constitution.

The confusion appears to arise out of confounding the legislative lists of the Seventh Schedule and the lists incorporated in the Proposed Eleventh and Twelfth Schedules. The Union, Sate and Concurrent lists detailed in the Seventh Schedule deal with the respective legislative competence of the Union, the States, and the Union and States together. The Eleventh and Twelfth Schedules, on the other hand, constitute an illustrative listing of subjects in respect of which development programs might be implemented by Panchayats and Nagarpalikas respectively. These are subjects regarding which understanding at the local level is likely to be much more profound 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 ministrations of official agencies. The Eleventh and Twelfth Schedules 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 the Eleventh and Twelfth Schedules is the path along which effective devolution might be pursued to render the Panchayats and Nagarpalikas into vibrant, dynamic, meaningful institutions of local self - government.

It is explicitly stated in the Constitutional Amendments now before the House that it would be for State Legislatures to lay down the legislative parameters of devolution and for State - Governments to give practical effect to those parameters. We recognise that the precise pattern of devotion 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 State Legislatures and Sate Governments. Those State Governments that live up to the expectations of the people will receive the endorsement of the people. Those who fail the people will receive the rejection they deserve. Our sanction is the people's vote. The 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 opened to them by these Constitutional Amendments.

Surprisingly little has been said in this debate about heart of the Amendments, which is the provision for 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. The people themselves are not consulted at all, or are consulted but perfunctorily. Through 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 tureing into a town governed by a Nagar Panchayat, or in a town governed by a Municipal Council, or 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, provision for reservations ensures that the Panchayat or Nagarpalika undertaking the planning exercise will be adequately weighted with the weaker sections of society. That in itself will contribute to a heightened social consciousness in the preparation of plans. But these constitutional provisions go even further. They make the completion of any plan prepared by a Panchayat or 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 Gujrat, which has pioneered the Social Justice Committees in Panchayats, social justice has been an adjunct to the planning process, these 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 Parishad for harmonising and consolidation by a Committee elected by members of the Zila Parishad and the Nagarpalikas. This Committee for district planning incorporates members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population in the district and reserve 30 percent of the seats for women; Thus, the very composition of the District Planning Committee is such as to ensure the integration of social justice with economic planning in district plans. This holds true equally of the elected body being established for metropolitan planning.

These Constitutional Amendments presage an entirely new era in planning, not only in terms of detailed consultations with 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 half - hearted attempt by some members of the Opposition to raise a laugh by pointing to one lacuna or the other in the Eleventh and Twelfth Schedules. These digs would have a purpose if there had been any attempt to make Eleventh and Twelfth 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 programs and projects might be entrusted toelected local bodies instead of being carried out, as present, by cold, remote official agencies. It is by being held responsible for the implementation of programs that local bodies will become truly responsible to the people. It is when representatives 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, provide the first - ever platform of rural - urban interaction on development issues. This in itself will contribute of a higher awareness of various problems of social injustice and the remedial measures required to rectify them. Trough the proposed Metropolitan Planning Authority, India becomes one of the first developing countries in the world to provide a platform for interaction between the State and the Central authorities and the elected representatives of urban and adjacent rural local bodies, thus integrating the demands of the 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 responsibilities that will develop on local bodies for the implementation of programs. Some States will go further than others. Some variation in the degree and pattern of devolution would be justified and acceptable. But any State government which transgresses and the spirit of these Amendments will have to face the wrath of the people.

We, at the Centre, have made a beginning in trusting the local bodies to implement their own programs. The Jawahar Rozgar Yojana and the Nehru Rozgar Yojana are the earnest of our commitment to 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 form 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. Their problems will now be solved at their doorstep. 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.

As regards the sound finances of the Panchayats and Nagarpalikas, we propose entrusting this responsibility to the Finance Commissions envisaged in the Constitutional Amendments. 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 Amendments, they have not comprehended the essential differences between the two. Whereas the Finance Commission established under Article 280 effects the actual allocation of resources between the Centre and the States, the Finance Commissions referred to in these Amendments would limit themselves to the principles on the basis of which allocations might be made between the States and the local bodies. The 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 Center, 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 State Governments, both those run by our party and those run by Opposition Parties undertake a similar exercise in self - enlightenment.

The Constitutional Amendments entrust to the Comptroller and Auditor General 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 existing State machinery nor undertake any substantial augmentation of the staff in the CAG's office. What the CAG is being mandated to do is to examine exiting 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. There is no question of requiring the CAG to himself take over the direct responsibility for accounting and auditing. The 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 amendments of suggest that the existing machinery for the conduct of elections to local bodies would have to be dismantled. The Election Commission will conduct the elections through State Electoral Officers and their staff. Also as elections are going to be regular, and arbitrary, prolonged suspensions are to be outlawed, it would be essential to further strengthen the existing machinery. The important change we are effecting is not in centralizing the conduct of elections but in bringing the process of election to 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 legislation have greatly added to the workload of the Commission. The responsibilities envisaged for then under the Panchayati Raj and Nagarpalika Bills will further increase the Chief Election Commissioner's responsibilities.

We seek no confrontation on these Bills. In preparing these Bills, we have drawn upon the experience of all, of Congress States as much as of non - Congress States. We have freely and repeatedly 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. There are negative lessons also to be learnt, as we have freely and fully admitted, from inadequate or insufficient Panchayati Raj and Nagarpalika administration in some non - Congress States as well as in some Congress States. There in no partisan politics in this. Our only interest is the national interest, the interests of development, the interests of the poor, the interests 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 forbears) to the two Communist Parties (and their forbears).

We invite all the Parties in the House to join hands with us in passing these Bills. The Bills are for the people. The Bills are for their welfare, their benefit. The Bills are to give power in the hands of the people. The Bills are to end the reign of the power - brokers. The Bills are to entrust responsibility to the grassroots. The Bills are to give representative administration. The Bills are to involve the people's participation in planning and implementation in development and social justice. The 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 and well - founded. The Bills represent the realisation of Mahatma Gandhi's vision. The Bills represent the fulfillment of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's dream. The Bills are the outgrowth of Indiraji's endeavors.

I invite the House to pass these Bills unanimously. Those who support these Bills will earn the people's gratitude. Those who oppose these Bills will fail the people and live to rue their lapse.