This year is the 30th anniversary of the passing of the 73rd and 74th Amendments. Indian governance was always overcentralised. But it is a sign of the times that even the modest steps these amendments took towards decentralisation now seem to belong to an alien intellectual and political world. In a moment of authoritarian centralisation, the idea of deepening democracy by creating structures of inclusive governance seems like a pipe dream.
Indian democracy since Independence never really had a commitment to decentralisation. Despite performative obeisance to the idea by the state, decentralisation has always been hostage to a number of contradictory impulses. Initially, there was the presumption that centralised power would be required to break the power of local elites, never mind the fact that there is little evidence that the outcomes of decentralisation would have been worse than what we eventually got. The existing tiers of government, both central and state, wanted to hoard most of the resources. India has the lowest spending on local government as a proportion of resources. And the ideology of Gandhian decentralisation, oddly enough, militated against genuine political decentralisation.
For, in this imagination, decentralisation was not a devolution of power and resources. It was the creation of an idealistic imagined space that would be above politics; that would free it from the usual give and take and contests of politics. Local government would be held to a higher standard than other tiers of governance. For example, we take partisanship and competition to be central to politics elsewhere. But somehow we expected panchayats to be this font of consensus (some states give incentives for election by consensus). And, it has to be said, there was no serious demand side push for decentralisation.
The 73rd and 74th amendments did achieve a lot. In some areas, they led to the state acquiring a distinct presence on the ground; they gave millions of citizens identities as representatives; they provided a conduit for sharing power; they created deliberative spaces, led to the creation of new norms, especially around the participation of women and a churn in local elites. They slowly built up local capacities, and led to a wide range of functions being devolved to local government.
Also Read | Soon, law for 50% woman quota in local bodies
Local government was often the object of condescension: The general story we ran was that the state at lower tiers of government is incompetent, while you get a better state at the higher level. It is often the reverse: The state at local levels is competent, it is just constantly being let down by lack of support and investment from the top. Fiscal resources that local governments managed went up considerably, in part paradoxically through central schemes like NREGA, and increased finance commission awards. In some, the very pathologies associated with local elections were also a tribute to its success. The fact that local political competition became intense in many states, and in some cases, political spending in local elections acquired obscene proportions, was a backhanded tribute to the stakes in local governance.
The experience of local governments varies across states; it is more deeply practised and institutionalised in states like Kerala. But, as articles in a recent symposium on decentralisation in the March issue of Seminar magazine point out, the glass of decentralisation still remains at best half full. The tension between thinking of local government as mere administrative conduits versus autonomous political actors, the constraints placed on them by a combination of bureaucratic control and deliberate underinvestment in capacity, and the lack of political pathways for successful panchayat performers to rise in their parties, limit their salience.
Technology has been a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can create local capacity; on the other, it has been used to largely bypass political negotiation and control. The lack of clarity over municipal governance, and the hijacking of cities by the political economy of contracting, makes the idea of cities being governed by some sort of collective deliberation a bit of a joke.
Local government requires many technical, administrative and financial fixes. There is a case to be made that the distinction between the 73rd and 74th amendments is now obsolete. Jayalalithaa, when she was chief minister, had first made the case for a unified district-level local government rather than a distinction between urban and rural. Many of the decisions consequential for India’s urbanisation, like land use change, for example, are being made in “panchayats”; there is arbitrage over how a settlement gets classified, and rural and urban is now, at best, a continuum. There are many such discussions to be had. For years, so many colleagues at the Centre for Policy Research were engaged with these matters. But these issues now seem to belong to another time, even another country.
Most Read 1As Indo-Canadian relations sour, anxiety grips Indian students, residents who wish to settle in Canada 2Jawan box office collection day 13: Shah Rukh Khan film to pass Rs 900 crore globally, just days away from overtaking Pathaan 3Gadar 2 box office collection day 40: Hit by Shah Rukh Khan’s Jawan onslaught, Sunny Deol movie ends BO run with Rs 45 lakh earning 4Farida Jalal recalls the time when Amitabh Bachchan-Jaya Bachchan were dating: ‘They would pick me up at night, we would go for long drives’ 5Vicky Kaushal on ‘privileged’ Bollywood actors pretending to be middle class: ‘It’s a very tiring process’Also Read | Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes: Ukraine tragedy has become a sideshow for rest of the world, which may be sleepwalking into a disastrous future
Proponents of decentralisation now have to contend with three large uncomfortable facts. The first is that despite significant changes brought about by the 73rd and 74th amendments, has the needle on the demand side of decentralisation moved much? Which is the constituency or movement that will put its weight behind local governance? Or will any incremental reforms we get remain, like in 1993, a product of accidental conjunctures, easily blown away with the first whiff of resistance. And oddly enough, even in cases where local governments have the power, are they willing to exercise it?
Secondly, the guiding philosophy behind decentralisation was a faith in institutions. These were meant to be the pathways to inclusive growth and active citizenship. You cannot have inclusive growth without inclusive governance, so went the mantra. It was part of a range of reforms that sought to redesign the architecture of the Indian state. The state would be better served by decentralisation than centralisation, transparency instead of opacity (hence the RTI Act), public reason instead of administrative discretion (hence independent regulators), local capacity instead of concentrated authority, active participation instead of subject status. This faith placed in the power of institutions seems naïve at this historical juncture; institutions cannot withstand concerted social and ideological forces.
Also ReadPratap Bhanu Mehta writes on new Parliament: India’s age of ambitionWith G20-IMEC plan, the global order shifts to EurasiaValues Kota imparted: Anxiety and building a future on a butchered presentWill reservation really help Indian women?Must Read OpinionsTransition to new Parliament building: The infrastructural nationalism is symbolic of our timesSale of ‘The Story Teller’ and the defiance of Amrita Sher-GilWomen’s reservation Bill – finally, a House of equalityClick here for more
Finally, as the 30th anniversary celebrations roll out, we will all tick off the world beating achievements of these amendments: The largest number of elected representatives, the biggest political affirmative action programme, the largest number of village assemblies and so forth. These achievements are real. But this talk will reveal much about our attitudes to democracy: We like the idea, we are exhilarated by it, but we will do the best we can to ensure that democracy becomes more and more a performance. The non-seriousness about the 73rd and 74th amendments is a lack of seriousness about democracy itself.
The writer is Contributing Editor at The Indian Express