7/31/2019 Jati Panchayat

1/2

MARGIN SPEAK

september 3, 2011 vol xlvi no 36 EPW Economic & Political Weekly10

Anand Teltumbde (tanandraj@gmail.com) is amember of the Committee for the Protection of

Democratic Rights, Mumbai.

Indias (Jati) Panchayati Raj

Ana nd Teltumbde

What has been the impact

of reservations for women,

scheduled castes and scheduled

tribes in panchayati raj

institutions? In case the reserved

seat is for a woman, it is usually

the wife or daughter-in-law of the

old sarpanch who is made to sign

papers, while the husband or the

father-in-law is de facto in control.

In the case of reservations for the

SC/STs, it is the bonded labourer

of the sarpanch who becomes a

proxy for his rule. In exceptional

cases, where dalit sarpanches

have dared to exercise their

powers in the public interest, the

dominant castes have unleashed

terror against them.

We must not forget that these idyllic village-

communities, inoffensive though they may

appear, had always been the solid foundation

of Oriental despotism...

Marx

What is the village but a sink of localism, a

den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and

communalism?

Ambedkar

I

ndia formally adopted neo-liberal eco-

nomic reforms in July 1991 with a de-

nite blueprint that was spearheaded by

men with Fund-Bank antecedents to over-

see its execution. Within two months, a

constitutional amendment bill was readied

to institute panchayati raj in rural India,

which was nally enacted by Parliament in

April 1993. Urban India got its complement

in the form of the 74th constitutional

amendment. Although both the bills were

meant to devolve power to the local levels in

accordance with Article 40 of the Constitu-

tion (one of the Directive Principles of State

Policy), the most radical aspect of the amend-ments was the prescription of one-third

reservations for women, scheduled tribes

(STs) and scheduled castes (SCs) in the local

bodies as members as well as ofce-bearers.

It meant that not only one-third of the

elected members but also one-third of the

elected sarpanches (panchayat heads) or

chairpersons (panchayat samiti heads) or

presidents (zilla parishad heads) had to be

from amongst these sections. The political-

economic link between the two policies and

the caste dynamics the latter unleashed, as

its inevitable fallout a recent incident in

Tamil Nadu being a rude reminder still

remains inadequately explored.

Who Controls the Panchayats?

Although the panchayat is aunted as

Indias traditional governing institution, it

was basically a jati panchayat, a la khap

panchayat, and did not have much to do

with its current avatar. Interestingly, like

most other concepts, the roots of contem-porary panchayati raj can be traced to the

colonial logic of Ripons resolution of May

1882, which aimed at involving the intel-

ligent class of public-spirited men in the

management of rural areas under the

British rule. It led to setting up district and

taluka boards with nominated members to

look after health, roads, and education,but failed to make the village the basic unit

of local self-government. The Montague-

Chelmsford Reforms of 1919 revived the

idea and in almost all provinces and

native states, laws were enacted for the

establishment of village panchayats.

After Independence, panchayati raj was

re-inaugurated by Nehru in 1959, follow-

ing the Balwant Rai Mehta Committee rec-

ommendations of 1957, but they miserably

failed, impelling scholars to declare by

1960 that panchayati raj institutions

(PRIs) were the God that failed. By 1970,

the Nehruvian modernist project fructied,

chiey through land reforms and the green

revolution, introducing capitalist relations of

production in the agrarian sector. It brought

huge gains to a section of the farming castes

and, in equal degree, vulnerability to dalits

because of the collapse of traditionaljajmani

relations. A class of middle and rich peas-

antry emerged out of the traditional farm-

ing castes, wielding the baton of brahminismfrom the erstwhile upper caste landlords,

aggressively pursuing more power and

resources, leading to the rise of regional

parties and inaugurating an era of coalition

politics. The Janata government, the rst

manifestation thereof, attempted to rejuve-

nate the PRIs through the Ashok Mehta

Committee but without much success.

Over the years, local interests became

more varied and complex, in fact, too

complex for a centralised polity to handle.

Paradoxically, the Communist Party of India

(Marxist)-led Left Front (LF) government

in West Bengal was the rst to realise the

importance of panchayati raj for sustain-

ing political power. The effective implemen-

tation of land reforms and the panchayati

system there, since 1984, had buttressed the

aspirations of the middle and rich peas-

antry and given them access to power and

resources. This was the key factor behind

the LFs lasting electoral success until

recently. At the centre, implementation ofthe Mandal Commission recommendations

was the strategy to placate these sections.

7/31/2019 Jati Panchayat

2/2

MARGIN SPEAK

Economic & Political Weekly EPW september 3, 2011 vol xlvi no 36 11

But it is only after the adoption of the

neo-liberal reforms, informally from the mid-

1980s and formally from July 1991 onwards,

that concrete steps were taken to implement

the panchayati system. The strategy was to

prepare for a diminishing state role by rele-

gating governance of local issues to the

local elites, albeit under the progressiveveneer of anti-caste, anti-patriarchy pro-

visions as in the 73rd and 74th amendments,

which would ensure the systems suste-

nance without, in any way, threatening it.

