Evolution of Panchayati Raj in India

What grassroots democracy means and why the idea matters

PSIR Optional Notes {PDF}

Complete Notes Package (Paper I & II) | 1500+ Pages | Instant Download

Discounted Price | Buy Now @ ₹1000 →

Grassroots democracy is the claim that democracy is unfinished until power reaches the level at which people actually live. A national franchise settles who governs; it says nothing about whether a landless labourer in a village of eight hundred people has any say over the drain outside her house, the school her child attends, or the muster roll that records her wages. Grassroots democracy is the attempt to close that distance.

• Grassroots democracy denotes the empowerment of people at the lowest level of political organisation — and in the Indian context it specifically means the empowerment of the most vulnerable and marginalised: Dalits, Adivasis, women, and the rural poor.
• The idea rests on the historical expansion of political equality, which has moved outward in stages: from kings to landed and propertied elites, from elites to the masses, and only most recently towards the most vulnerable within the masses.
  • Each stage was resisted by those who held power at the previous stage, which is why every expansion of the franchise or of representation has been a political struggle rather than an administrative reform.
  • Grassroots democracy is the last and least completed stage of that sequence, because it asks the powerful to surrender not the vote but the decision.
• Democracy substantively means giving power to the powerless and voice to the voiceless. Formal equality before the law does not disturb a village hierarchy in which one caste owns the land, another supplies the labour, and a third is not permitted to draw water from the common well.
• The moral core of the idea is dignity. There is no dignity without empowerment, no empowerment without development, and no development without empowerment — a circle that can only be broken by giving people institutional control over the resources that shape their lives.
• Grassroots democracy also carries an epistemic claim: local people possess knowledge of local conditions that no district officer or central planner can acquire, so decisions taken locally are not merely more legitimate but more likely to be correct.

The two forms of grassroots democracy

• Institutional grassroots democracy works through created bodies of local self-government — panchayats in rural areas and municipalities in urban areas — which are elected, funded, and given a statutory or constitutional mandate.
  • Its instrument is the ballot and the budget line; its logic is incorporation into the state.
  • Its weakness is that a body created by the state can be starved, superseded or dissolved by the state, which is precisely the pre-1992 Indian story.
• Radical or movement-based grassroots democracy works through social movements that mobilise outside institutional channels — tribal movements, Dalit movements, environmental and land-rights struggles, and campaigns for transparency.
  • Its instrument is collective action, disruption and public claim-making; its logic is pressure upon the state rather than incorporation into it.
  • Its weakness is impermanence: a movement wins a demand and dissolves, leaving no standing institution to defend the gain.
• The two forms are complementary rather than rival. Movements generate the capacity, consciousness and demand that institutions require in order to function; institutions convert movement demands into durable entitlements.

Subsidiarity: the norm India adopted in principle and ignored in practice

• Subsidiarity is the fundamental principle of good governance underpinning all decentralisation: what can be done at the local level should not be done at the state level, and what can be done at the state level should not be done at the centre.
  • The burden of proof rests on centralisation, not on devolution — an authority must justify why a function should be pulled upward, not why it should be left below.
• India accepted subsidiarity rhetorically and abandoned it operationally. Successive reviews of Indian federalism have had to keep re-proposing it, and the standard remedial device — activity mapping, which assigns each function, sub-function and activity to a specified tier with matching funds and staff — has been recommended repeatedly and implemented thinly.
• The consequence is that Indian local government has been given subjects without tasks: lists of what panchayats may do, unaccompanied by any binding allocation of who does what, with whose money and whose staff.
• Subsidiarity’s neglect explains a recurring Indian pathology: parallel agencies and centrally designed schemes occupy the functional space that local bodies were created to fill, and the elected body becomes a spectator in its own jurisdiction.

Why the village was the site of the argument

At independence the overwhelming majority of Indians lived in villages, and those villages carried a poverty that was not natural but inherited — the residue of a colonial revenue system, of deindustrialisation, and of an agrarian structure in which the cultivator was rarely the owner. Any serious programme of national reconstruction had to begin where the people were. The disagreement was never about whether rural India mattered; it was about whether the village was an instrument of liberation or a structure of bondage.

• Poverty was understood as deprivation, and hunger as the worst form of deprivation — a framing that made the ownership of land, not merely the delivery of services, the central question.
• One side answered with land reform plus panchayati raj — give the tiller the land and the village control over local resources; the other with industrialisation, planning and a modern administrative state, treating the village as an object of development rather than a subject of self-rule.

The historical inheritance: village republics and their reality

Panchayats before colonial rule

• Village-level assemblies of some kind are attested across long stretches of Indian history, and nationalist scholarship assembled them into a continuous tradition of indigenous local self-government.
• Mauryan administration ran a graded territorial hierarchy in which the village was the base unit under a headman, with officials supervising groups of villages for revenue, records and rudimentary policing — an administrative rather than a democratic arrangement.
• Chola inscriptions record village and locality assemblies with committees for tanks, gardens and temple funds, and elaborate procedures for selecting members — the most detailed evidence of functioning local bodies anywhere in the pre-modern record.
• The continuity is real, but its content is not democratic in the modern sense: these were bodies of standing, property and caste, not of universal membership.

