With a new Amendment on decentralization of power being planned, one has to ask what happened to the old plans made through the 73rd and 74th Amendment to the Constitution of India.

On April 2nd, the Union Minister for Urban Affairs, Ghulam Nabi Azad made a statement that the current government plans to bring in a constitutional amendment for increased delegation of powers to civic bodies.

He made this statement while addressing the World Mayors’ Conference at Kochi, adding that the failure of the past amendments was owing to the unwillingness of the states to part with power. Civic bodies empowered through this new amendment would include Panchayats, Municipal Corporations, etc.

The Hindu reported that the Government intended to make devolution of power by State Governments to local bodies mandatory so that the local bodies could access Central funds for urban infrastructure improvement. The Government also planned to improve the quality of urban governance, to provide tools for e-governance to all municipal bodies and to assist local bodies in developing political willingness and administrative capability to implement principles of good governance.

On the face of it, the plan for devolution of power and decentralization of governance is commendable. However, was that not the purpose of the 73rd Amendment which was supposed to be further strengthened by the 74th Amendment?

The 73rd Amendment of the Constitution of India, was meant to empower institutions of Panchayati Raj as feasible bodies of self-governance. Panchayati Raj Institutions were to serve as instruments of planning for economic development and social justice. The amendment excited the democracy and in fact was feted by institution and scholars around the world. It was seen as the much awaited fulfillment of the Directive Principles – the guiding vision of the Constitution of India.

However, the lack of political will at the very onset made this amendment quite meaningless. Shortly after the 73rd Amendment, the Parliament of India passed a Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme, which allows Members of Parliament (MPs) to spend Rs.2 crores a year towards local area development, independent of local civic bodies.

In fact, a report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (2001) showed that this scheme was badly planned; it not only lacked funds but was also severely affected by misuse and diversion of money. In addition, most of the plans undertaken by these schemes were within the jurisdiction of these institutions of self governance to be empowered by the 73rd and 74th Amendments, as per the 11th and 12th Schedules. There clearly was an insecurity associated with decentralization and the MPs created a scheme to weaken this process.

In addition, political scholars have critiqued that the very words in Amendment was revised, changing the empowerment of self governing units, as demanded by the Directive Principles, self governing institutions, as included in the Amendment. The difference is not academic. Institutions are the arm of the state, while units refer to autonomous entities within the nation that are accountable to the people.
It is also significant that the number of centrally funded projects has increased (from 30% in the 1980s to 70% by the first few years of the new millennium) since the 73rd Amendment showing that there really has not been a decentralization of power or empowerment of local self-governing bodies.

In addition, while the Amendment demands that elections to these local self-governments be held with general elections, most stayed have avoided doing so under various pretexts. Differences between central and state governments have not helped the situation. In fact, it is only owing to legal intervention by non-government bodies that led to elections in a few states such as West Bengal, Bihar and Assam. Arunachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Punjab and Pondichery had not held Panchayat elections till April 2004.

As per the Amendment, to facilitate decentralized planning the state governments are required to set up District Planning Committees (DPCs) which are to prepare composite development plans. Some states such as Haryana and Tamil Nadu have made government officials the chairpersons of these bodies. Madhya Pradesh, for example, has asked various State government ministers to chair the DPC. Thus, the power of these institutions has been eroded by taking away their autonomy. This contravenes the very spirit of the 73rd Amendment. Some large States such as Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and Gujarat have not yet formed these committees.

Yet other states have formed parallel village-level structures that take away from the power of the Panchayats such water user groups in Uttar Pradesh, Gram Vikas Samitis in Haryana, vigilance committees in Himachal Pradesh, village protection committees in Gujarat, and watershed committees in Rajasthan. Sometimes these parallel bodies are being promoted by donor agencies. In fact, in most cases all these interventions have only served to increase bureaucracy.

Given these dynamics, it is not clear how another Amendment will help decentralization. We are not lacking for laws. As in many other areas, we have not had the political will to implement our laws. Would the honorable Union Minister for Urban Affairs please explain how he plans to address the latter without wasting more of our time with the former?

- Sanat Mohanty

Related Articles
NGOs, Market Forces and Foreign Funding - Part I
NGOs, Market Forces and Foreign Funding - Part III
Bonded Labor Laws Lack Enforcement
Governments Fail to Address Global Mercury Crisis