Guest column Srikanta Jena

The Panchayati Raj institutions are billed as the instrument of socio-economic development in rural India. In earlier days, there used to exist a panchayat system in which five (panch) wise and old persons of a village or group of villages used to set up an assembly and settle disputes among the people. However, during the British Raj in India, Mahatma Gandhi came up with the idea of a decentralised form of government in which individual villages would be given power to take care of its own affairs. In Gandhi’s words, this system of self-governance was “gram swaraj” (village self-governance).

It was Rajiv Gandhi’s dream to devolve power to the panchayats, which was aim translated into reality in 1992-93. The 73rd and 74th amendments of the Indian Constitution devolved a significant amount of power over social sector and development planning to local-level governments or panchayats. The three-tier system with elected bodies at the village block and district levels to enlist greater participation from the people in the process of rural reconstruction was, in 1996, accepted by Odisha and seven other states, which had a significant tribal population.

However, in my opinion, the very purpose of this system in Odisha has been defeated. The amount of power that ought to have been delegated to the village unit has not been done. Often, we see that the control and decisions are centralised in nature, which makes these rural self-government units dependant on the state government. The system of election also needs to be amended. The village sarpanch is elected directly by the people for a term of five years. However, there is a provision that the ward members of the gram panchayat can, after a period of two years, remove him through a no-confidence motion. In contrast, in the urban local self-government bodies, the chairman of a municipality or a notified area committee is elected from amongst the councillors, who are elected directly by the people. Long ago, this was not the system — there were also direct elections for the municipality chairman or the NAC chairman. If the chairman did not enjoy the confidence of the councillors, then the latter could pass a no-confidence motion against him after two years and have him removed. Subsequently, this was amended and now, the councillors elect the chairman from amongst them.

So, my point is why not bring the same amendment in the gram panchayat system, in the case of sarpanch elections? Why have dissimilar systems at the rural and urban levels? Even the Prime Minister and the chief ministers are elected by the members of Parliament and members of state legislatures, respectively, who are the elected representatives of the people.

And more important, when the sarpanch is elected through people’s choice, his removal should also referred to popular vote and not be left to the decision of the ward members. This contradiction has been causing a lot of confusion and affecting the process of development in the villages. This needs to be amended.

There has not been a serious discussion on the panchayati raj system at all. We call it a gram panchayat and not a panchayat gram. The panchayat consists of several villages and not a single village. Let us convert every big and small village into a gram panchayat and the panch (five members) can be elected by the people of that particular village. Each of the five members of the panch can be made the village sarpanch for a year through rotation. This way, there would be no tension in the place, there would be no competition or bitterness among the ward members (panch).

The present system of elections is affecting peace in the villages. Post election, development suffers as the losing candidates for the post of sarpanch try to create problems for the elected person and obstruct the path of progress.

The panch from different villages can also elect a panchayat samiti chairperson. For example, there are 20 gram panchayats in a block. So, 20x5 = 100 members can elect a panchayat samiti chairperson from amongst themselves or someone from outside, a vice-chairman and the executive council. Similarly, the zilla parishad chairperson can be elected. Say there are 500 gram panchayats in a district and so, 2,500 members would elect a zilla parishad chairperson from amongst themselves, a deputy chairperson and the executive council. This will ensure a pyramidical structure of governance and the feelings and issues of the gram panchayats can be reflected at the higher levels — panchayat samiti and zilla parishad, that is at the block and district levels. A condition might be put that in case of no-confidence, a two-third majority can remove the elected chairperson at the block or district level. A policy has to be chalked out too. The overall intra-block developmental work can be taken care of by the district, the intra-panchayat developmental work can be monitored by the block and whatever goes on within the panchayat can be supervised by the panch. This would clear confusion and pave the way for true decentralisation of power and responsibilities. Added to that, elections would be over within a matter of 15 days. There would no requirement for heavy spending on printed materials.

Usually, there is black money operation in every election but in this case, there would not be any need as it will be a transparent system.The state government is spending Rs 56 crore on the upcoming panchayat elections but with the amendment, the polls can be conducted within a budget of Rs 5 crore. The remaining money can be utilised for developmental programmes and projects. There would be no pre or post election tension and the energy of the people can be chanelised in a constructive way.

I have discussed this issue time and again with late chief minister Biju Patnaik. On this issue, I have written to the present chief minister Naveen Patnaik and also discussed the matter with senior Congress and Opposition leaders. But I do not understand why they have not shown interest in discussing this crucial issue. Now that the schedule for the panchayat polls has been announced, it would not be possible to amend the process at the moment.

I am not saying my idea is the best and whatever I am saying is the last word. I am raising this issue for a debate so that it could be considered for the next elections. This is a very important election and if it is not made transparent or not streamlined, how can we expect socio-economic empowerment and development at the grassroots? I invite the leaders of the state, political and social scientists, and other experts for a debate.