MADHYA PRADESH: Bureaucrats rule

MADHYA PRADESH: Bureaucrats rule

Why did Om Prakash Rawat, the former sarpanch of Mandiya in Madhya Pradesh's Tikamgarh district, vote for the Congress in the 2003 assembly elections after fighting against the state government over control of water bodies? "I supported the Congress because during our fight against the district administration Chief Minister Digvijay Singh promised to help fisherfolk," he says. And why did Badli Bai, who lives in Kakradhar village of Jhabua district, vote against the Congress? Hadn't the state's watershed development mission restored Kakradhar's ecology? "I voted against the party because the government abandoned the mission. I had to leave the village for work," she says.

Rawat and Badli Bai were two voters in an election where voter turnout (67.41 per cent) was the highest ever; the Congress went to the polls asking people to vote for decentralisation and development. Even the BJP focused on bijli, sadak and pani. Perhaps for the first time, candidates faced elections on such local issues like a villager's old age pension or a panchayat not getting funds for a community hall. "The elections were a referendum on the Congress's Panchayati Raj and development programmes. People accepted decentralisation but the party's defeat is a message that it must be delivered honestly," says Rawat.

Surveys after polls show the Congress lost heavily in its traditional constituencies -- rural, tribal and scheduled caste voters, precisely people wooed with decentralisation and water conservation campaigns. An exit poll by the Delhi-based Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) found that electricity and bad roads were two major issues that went against the Congress. As many as 51 per cent of rich voters supported the BJP and from the upper middle and lower middle class, 47 per cent and 40 per cent respectively. At least 38 per cent of rich voters supported Congress and its vote share from the upper middle class and lower middle class was 33 per cent and 30 per cent respectively.

The Congress was sure that 2003 would be a repeat of its 1998 electoral success. According to the Election Commission's analysis, a swing of 0.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent in favour of the Congress decided results in around one-third of the seats. A swing of less than 0.5 per cent won 30 seats for them and a swing of 1.5 per cent decided 79 seats . In 1998, such a swing occurred in tribal areas. But 2003 was different. Decentralisation had created a political force in the state's 58,000 villages, but its mismanagement and the tussle between panchayats, janpad panchayats, zila panchayats and bureaucrats had angered people. As Amit Khare , of non-governmental organisation (NGO) Samarthan , says: "When people scrutinised decentralisation , they found they had got no rights."

"Congress workers failed to take the policies to the people," says Shyam Bohre, of Bhopal's Academy of Administration. Ajai Singh, the former panchayat minister and son of his archrival Arjun Singh, admits decentralisation could have been done better. "I did my best to carry forward the power given to the panchayats. Yes, I do admit that the devolution of power needs to be further strengthened," he says.

Bringing in Panchayati Raj
Congress-ruled MP became the first state to adopt the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. The Adhiniyam was enforced on January 25, 1994, and was amended six times till 2000, empowering gram sahas instead of elected panchayat representatives. Gram sabhas (village assembly consisting of eligible voters) only had advisory power according to the 1994 Adhiniyam, but in 1996 three amendments empowered them to direct panchayat members on all the 29 functions of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI). The gram sabha was made smaller and participatory. An amendment in 1997 allowed a gram sabha in every village, instead of a common one for four to five villages. It now had to meet four times in a year, instead of once. Panchayat members were legally bound to seek the gram sabha's direction.

Amendments in 1998 further empowered gram sabhas to audit panchayat accounts. In 1999, gram sabhas got the right to recall their representatives (in all, seven have been recalled). In 2001, the government redrafted the Adhiniyam of 1994 in the form of the Gram Swaraj Act, giving people sweeping powers. This new legislation made the gram sabha the nodal governing body and made the elected representatives accountable to it. "The CM's political commitment was clear," says S C Beher, Digvijay's former advisor who is regarded as the father of the state's Panchayati Raj programme.

Then what went wrong?
Even as these reforms were brought in, the government had given bureaucrats and politicians space to interfere. This bureaucrat's signature was needed on all papers. This system continued even after gram sabhas took over.

Realising these shortfalls, Digvijay Singh in 2001 started a second generation watershed mission with less bureaucratic and more widespread programmes, like the Pani Roko Abhiyan and the Ek Panch Ek Talab. The response was unprecedented: In two years, without external support, about a million water harvesting structures were set up. The state got a good monsoon in 2003 and there was water everywhere. In fact, the BJP was forced to raising water shortage as an election issue. (see box: Water conservation: flowing on)

No share in the forests
Hapless gram sabhas also affected the state's JFM programme. Implemented in 1991, JFM allowed people to manage the forests and give them a share in profits made out of forest produce. By 2001, there were 12,000 JFM committees with 2 lakh members, many of whom had gained employment because of the programme. These people became angry when the Adhiniyam in 2001 put JFM committees under the control of gram sabhas.

Under the Gram Swaraj Act, five-year-old JFM committees had to be dissolved and elected afresh by the gram sabha. About 2,500 JFM committees were disbanded in March 2001, but panchayats weren't explained how gram sabhas would run them. As a result, an estimated 20,000 people lost their daily wage. By 2003, some 5,000 committees had been dissolved without new ones to replace them.

The government allotted about Rs 400 crore for JFM but the money remained with the forest department. "The CM got the feedback that the money was being spent. His decision January in 2003 to give all forest revenue to the people was based on this feedback," says a forest conservator.