The “village republic” and the romance built upon it

“The village communities are little republics, having nearly everything they want within themselves and almost independent of any foreign relations.” — Charles Metcalfe, Minute of 1830

• Metcalfe’s formulation described the village as a self-contained unit that survived dynastic collapse, invasion and famine because it depended on nothing outside itself — a description written by a colonial administrator explaining why Indian society appeared static.
• The image was then inverted and adopted by Indian nationalism. What Metcalfe offered as evidence of stagnation, nationalist writers took as evidence of an indigenous democratic genius destroyed by colonial rule, and it supplied the historical warrant for Gandhi’s village swaraj.
• The empirical reality behind the romance was the caste council. The body that actually governed the village was not an assembly of all its residents but a council of dominant-caste elders, and the sanctions it applied — excommunication, denial of water and grazing, ritual humiliation, physical punishment — fell hardest on those with least standing.
  • Membership was determined by birth, land and gender, and the labouring castes had no voice in the body that disposed of their disputes.
  • The village’s celebrated self-sufficiency rested on a division of labour that was hereditary and coercive; its autonomy was the autonomy of the dominant, not of the resident.
• The village was also not the isolate the thesis required. It was integrated into revenue systems, market circuits, pilgrimage networks and state authority; the “little republic” was a colonial abstraction rather than an observed unit.
• This distinction between the village as normative ideal and the village as sociological fact is the axis on which the entire constitutional debate of 1948 would turn.

The village republic was a colonial description that Indian nationalism adopted as a memory and Indian social reform rejected as an alibi.

Colonial local government: devolution of deficits, not of power

• Lord Mayo’s Resolution of 1870 initiated financial decentralisation, transferring specified heads of expenditure — police, education, roads, sanitation — to provincial governments with fixed grants, on the reasoning that provinces would economise on money they had to raise themselves.
  • Its motive was imperial fiscal stress following costly wars, not any belief in local self-rule — but it established the administrative logic on which all later local government in India was built: give a body a task and a shortfall, and let it find the money.
• Lord Ripon’s Resolution of 18 May 1882 on Local Self-Government is rightly called the Magna Carta of local self-government, and Ripon is conventionally described as its founding figure.
  • It proposed local boards at district and sub-district level with a substantial elected non-official majority and, wherever possible, a non-official chairman.
  • It stated the purpose in strikingly candid terms: local bodies were to be an instrument of political and popular education, and efficiency was to be subordinated to that educative purpose.
  • Its implementation was thin. Provincial governments diluted the elective principle, franchises remained narrow and property-based, district officers retained control, and the district magistrate typically continued as chairman for decades.
• The Royal Commission upon Decentralisation (appointed 1907, reporting 1909) under Sir Henry Primrose — with R. C. Dutt among its members — was the first official body to argue that decentralisation had to begin below the district.
  • It recommended reviving and constituting village panchayats, giving them summary jurisdiction over petty civil and criminal disputes, village sanitation, primary school buildings, and the management of common fuel and fodder reserves.
  • It recommended sub-district boards in every taluka or tehsil, and greater taxing autonomy plus grants-in-aid for municipalities.
  • Almost none of it was implemented; the Resolution of 1915 conceded the principle and changed nothing.
• The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and the Government of India Act 1919 made local self-government a “transferred” subject under dyarchy, placed in the charge of an Indian minister responsible to a partly elected provincial legislature.
  • Several provinces passed village panchayat Acts in the 1920s, and the elected element in local bodies genuinely widened.
  • But the transfer was fiscally hollow: finance remained a “reserved” subject under the Governor’s official half of the executive, so Indian ministers acquired responsibility for local government without control of the revenues that could make it work.
• The Government of India Act 1935 introduced provincial autonomy, and the Congress ministries of 1937-39 legislated further on panchayats — but local government remained a provincial subject dependent on provincial grace, which is exactly the constitutional position India would inherit in 1950.

• The verdict on the colonial track is unambiguous. Local government under the Raj was a device of financial devolution and elite co-option, designed to distribute the costs of administration and to attach a stratum of Indian notables to the colonial order.
  • Its franchise was property-based and minuscule, its elected members drawn from landholders, lawyers and merchants, its executive authority retained by the district officer.
  • It was local administration under supervision, not local self-government — and it left India with a bureaucratic template of local control that survived transfer of power intact.

The constitutional founding: Gandhi, Ambedkar, Nehru and Article 40

Gandhi’s village swaraj

• Gandhi’s argument was not administrative but civilisational: independence that merely transferred a centralised colonial state into Indian hands would leave the structure of domination untouched, and swaraj had to mean self-rule at the level where people live.
• His village swaraj was a village that was a complete republic, independent of its neighbours for its vital wants and interdependent with them for the rest — self-governing, largely self-provisioning, and organised around production for use.
• His model of the polity inverted the conventional hierarchy of power:

“Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose centre will be the individual… ever ready to perish for the village.” — M. K. Gandhi, Harijan, 1946

• The oceanic circle replaced the pyramid with ever-widening, never-ascending circles: the individual at the centre, then the village, then widening circles of association, with the outer circles deriving strength from the inner ones rather than commanding them. It is subsidiarity expressed as a moral image.
• Land to the tiller was the first of his two rural strategies. Hunger, being the worst form of deprivation, could not be met by relief or by extension services; it could only be met by changing who owned the land.
• Panchayati raj was the second, and it followed from the first: giving villages control over local resources would produce development that was equitable and sustainable, because those bearing the consequences would be making the decisions.
• Panchayats also meant minimum government. Government in practice means bureaucracy, and Gandhi’s strand of thought — genuinely anarchist in its distrust of the state, though never anti-social — held that what can be done by voluntary cooperation among people should not be done by officials at all.
• A third argument was simply efficiency of redress: local government lets people solve their own problems quickly and at minimum cost, without travelling to a district headquarters to petition a stranger.

Ambedkar’s demolition

• Ambedkar’s rejection was categorical, delivered on 4 November 1948 while presenting the Draft Constitution, and it went to the sociological reality that the village-republic thesis suppressed.

