Political decentralization has not been matched by administrative decentralization at the grass roots level. Explain. (2019, 10 Marks)
Political decentralisation transfers authority to elected local representatives; administrative decentralisation transfers planning, management and staff. Dennis Rondinelli graded the latter as deconcentration (to field officers of the centre), delegation (to semi-autonomous agencies) and devolution (to autonomous local governments with their own staff and revenue); fiscal decentralisation concerns money. The 73rd and 74th Amendments legislated the first and left the second to the states.
Political decentralisation: achieved
- Mandatory elections every five years (243E), a State Election Commission (243K), and SC, ST and women’s reservation (243D) — about 32 lakh representatives, some 46% of them women.
- Indefinite supersession ended; the elected tier now exists everywhere.
Administrative decentralisation: withheld
- Functions — Article 243G says states “may” devolve; the 29 Eleventh Schedule subjects are a menu. Line departments keep agriculture, schools and health, and activity maps seldom move a budget head.
- Functionaries — Part IX is silent on staff. The panchayat secretary, often shared among several panchayats, is a state employee answerable upward; payments usually need the Block Development Officer‘s countersignature; teachers and health workers report to their departments. What exists is deconcentration dressed as devolution.
- Parallel bodies — Collector-chaired rural development agencies (merged into zila parishads only after 2022), scheme committees with their own accounts, and MPLADS occupy the panchayat’s field.
- Funds — transfers are inadequate and mostly tied; panchayats raise about one per cent of revenue themselves, and little has been done to build property tax or user charges.
The Status of Devolution to Panchayats in States 2024 puts the national index at 43.9%, with finances weakest. The outcome is an elected head without an administration, bargaining with the block — the “Sarpanch Raj” the Mani Shankar Aiyar Committee described — and a body whose legitimacy wanes because it cannot deliver.
Why the gap
The Ashok Mehta Committee (1978) blamed bureaucrats and state politicians for weakening panchayats: officials resist losing control of resources, and legislators fear rival local power centres. With local government a State List subject, the Amendment negotiated with states mandated elections but not cadres.
Counter-view and remedy
Kerala transferred institutions and their staff in the mid-1990s, and Karnataka tops the index — the gap is political choice, not destiny. Remedies: “shall” in place of “may”; activity mapping under subsidiarity (2nd ARC); a local government cadre; elected heads appraising officials; and Kerala’s code of conduct between officials and representatives.
Conclusion
India has devolved the ballot but only deconcentrated the bureaucracy. Until functions, staff and funds follow the vote, panchayats will remain elected bodies run by someone else’s administration.