The ground reality is that in a substantial

number of cases the candidates who have

won the panchayat elections are mere fronts

for the old power holders. In case the

reserved seat is for a woman, it is usually the

wife or daughter-in-law of the old sarpanch

who is usually made to sign papers while

the husband or the father-in-law transacts

all business. In case the reservation is for

the SC/STs, it is the bonded labourer of the

sarpanch who becomes a proxy for his rule.

In other cases, some SC/STs may be lured

to share the booty with the power elite

under the tutelage of the latter. Only in

exceptional cases, like the one discussed

below, have the dalits challenged and

confronted the dominant classes/castes.

Thus, it is rich peasants and landlords of

the dominant castes that exercise de factopolitical power at the local level and con-

trol the institutions of panchayati raj.

Case of Krishnaveni

Krishnaveni, a dalit woman of the Arun-

thathiyar caste (scavenging community, the

third major dalit caste in the hierarchy after

Pariah and Pallar in Tamil Nadu), a school

dropout and mother of two, had contested

the elections as an independent candidate

in Thalaiyuthu panchayat, Nellai district,

when it was declared reserved for dalit

woman candidates. She won by a margin of

700 votes and became the sarpanch. She

worked sincerely and earned widespread

respect. Her fellow-villagers generally

spoke with admiration about how she man-

aged the construction of roads, the building

of a library, and the development of infra-

structure with amazing speed. They also

vouched for her honesty and integrity, and

commended the way she courageously con-

ducted herself in face of continuing threatsfrom the dominant castes. In recognition of

her work, she received the Sarojini Naidu

award for 2009 from President Pratibha

Patil for the best (among panchayats in the

district) implementation of the National

Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. Her

accomplishments however rubbed salt in

the wounded egos of the old power elites,

who could not stomach the fact that an

Arunthathiyar woman was their boss. Apartfrom the caste prejudice, their material

interests were also hampered as she would

not allow panchayat funds to be siphoned

off. Krishnaveni led more than 15 com-

plaints against these people, including the

vice-president and ward members, as they

were variously causing obstruction in her

work. However, the district administration

and the police did not pay any heed.

Instead, the impression was created that

she was quarrelsome and could slap cases

under the SCs and STs (Prevention of Atro-

cities) Act, 1989 against her detractors.

On 13 June 2011, at around 10 pm, as she

was returning from the panchayat ofce

in an autorickshaw, some people murder-

ously attacked her. The trigger was pro-

vided by her plan to build a toilet for dalit

women onparamboke (government) land,

which was illegally occupied by a Thevar.

She was hacked all over the body and left

for dead in the darkness. She survived 15

stabs and a hacked ear after remaining fordays in the ICU, initially at Tirunelveli and

later in Chennai, thanks to the persistent

efforts of the young activists of the Arunt-

hathiyar community. They mobilised people

to agitate in protest and even managed to

get the established dalit leaders like Thol

Thirumavalavan and John Pandian to

support them. Still, they could not move the

media and the state administration out of

their customary neglect for dalit issues.

The case was strikingly reminiscent of

the earlier two incidents that took place in

the same Tirunelveli district, just a few

years ago, when the panchayat presidents

of Nakkalamuthanpatti, P Jaggaiyan and

Maruthankinaru Servaaran, who belonged

to the same Arunthathiyar community, were

murdered by members of the dominant

castes. In a similar manner, 15 years ago, a

dalit panchayat president, Murugesan, and

his six relatives were cruelly done to death

near Madurai. In all these cases there was a

recorded history of threats and harassmentby the dominant castes and administrations

persistent ignorance thereof. Jaggaiyans

case rather classically illustrates how

panchayati raj becomes de facto the rule

of the dominant castes. Before Jaggaiyan,

when the post of sarpanch was reserved

for women, the wife of Thirupathi Raja, a

powerful landlord belonging to Kamma

Naidus (Naickers), served as his proxy as

sarpanch. When, the next time, the post wasreserved for SCs, Raja nanced Jaggaiy-

ans election, expecting that he would

carry out his writ. However, when Jaggai-

yan showed his independence and deed

his dominance, he was brutally murdered.

Towards Accountability

The rhetoric of decentralisation of power

or eulogy to panchayati raj, without a con-

scious attempt to dampen the structural

propensity under which power and domi-

nation play out in rural India, just amounts

to encouraging rural lites to establish and

maintain control over subordinate groups.

A plethora of literature on panchayati raj

suggests that formal regulations stipulating

the participation of people like dalits and

women have had minimal impact on the

functioning of the panchayats. There is also

evidence, albeit in limited cases, that

decentralisation has helped these groups

to make their presence felt in local political

institutions. This implies that when they areempowered and made democratic, pancha-

yatscan act as agents of social change. The

ideal strategy would therefore be to ensure

that weaker groups are empowered and

emboldened to challenge the dominant

groups. Only then can the panchayats

become effective forums for representation

and democracy. The State has a denite role

and responsibility in this. It must educate

villagers about the panchayati system,

monitor panchayat elections, train elected

members, guide the process of decision-

making and monitor the implementation

of local plans. The district administration

must be made accountable for the results

inter alia, the district collector and super-

intendent of police should be made person-

ally responsible for any instances of viola-

tion of rights of the SC/STs and women.

This is the least the State must do if

it really means what it professes about

panchayati raj. Otherwise, atrocities

against dalit sarpanches will continue toprovide stark validation of what Marx and

Ambedkar said decades ago.