“What is the village but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism?” — B. R. Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly, 4 November 1948

• He conceded the survival of village communities and denied that survival proved anything: “mere survival has no value.” Their durability was the durability of a structure of graded inequality, not of a democratic tradition.
• His constitutional conclusion followed directly: “I am glad that the Draft Constitution has discarded the village and adopted the individual as its unit.” The Constitution’s function was to rescue the individual from the community, not to hand the community jurisdiction over the individual.
• The argument rested on lived experience of untouchability, not on theory. For the person at the base of the village order, the village was the immediate agent of oppression — the site of segregated wells and settlements, of forced labour, of sanctions applied by a caste panchayat against which there was no appeal.
• Ambedkar therefore located emancipation in what the village lacked: constitutional rights, a distant and impersonal state, courts, a modern economy, education and urban anonymity, all of which weaken the hold of hereditary status.
• His position was not a defence of centralisation for its own sake. It was the judgment that decentralisation into an unreformed social structure devolves power to the dominant, which the subsequent history of panchayati raj repeatedly confirmed.
• His stance also softened at the decisive moment. When K. Santhanam moved the amendment on 22 November 1948 that would become Article 40, Ambedkar’s recorded response was that he had “nothing more to add”, and the amendment carried with broad support in an Assembly where a large body of members, many of them Gandhians, wanted panchayats named in the text.

Nehru’s modernism

• Nehru’s scepticism was different in kind from Ambedkar’s — not a critique of caste domination but a modernist’s doubt about the capacity of an illiterate, tradition-bound countryside to plan and execute its own development.
• His conviction was that the bureaucracy was the most modernised section of Indian society, and could therefore act as the vanguard of India’s social revolution — a phrase that captures both the ambition and the paternalism of the approach.
• His development model was accordingly state-led, plan-driven and administered: heavy industry, large dams, a Planning Commission, and a professional civil service reaching down through the district to the village.
• Panchayats in this scheme were valued as agencies of implementation and channels of extension, not as governments with jurisdiction of their own.

Article 40 and the price of Part IV

• Article 40 directs the State to “take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government.”
• It sits in Part IV, the Directive Principles of State Policy, which Article 37 declares to be fundamental to governance but not enforceable by any court.
• Local government was simultaneously placed in the State List, making panchayats a subject on which only state legislatures could act — so the Union could exhort but not compel, and the states could legislate and then withdraw.
• The combination was decisive. A non-justiciable direction addressed to governments that alone had jurisdiction produced four decades in which panchayats existed entirely at the pleasure of state executives.
  • There was no obligation to hold elections, no bar on indefinite supersession, no floor of finance, no protected representation for the marginalised.
  • Every gain was reversible by executive order, and gains were reversed exactly that way in state after state.
• Article 40 is best read as a compromise that recorded the disagreement rather than resolving it: the Gandhians got the word “panchayat” in the Constitution, the modernists ensured it carried no legal force.

Article 40 gave panchayats a place in the Constitution and no purchase on it.

The Community Development Programme and the National Extension Service

Design of the largest rural development experiment ever attempted

• With the Gandhian approach set aside as traditional and utopian, resting on a nostalgic view of the village, the state adopted the alternative: bureaucracy-led rural development.
• The Community Development Programme was launched on 2 October 1952, Gandhi’s birth anniversary, beginning with 55 projects and expanding rapidly; it was, on any measure, the largest programme of its kind attempted anywhere.
• The National Extension Service followed in 1953, extending a thinner but universal layer of extension staff and services across areas not yet covered by intensive community development blocks.
• Its administrative geography reorganised rural India and has outlasted the programme itself:
  • The country was divided into development blocks, each a group of roughly a hundred villages with a population of the order of sixty to seventy thousand.
  • Each block was headed by a Block Development Officer (BDO), the pivot of the entire structure, supported by extension officers for agriculture, cooperation, animal husbandry, health and education.
  • At the base was the Village Level Worker (VLW), a multi-purpose functionary responsible for a cluster of villages and the programme’s single point of contact with the cultivator.
• The doctrine assigned the official a role explicitly cast in non-official terms: the BDO and the VLW were to be the villager’s “friend, philosopher and guide” — persuading, demonstrating and motivating rather than commanding.
  • Their functions were to inform villagers of government plans and programmes, to provide support of every kind, to distribute improved seed and agricultural implements, and to motivate participation in the First Five Year Plan.
• Underlying the design was a genuine ambition: development was to be achieved through the community’s own felt needs and voluntary labour, with the state supplying technical knowledge and matching resources.

Development administration and the ecological model

• The Community Development Programme was the Indian application of development administration, then a new field arguing that administration in post-colonial societies had to do something colonial administration never did — produce social and economic transformation, not merely maintain order and collect revenue.
• Fred W. Riggs and Joseph La Palombara are the scholars associated with the ecological model of administration: the proposition that an administrative system cannot be evaluated in isolation but only in relation to the social, economic and cultural environment in which it operates.
  • Riggs’s account of transitional societies described administrations that had adopted modern forms while retaining traditional substance, so that formal rules and actual behaviour systematically diverged.
  • Applied to India, the model predicted precisely the outcome that followed: a modern developmental apparatus grafted onto an unchanged agrarian and bureaucratic order would reproduce that order rather than transform it.
• The programme’s founding premise was that civil society was backward and the civil service was the most modernised segment of society, and could therefore lead. That premise contained its own refutation: an agency defined as modern in contrast to the people it served was unlikely to treat those people as partners.