For example, in Betul, people protested angrily when JFM committees were dissolved. "We came to know in January 2003 that our committee which had protected the forest for nine years didn't exist at all," says Munji Yadav, president of forest protection committee in Betul's Churni village.

Based on the CM's decision in January 2003,. Churni should have got Rs 10 crore from harvested timber. It's still waiting to get that money. "It is true that benefit-sharing modalities has not been discussed with the people," admits Krishna Murthy, divisional forest officer of Harda district. Harda earned a revenue of Rs 35 crore from timber and Rs 60 lakh from bamboo. This has to be shared by the 150 JFM committees, but Murthy is "a bit confused on how to share the money". And confusion is what bureaucrats and politicians have used to corner decentralisation.

Opposition from MLAs
If sarpanchs feared gram sabhas, MLAs felt threatened by sarpanchs. " MLAs are sore that there is an alternative leadership in districts and blocks. These local government leaders can mobilise people and swing votes," says Yogesh Kumar of Samarthan. This influence is important because turnout in village elections is 80-90 per cent compared to the 50-60 per cent in Vidhan Sabha polls.

Despite efforts to protect panchayats from political interference, the power of politicians has grown. In 1981, Lok Sabha MPs were members of one of their district panchayats if their constituencies had more than one district. Now, MPs are members of all district panchayats in their constituencies. MPs are also ex-officio members of any two committees of their choice in the zila panchayat. In Janpad panchayats also MPs are non-voting participants. Similarly, MLAs are members of district zila panchayats and block janpad panchayats, besides being ex-officio members of all janpada panchayat committees, enjoying power to influence decisions at every level.

However, sarpanchs and janpad panchayat presidents have not been made members of any standing committee of the janpad or zila panchayats. "This has taken away all the power of decentralisation. Gram sabhas plans but MLAs decides its fate," says Gaur. But politicians weren't going to be satisfied by a seat in panchyats. They wanted absolute control, and district government was what they got.

Lords of the districts
Zila Sarkar -- started in March 1999 in the name of autonomy -- put politicians and bureaucrats in charge of districts. The system was so unpopular that when the present BJP government came to power, it scrapped all district governments.

This mode of governing was a modified version of the constitutionally-mandatory district planning committee (DPC). A DPC ideally reviews development programmes in a district, collects plans panchayats and municipalities make and draft development schemes for the district. They usually don't have financial power.

In March 1999, MP redesigned the DPCs into a district-level government and gave them enormous power. A minister was made chairperson, the collector its secretary. Calling a DPC meeting, its timing, agenda and recording of minutes depended upon these two. Zila panchayat members were given a seat in the committee but their role wasn't clarified. The district government was not supposed to encroach upon panchyats, but ministers and MLAs took control.

DPCs were allowed to spend up to Rs 1 crore on programmes that weren't with zila panchayats. The committees supervised all government departments in the district. The district government had power over watershed development, forest, agriculture, minor forest produce. It guided panchayats in forming and implementing programmes they controlled. "The district government was creating problems for sarpanchs and panchs. The district government was formed to solve local problems but all power was with the district minister," says Khare. "The minister and collector became all powerful and the district panchayat weak. District government became a transfer industry," says Bohre.

Says the study carried out by 5 institutions: "Government departments and PRIs had mixed feelings about the DPCs. The discussions in DPCs were political and members derailed discussions with irrelevant questions." Amitabh Singh, of NGO Debate, says even Congress MLAs knew that the district government would be unpopular. "When Chhattisgarh was formed in 2000, the Congress government scrapped the system in the new state," he says.

Decentralisation, BJP style
Back to Mandiya village. Its Gram Sabh is yet to convene and the anger against Digvijay Singh is still there. But says its resident Hatiyasi Kewat, "The two schools under the EFS are the best thing to happen to us despite the bad Panchayats." 80 per cent children now go to school. "The new government now has the responsibility to continue whatever good things from the last government," says Om Prakash Rawat. The debate whether the new government will continue with the decentralisation programme and correct the mistakes rages.

Politics and the Constitution prevent the BJP government from dismantling panchayati raj. But it's clear that it plans to change the system. "We must reorganise panchayats and their responsibilities," CM Uma Bharti told her first cabinet meeting. Congress bagged 90 per cent of the seats in the 1999 elections to local bodies, but lost the 2003 assembly polls because it mismanaged Panchayati Raj. BJP has learnt from this.

"There is no need to dismiss the panchayats now. There will be elections to them according to schedule," says Bharti. With Lok Sabha elections around the corner, Khare and Bohre believe that the BJP government will presently just make cosmetic changes like renaming schemes and altering the constitution of village committees. By dismantling district governments, Bharti has sent a positive message to panchayats.

The BJP surveyed 30,000 panchayats just before the assembly polls. The survey's 400-page report will decide the future of panchayati raj. "The state will adopt a swadeshi panchayati raj. It means jal, jungle , zamin, gau and restoring real powers to panchayats." says Govindacharya, RSS ideologue and advisor to the chief minister.

According to sources in the RSS, the survey found panchayati raj entrenched and panchayat leaders in support of decentralisation. "The new policy would be to further strengthen these bodies and rethink their responsibilities and financial power," says Govindacharya. Bohre cautions the new government that panchayati raj has not been established because of politicians and the bureaucracy. "The Panchayati Raj Act has been reduced to a subordinate government office,'' he says, "Somebody has to implement programmes, and panchayats can do that more effectively," says Tomar. It remains to be seen what Uma Bharti will do.

With inputs from Ruksan Bose and Aditya Malviya in Madhya Pradesh