Why it failed

• The Community Development Programme failed for one reason above all others: community development takes place only when the community participates, and the community was never given anything to participate in.
  • Villagers were beneficiaries of a scheme designed elsewhere, consulted about implementation at most, and never vested with authority over selection, priorities or funds.
  • Participation was measured in contributed labour and attendance, not in decision-making, so it decayed into formal compliance as soon as the initial enthusiasm faded.
• The bureaucracy was trained only for law and order. At independence the district administration’s institutional memory was revenue collection, magistracy and policing; officers had no exposure to a developmental role and no incentive structure that rewarded one.
• The colonial mindset persisted. The service had been the “steel frame” of the Raj — a self-conscious class of administrators trained to govern rather than to serve — and it carried into independent India an instinct for command, hierarchy and distance from the governed.
• Corruption, entrenched as a bureaucratic culture in colonial times, continued after independence, and leakage in a programme distributing seed, implements, credit and works contracts was structural rather than incidental.
• Benefits flowed along existing social gradients. Improved inputs, credit and demonstration plots reached those already able to use them — the larger cultivators of the dominant castes — so the programme widened rural inequality while claiming to develop the community as a whole.
• The VLW was overloaded and under-equipped, expected to be an expert in agriculture, health, cooperation, sanitation and social education across a cluster of villages, and answerable upward for targets rather than downward for results.
• What it did achieve was real and should not be denied: the creation of an administrative infrastructure that reached the village for the first time. The block as a unit of development administration, the network of extension staff, and the physical apparatus of rural offices, roads and records all outlived the programme and became the platform on which everything after 1959 was built.

The Balwantrai Mehta Committee, 1957

• The Committee on Plan Projects of the Planning Commission appointed a study team on 16 January 1957 under Balwantrai G. Mehta to examine the working of the Community Development Programme and the National Extension Service; it reported in November 1957.
• Its diagnosis was blunt and became the founding text of Indian decentralisation: the programme had failed because it lacked popular participation, and participation could not be manufactured by exhortation — it required an elected body with power over the programme.
• The committee’s prescription was “democratic decentralisation” — the phrase it coined and the concept that governed Indian thinking for a generation.

The recommendations in full

• A three-tier structure of elected local bodies should be established: the Gram Panchayat at village level, the Panchayat Samiti at block level, and the Zila Parishad at district level, organically linked to one another.
• The village panchayat should be constituted by direct election, while the Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad should be constituted indirectly from among the members of the tier below.
• All planning and development activity should be entrusted to these bodies, and the development machinery should work under and through them rather than alongside them.
• The Panchayat Samiti should be the executive body and the block the operative unit, with the Zila Parishad as an advisory, coordinating and supervisory body.
• The District Collector should be the Chairman of the Zila Parishad, on the reasoning that the district’s development effort needed the authority of the district’s senior officer behind it.
• There should be a genuine transfer of power and responsibility to these democratic bodies, not a nominal association of them with decisions taken elsewhere.
• Sufficient resources should be transferred to enable them to discharge the functions given to them — the committee understood that devolved functions without devolved finance are decorative.
• A system should be evolved for further devolution of authority in future, making decentralisation a continuing process rather than a single act.
• Elections should be held every five years, genuinely and irrespective of party considerations, so that the bodies remained accountable to the electorate rather than to the administration.
• The committee also recommended executive machinery under the Samiti — the BDO and extension staff placed at its disposal — and reservation-style provision for the representation of women and of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by co-option where election did not produce it.

The block as fulcrum, and the choices that carried consequences

• The block, not the village, was made the fulcrum of the system — a deliberate departure from the Gandhian premise. The block was judged large enough to command technical staff and a meaningful budget, and small enough to remain accessible.
  • The choice made the system administratively viable and politically weak at the base: the village panchayat, the only directly elected tier, was also the tier with least money and least authority.
• Indirect election above the village tied the higher tiers to the lower ones but also produced narrow electorates of a few hundred members, which proved easy for dominant local factions to control.
• The Collector as Chairman of the Zila Parishad placed a state-appointed officer at the head of an elected body, embedding the very administrative supremacy the committee had set out to dilute — and it is the recommendation later committees most sharply reversed.
• Above all, panchayats were conceived as agencies of development rather than as governments. They were to build, deliver and implement; law and order, regulation and the coercive functions of the state remained entirely elsewhere. A government does both; a developmental agency does one — and an institution that cannot enforce anything is easy to ignore.

Adoption and inauguration

• The recommendations were accepted by the National Development Council in January 1958, with the sensible caveat that states should adapt the structure to their own conditions — a latitude that produced wide divergence almost immediately.
• Panchayati raj was formally inaugurated by Jawaharlal Nehru at Nagaur in Rajasthan on 2 October 1959, again on Gandhi’s birth anniversary; Rajasthan was the first state to legislate the new system and Andhra Pradesh followed within weeks.
• Within about five years, most states had passed panchayat legislation of some kind, and the period is remembered as one of genuine enthusiasm and a new hope for local self-government.
• The variation between states was present from the start, because local government was a State List subject and each state translated “democratic decentralisation” differently — Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh built around the Samiti, Maharashtra and Gujarat around a strong Zila Parishad, and the differences hardened into permanent divergence.

Four decades in four phases

• A second and equally standard framing runs enthusiasm, stagnation, revival and disillusionment, extending the sequence past 1992 to the present, in which neither government nor people place much trust in the institutions that were finally given constitutional protection.
  • The two framings are not in conflict: the first describes the pre-constitutional cycle, the second adds the post-constitutional verdict that constitutional status alone did not deliver what was expected of it.

Ascendancy, 1959-64

• Panchayati raj legislation spread quickly, elections were held, and in several states substantial schematic funds and development staff genuinely passed to the Panchayat Samitis.
• Panchayat Samitis in the leading states received the block development budget and the extension staff to spend it, so for a few years an elected body genuinely directed the rural development effort in its jurisdiction.
• Its most durable achievement was political rather than developmental: it created a new stratum of rural political leadership with electoral experience and independent local bases — men who would later populate state assemblies and reshape state politics.

Stagnation, 1965-69

• A centralising trend set in across the Indian polity, driven by wars with neighbours, secessionist movements, food crises, foreign exchange shortage and internal political turbulence — conditions under which every government reflexively pulls authority upward.
• The Union failed to devolve to the states, and states could not devolve what they did not have. Indian states came to be described as “glorified municipalities” — units with heavy responsibilities, dependent revenues and little autonomous fiscal room.
  • The dependency ran downward in a chain: a state with no discretionary money has no discretionary money to pass to a district, so panchayats were funded by tied schematic transfers and became implementing agencies by fiscal necessity.
  • This is why, although local government is constitutionally a state subject, the success of panchayats has always required the will of the Union government to create the enabling fiscal environment first.
• Panchayat elections stopped being held. Terms were allowed to expire and bodies simply continued or lapsed, and there was no authority anywhere with a duty to conduct the poll.

Decline, 1969-83

• Supersession became routine. State governments dissolved elected panchayats by executive order, appointed administrators, and left them dissolved — once a panchayat was dissolved, it remained dissolved, sometimes for a decade or more, because no law required its reconstitution within any period.
• Financial starvation was the quieter instrument. Panchayats had neither adequate funds nor functionaries; tax powers were nominal, grants were tied and irregular, and staff remained state employees answerable upward.
• Bureaucratic recapture followed. With elected bodies suspended or enfeebled, district administration reabsorbed the functions that had been devolved, and a proliferation of parallel agencies and centrally sponsored schemes built a delivery apparatus that bypassed panchayats entirely.
• Dominant-caste capture hollowed out the bodies that survived. In Maharashtra panchayati raj institutions endured with real resources and were controlled throughout by the dominant landed castes, which is the empirical vindication of Ambedkar’s warning — devolution into an unreformed rural society transfers power to those who already hold it.
• Weaker sections went unrepresented. There was no mandatory provision for the representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or women, and the electoral arithmetic of small constituencies ensured that where there was no reservation, there was largely no representation.
• Political incentives ran the wrong way. A rival grassroots elite with an independent electoral base threatened the sitting state legislator directly, and MLAs across parties had a shared interest in ensuring that the district and block never became a competing centre of patronage.
• The 73rd Amendment’s own Statement of Objects and Reasons conceded the failure, recording that panchayati raj institutions had not acquired the status and dignity of viable and responsive people’s bodies because of the absence of regular elections, prolonged supersession, insufficient representation of weaker sections, inadequate devolution of powers and lack of financial resources.

The exceptions that proved the point

• Kerala sustained a comparatively strong local body tradition, backed by land reform, high literacy, and political movements that had organised the rural poor rather than merely appealing to them.
• West Bengal held panchayat elections in 1978 under the Left Front government, contested openly on party lines — the decisive break with the convention that panchayat elections should be non-partisan.
  • Party competition replaced factional and caste-based mobilisation with programmatic mobilisation, and gave the poor an organisational vehicle they had lacked.
  • The panchayats were then made the implementing instrument of agrarian reform, most visibly in the registration of sharecroppers’ rights, which tied local government directly to a redistributive programme and gave it a constituency with a stake in its survival.
• Karnataka’s reforms, legislated from 1983 under Abdul Nazir Sab in the Ramakrishna Hegde government, were the most far-reaching pre-1992 experiment in Indian decentralisation.
  • The legislation created Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samitis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats, following the Ashok Mehta Committee’s design closely, and received assent in 1985 with elections held in 1987.
  • It transferred substantial functions, funds and staff to the district, gave the Zilla Parishad a chief secretary of senior rank, and provided reservation for women and for Scheduled Castes and Tribes well before any constitutional requirement.
  • It demonstrated the single most important pre-1992 finding: where a state government genuinely wished to devolve, the existing constitutional framework was no obstacle at all — and where it did not, no amount of exhortation helped.
• Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra maintained functioning structures with real budgets, but with leadership drawn overwhelmingly from dominant agrarian castes, illustrating that institutional strength and social inclusion are separate variables.
• The exceptions clarify the causal argument: the pre-1992 failure was not a failure of institutional design but of political will, and political will was distributed unevenly across states because the incentives to devolve were unevenly distributed.

The Ashok Mehta Committee, 1977-78

• The Janata government appointed a committee in December 1977 under Ashok Mehta to review the working of panchayati raj institutions; it submitted its report in August 1978 with 132 recommendations.
• The committee’s work is the most thorough audit of the Indian decentralisation experiment ever conducted, and its central finding reframed the entire debate.

“Panchayats have not failed; they have been made to fail.” — Ashok Mehta Committee, 1978

The recommendations

• The three-tier system should be replaced by a two-tier system: the Zila Parishad at district level and the mandal panchayat below it, covering a group of villages with a population of about 15,000 to 20,000.
  • The village panchayat was judged too small to be viable — lacking the population, revenue base and administrative capacity to sustain meaningful functions — while the block was judged an unnecessary intermediate layer.
• The district should be the first point of decentralisation below the state, under popular supervision, with the Zila Parishad as the executive body and the principal planning authority for the district.
• Political parties should participate openly and officially in panchayat elections at all levels. The committee rejected the fiction of non-party local elections, arguing that parties competed in them anyway through proxies, and that open party competition would produce accountability, programmatic contest and vertical linkage to state and national politics.
• Panchayati raj institutions should have compulsory powers of taxation to mobilise their own financial resources, rather than permissive powers that no elected body has an incentive to use.
• A regular social audit should be conducted by a district-level agency and by a committee of legislators, specifically to verify whether funds earmarked for vulnerable social and economic groups actually reached them.
• Seats should be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population, and one-third of seats should be reserved for women — the origin of the formula the 73rd Amendment adopted fourteen years later.
• Nyaya panchayats should be kept separate from development panchayats and presided over by a person with judicial qualification, so that the judicial function was not absorbed by the developmental one.
• A minister for panchayati raj should be appointed in the state council of ministers to look after panchayat affairs continuously at cabinet level.
• Panchayati raj institutions should be given constitutional recognition — the committee was the first official body to state that constitutional status was the necessary remedy, on the reasoning that only a constitutional guarantee could make devolution irreversible.
• The chief electoral officer of the state should organise panchayat elections in consultation with the Election Commission, anticipating the State Election Commission of 1992.

The conspiracy against panchayats

• The committee’s most quoted phrase was its identification of a “conspiracy against panchayats”, and it named the two conspirators.
• The bureaucracy — described as the most powerful pressure group in India, self-perpetuating and status-quoist — was the first.
  • Officials at every level feared the shift of power and resources from their hands to elected representatives, and the absence of cooperation from the administration was the single most consistent operational cause of panchayat failure across states.
  • The resistance was rarely open. It worked through delay, withheld information, technical objection, and the refusal to treat an elected chairperson as a superior — the ordinary weapons of an entrenched service against an unwelcome principal.
  • The finding was not new: it runs continuously from the Balwantrai Mehta Committee’s diagnosis of the Community Development Programme onwards, which is why it must be read as structural rather than as a matter of individual attitudes.
• State-level political leadership was the second.
  • When the states are themselves no better than glorified municipalities, they have little to devolve and every reason to hoard what they hold.
  • More sharply, state leaders feared that strong panchayats would generate a new grassroots leadership challenging the hegemony of existing elites — a competing set of politicians with independent bases, independent patronage and a claim on the same constituencies.
  • Where state leadership was itself drawn from entrenched dominant castes, there was no incentive whatever to empower those at the bottom of the same social order.
• Kerala’s response to the bureaucratic problem is the one concrete institutional remedy on record: a model code of conduct governing the mutual conduct of civil servants and elected representatives, defining what each may expect and demand of the other. No later reform, including the 73rd Amendment itself, addressed the bureaucratic relationship at all.
• The report was never tabled in Parliament. The Janata government fell in 1979 and the report was allowed to lapse — but the states that had taken it seriously legislated on its lines, and Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal produced the strongest local government statutes of the pre-1992 era directly from it.

The shift from 1957 to 1978 is a shift in the object of blame: from the villager who would not participate to the elite that would not let him.

The committees of the 1980s

G. V. K. Rao Committee, 1985

• The Planning Commission appointed the G. V. K. Rao Committee in 1985 to review the administrative arrangements for rural development and poverty alleviation programmes.
• Its diagnosis was that development administration had been progressively bureaucratised and pulled away from panchayati raj institutions, which had been reduced to marginal spectators in programmes running in their own jurisdictions.
• It captured this in the memorable image that the whole apparatus of rural development had become “grass without roots” — a proliferating structure of schemes, agencies and staff with no anchorage in local democratic institutions.
• Its recommendations restored the district to the centre:
  • The Zila Parishad should be the principal body for managing all development programmes at district level, with panchayati raj institutions assigned a definite role at each level.
  • The district should be the basic unit of planning and programme implementation, and planning at that level should be professionalised.
  • A post of District Development Commissioner should be created as the chief executive officer of the Zila Parishad, in charge of all development departments in the district.
  • Elections should be held regularly at all levels of panchayati raj.
  • Some planning functions should be transferred from the state level to the district, to end the practice of planning for districts in state capitals.

L. M. Singhvi Committee, 1986

• The Rajiv Gandhi government constituted the L. M. Singhvi Committee in 1986 to study the revitalisation of panchayati raj institutions for democracy and development, and its report produced the two proposals that became the architecture of 1992.
• First, panchayati raj institutions should be given constitutional status through a new chapter in the Constitution, so that their existence, composition, term and elections were placed beyond the reach of ordinary state legislation and executive discretion.
  • This was the decisive intellectual move of the entire pre-1992 period. Every earlier reform had tried to improve what the states did with panchayats; Singhvi’s committee proposed instead to remove from the states the power to abolish them.
• Second, the Gram Sabha should be recognised as the base of decentralised democracy — the assembly of all registered voters of a village, and the only body in the entire Indian constitutional scheme that is an instrument of direct rather than representative democracy.
  • The committee treated the village community, not the panchayat, as the foundation, which reconnected the reform to the older Gandhian claim while keeping the machinery modern.
• It further recommended reorganising villages into viable units where individual villages were too small, judicial tribunals in each state to adjudicate election disputes and matters concerning panchayat dissolution, the revival of nyaya panchayats for petty civil and criminal disputes, and more adequate and assured financial resources, with panchayat finance treated as a distinct subject.

The other bodies of the decade

• The Hanumantha Rao Committee (1983) on district planning recommended district-level planning bodies and argued that the district plan should be prepared under political direction, whether through a minister or the Zila Parishad, rather than left to the District Collector as an administrative exercise — the intellectual origin of the District Planning Committee.
• The Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations (report submitted 1988) examined the state-local relationship as part of its remit and pressed states to strengthen local bodies, hold regular elections and devolve resources — significant because it placed local government within the federal question rather than treating it as a matter of state administrative convenience.
• The P. K. Thungon Committee (1988), a sub-committee of the Consultative Committee of Parliament, recommended constitutional recognition for panchayati raj institutions, a three-tier system, the Zila Parishad as the pivot of district planning, a fixed five-year term, reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women, State Finance Commissions to determine the devolution of resources, and the District Collector as chief executive officer of the Zila Parishad.
• The V. N. Gadgil Committee (1988), constituted by the ruling party to consider how panchayati raj institutions could be made effective, recommended constitutional status, a three-tier structure, five-year terms, direct election at all three levels, reservation for women and for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, powers of taxation, and State Finance Commissions and State Election Commissions. Its report was the immediate basis on which the amendment bill was drafted.

• Read together, the committee record settles one argument decisively. By 1988 every element of the 73rd Amendment had been proposed by an Indian official body: constitutional status, three tiers, direct election, five-year terms, reservation for women and the marginalised, State Election Commissions, State Finance Commissions and the Gram Sabha. The design was fully indigenous and fully worked out; only the political moment was missing.

The 64th Amendment Bill and the failure of 1989

• The 64th Constitutional Amendment Bill was introduced in 1989 by the Rajiv Gandhi government to give panchayati raj institutions constitutional status, and a companion bill for municipalities — the Nagarpalika Bill, numbered the 65th — followed.
• Its content anticipated almost the whole of what was eventually enacted:
  • Mandatory constitution of panchayats in every state on a uniform three-tier pattern.
  • Direct election to panchayat bodies and a fixed five-year term, with elections within six months of any dissolution — the specific answer to the practice of indefinite supersession.
  • Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to population and not less than one-third of seats for women.
  • Finance Commissions to review panchayat finances and election machinery to conduct panchayat elections.
  • A list of subjects to be entrusted to panchayats, and provision for the audit of accounts.
• The bill was passed by the Lok Sabha in August 1989 and defeated in the Rajya Sabha in October 1989, where it secured 157 votes, one short of the two-thirds majority of those present and voting that a constitutional amendment requires.
• The opposition’s objection was federal, not anti-democratic in intent. States read the bill as an attempt by the Union to reach past the state governments to the districts, creating a direct Centre-panchayat channel that would bypass and diminish state administrations.
  • Provisions empowering the Union to prescribe the framework, and the possibility of central funds flowing directly to districts, sharpened the fear.
  • Critics also argued the bill had been drafted in haste for electoral advantage ahead of a general election, and that in practice it would strengthen rather than reduce central power.
• The episode exposes the structural difficulty that has shaped Indian decentralisation ever since. The tier that must devolve is the tier that is itself least secure, so every attempt to empower local government reads to a state government as an attack on its own position.
• The National Front government reintroduced a combined panchayat and municipality bill on 7 September 1990, but it lapsed when the Lok Sabha was dissolved before it could be taken up.
• The Narasimha Rao government introduced the successor bills in September 1991, referred them to a joint committee, and secured passage in December 1992. They were ratified by the required states and received assent as the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts, 1992, coming into force on 24 April 1993 and 1 June 1993 respectively.
• What changed between 1989 and 1992 was not the argument but the bargain. The provisions the states had objected to were converted from mandatory into voluntary, so that the structure was made compulsory and the substance — functions, funds and taxation — was left to state discretion under Articles 243G and 243H.

The political economy of 1991-92

Liberalisation and the two reforms

• India adopted its new economic policy in 1991 following a balance-of-payments crisis, and the constitutional amendments for local government followed within eighteen months — a coincidence too close to ignore.
• The intellectual link was explicit. The new economic policy was premised on rolling back the state; if the developmental paradigm was changing, the administrative paradigm had to change with it. A state withdrawing from production and licensing had, in principle, to push delivery downward at the same time as it pushed production outward.
• Economic reform and political reform must run together, and India did the first without the second.
  • Liberalisation dismantled controls at the top of the system while leaving the administrative structure that citizens actually encounter — the district office, the local inspector, the block bureaucracy — largely untouched.
  • The quantum of privatisation in the economy was never matched by a comparable quantum of decentralisation in government, and the reduction in red tape at the level of the firm was not replicated at the level of the citizen.
  • The consequence was an incomplete transition on both sides: political centralisation continued to obstruct the economic reform it was supposed to accompany, because a liberalised economy still ran through unreformed local administration.

Was decentralisation externally driven?

• One reading holds that the amendments were externally driven rather than indigenously demanded.
  • After the 1991 crisis, structural adjustment lending carried conditionalities, and the international financial institutions and bilateral donors were simultaneously elevating “good governance” — decentralisation, participation, transparency, accountability — into a central condition of assistance.
  • On this reading, the government created the bare minimum institutions that would qualify as panchayats in order to satisfy external expectations, while ensuring through the voluntary provisions that no real devolution of power actually occurred.
  • The evidence adduced is the shape of the outcome itself: a reform that was maximal on structure and minimal on power is exactly what a government would produce if the objective were demonstrable compliance rather than functional devolution.
• The counter-argument is the domestic record, and it is strong.
  • Every substantive element of the amendments had been recommended by Indian committees between 1957 and 1988, long before any conditionality existed — constitutional status by Ashok Mehta in 1978 and Singhvi in 1986, the Gram Sabha by Singhvi, State Finance and Election Commissions by Thungon and Gadgil in 1988.
  • The 64th Amendment Bill of 1989 predates the crisis entirely, so the legislative attempt cannot have been a response to conditionalities that did not yet exist.
  • West Bengal and Karnataka had already legislated far-reaching decentralisation in 1978 and 1983 for wholly domestic political reasons.
  • Constitutional amendment requires two-thirds of Parliament and ratification by half the state legislatures — a threshold no donor agenda could deliver and only domestic political consensus could clear.
• The honest reconciliation is that the design was indigenous and the timing was not. The blueprint came from three decades of Indian committee work; the political window in which a diluted version could finally pass owed something to the reformist climate of 1991-92, in which decentralisation was congenial to the direction of policy and cost the Union nothing, since the powers to be surrendered belonged to the states.

Supply-driven, not demanded

• The entire Indian decentralisation experiment has been supply-driven: it was handed down from above and never demanded from below.
  • Panchayati raj was conceived by a Planning Commission study team, adopted by the National Development Council, and inaugurated by a Prime Minister — at no stage was it the product of a popular movement for local self-rule.
  • The empowerment of panchayats and municipalities has never been an electoral issue. No state government has fallen for failing to devolve, and no campaign has been fought on the devolution index.
• Demand-driven reform behaves differently. Where local self-government has consolidated durably in India, it has been where a political movement organised the rural poor first and used local institutions as its instrument — the pattern in West Bengal after 1978 and in Kerala.
• Amartya Sen’s observation that governments do not respond until an issue becomes a matter of public discourse and public debate locates the failure precisely: decentralisation never became such an issue, so no government has ever paid a price for withholding it.
• Habermas’s account of the public sphere supplies the structural version of the same point: political demands acquire force only when they are formed through communicative interaction among citizens in a space independent of both state and market. Where that sphere is thin at the local level, the state faces no interlocutor and can therefore concede the form of decentralisation while withholding its content.
• The implication is uncomfortable and worth stating plainly. The deepest cause of weak local government in India is not the text of any statute but the absence of an organised popular demand for it, and particularly the disengagement of the educated and advantaged sections of civil society, who exit to private provision rather than contest the quality of local governance.

What the pre-1992 record established

• The central lesson of thirty-three years between Nagaur and the 73rd Amendment is that devolution without constitutional protection is reversible — and will be reversed.
  • Statutory panchayats could be superseded by executive order and left dissolved indefinitely; elections could simply not be held; funds could be withheld without any legal consequence.
  • Every advance depended on the continuing goodwill of a state government, and goodwill is not a constitutional guarantee.
• This is the specific problem the 73rd Amendment set out to solve, and on this narrow question it largely succeeded.
  • Part IX and the Eleventh Schedule made panchayats mandatory in every state, with a three-tier structure wherever the population exceeds twenty lakh.
  • A five-year term became constitutionally fixed, with elections due before the expiry of the term and within six months of any dissolution — which ended indefinite supersession as a lawful practice.
  • A State Election Commission was made responsible for the conduct of panchayat elections, and a State Finance Commission was required every five years to review local finances.
  • Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to population, and not less than one-third of all seats and chairperson positions for women, made representation of the marginalised a constitutional floor rather than a matter of state generosity.
  • The Gram Sabha was given constitutional recognition as the assembly of all registered voters — the direct-democratic element the Singhvi Committee had asked for.
• What the amendment did not do is precisely what the pre-1992 record had shown to be decisive.
  • Articles 243G and 243H say the state legislature “may” endow panchayats with powers, authority and the ability to levy taxes. Devolution of the twenty-nine subjects in the Eleventh Schedule was therefore left permissive, which is why the schedule is an aspiration and not a transfer.
  • The bureaucratic relationship — the conspirator every committee from 1957 onwards had named — was not addressed at all: no separate cadre, no obligation upon officials toward elected representatives, no code governing the two.
  • Panchayats were still constituted as developmental agencies rather than governments, with no regulatory or enforcement authority of their own, so the asymmetry identified in 1957 survived constitutionalisation.
• The evidence of the following three decades bears out that reading. The Union government’s own assessment of devolution to panchayats shows the national devolution score rising only from about 39.9 per cent in 2013-14 to 43.9 per cent in 2021-22 — a gain of four points in nine years — with Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh at the top and the smallest units at the bottom.
• The fiscal picture is starker still. Panchayats raise roughly one per cent of their revenue from their own taxes, with about eighty per cent coming from central and fifteen per cent from state transfers; average own-tax revenue per panchayat runs to a few tens of thousands of rupees a year. An institution that raises nothing decides nothing.
• Recent scholarship on India’s roughly two and a half lakh village democracies — the review by Siddharth George, Vijayendra Rao and M. R. Sharan — reaches the same conclusion from the other direction: panchayats function largely as implementation outposts for centrally formulated schemes, with too little jurisdiction, too few functionaries and almost no untied money.
• The Sixteenth Finance Commission’s award for 2026-31, tabled on 1 February 2026, shows both the scale of transfer and the persistence of the design flaw: ₹7.91 lakh crore for local bodies, split 60 per cent rural and 40 per cent urban, with roughly ₹4.35 lakh crore for panchayats — but eighty per cent of it tied to sanitation, waste and water. Money arrives; discretion does not.
• The Panchayat Advancement Index, launched on 24 April 2025, scored gram panchayats on 435 local indicators: of the 2.16 lakh panchayats that submitted validated data, not one reached the “Achiever” grade and 61.2 per cent remained “Aspirants”.
• The statutory ground beneath the gram sabha has also shifted. The Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 now repeals the rural employment guarantee law of 2005, raising the guarantee to 125 days, mandating Viksit Gram Panchayat Plans, and retaining social audit at gram panchayat level while moving from demand-driven entitlement to normative allocation.

The 73rd Amendment made panchayats permanent without making them powerful; permanence was the pre-1992 problem, and power is the one that remains.

• The unfinished agenda is therefore visible directly in the pre-1992 record, because the record named it repeatedly and it was left undone: obligatory rather than permissive devolution, with activity mapping assigning each function to a specified tier; genuine taxation powers; a local cadre or a binding code governing officials and elected representatives; State Election Commissions with the independence of the Election Commission; and, beneath all of it, a public that treats local self-government as something it is owed.
• The final verdict on the four decades before 1992 is that the experiment established two truths that have since organised the entire field: that panchayats did not fail on their own but were made to fail by those with an interest in their failure, and that no institution survives on directive principles alone.