The concept of local government is relatively modern, although some of its components did exist in ancient and mediaeval ages in all countries because of political, administrative, socio-economic or geographic necessities. It is from the seed of operational freedom that the modern concept of local self-government has ultimately blossomed into full-fledged form.
Local government is multi-dimensional; it is an organized social entity. In political terms, the governance of a specific local area constitutes a political sub-division of a nation, state or other major political unit. The local government is an integral part of the political mechanism for governance in a country. Decentralization is more coveted for it involves the transfer of authority from the point of view of the subordinate in relation to the superior while delegation has an aura of responsibility of the subordinate to the superior. ‘The local government is like any government when judged on the basis of authority and responsibility.’
The quality of government is as important as the quality of service because local democracy contributes directly to the health of the national polity. It observes that any valid theory of local self-government cannot be built on management theory, and it must be political theory. Local self-government is more relevant currently in the daily lives of people at the grass-roots level than central government and regional government.
In this context, it is relevant to look into the Gandhian and Ambedkarian perspectives and their disputes or arguments related to local self-government. As far as local self-government is concerned, Gandhi and Ambedkar have different views. This chapter deals with these different viewpoints.
Gandhi’s perspective of local self-government
This section discusses the Gandhian philosophy of local self-government in brief, to understand the validity and philosophical basis of Gandhian concept of local self-government. Gandhi thought that self-government depends entirely upon our internal strength and our ability to fight against the heaviest odds. Indeed, self-government does not require that continuous striving to attain it. He said that he endeavoured to show both in word and in deed that political self-government for a large number of men and women is no better than individual self-government and, therefore, it is to be attained by precisely the same means that are required for individual self-government or self-rule.
The integrated validity and aspiration of Gandhi’s effort was permanently linked with the devolution of power as his first step towards the realization of democratic objectives of representative and accountable process. Gandhi’s prescription of village was based on the dynamics of decentralized system, with the village as the viable unit conducive to articulated, participatory self-governing citizenship. It is often forgotten that Gandhi was not captivated of the village, as it exists today. His image of village was an entirely transformed identity.
In the Gandhian perspective, the village was visualized as the base level of a radically decentralized polity. His inspiration has been favourable to a more radical conception of Panchayati Raj. This inspiration covers the intimation of the community development programme for a stronger democratic input into a system of developmental administration. It was based on conventional local self-government.
The concept of self-government as used in Hind Swaraj has a dual meaning in Gandhian philosophy. First it means self-rule of the individual. Second, it means self-government. It is political independence achieved and maintained through self-determination. Swaraj in the first sense is necessary for the right human life at the personal level. Self-government in the second sense is necessary for the right political ordering of a modern nation. Hind Swaraj (written by M. K. Gandhi) is one of the most desirable outcomes in the twentieth century of East and West.
Gandhi seeks to ‘build up a democratic structure from below the self-government (Real swaraj) by awakening into the masses a sense of their power and dignity’. His view regarding morals, society and politics would seem only an application of his philosophy of God. Gandhians and utilitarians agree with each other at many points. According to B. L. Tak, ‘These institutions can function more efficiently as the units of local self-government if they are provided with sufficient financial resources, guidance, power and freedom’ (Tak, 1973: p. 6). The village as the basic unit of Gramraj is totally free from the administrative control of the centre, state or any other agency. Each and every member of the village community will be able to control the whole structure of the Swaraj on which Gandhi wanted to establish a good republic on a co-operative basis.
Ambedkar’s criticism of Gandhian perspective
In contrast to Gandhi, Ambedkar strives for economic and social democracy. Gandhi hesitatingly accepted democracy. He was aware of the limitation of the system and the people running it. Considering the nature of Swarajya and government, Gandhi regarded morality as their base. He expected Swarajya (independence) to be Surajya (good state) and moral evolution of the people. This made him reject the materialist utilitarianism. Ambedkar ‘feared that the minority might be ill-treated by the majority’ (Khairmode, 1964: p. 153). Ambedkar defined democracy in the social perspective. The content of both the definitions is the same.
Gandhi’s moral and political thoughts are compatible. He feared ‘when the government tries more and more to safeguard the material interests of the people turns more and more corrupts’ (Khairmode, 1964: p. 153). When one accepts the moral approach, Gandhi attaches no importance to who rules. If government does not adopt moral ways, the people should be educated and made aware of their strength. Ambedkar also advocated minority safeguards. His demand was based on his experience, and hence the demands based on morality seemed pretence to him. After returning from foreign countries Ambedkar’s self-confidence increased.
Dr Kuber has given Ambedkar’s opinion on the concept of democracy presented by the Western thinkers.
- They omit to take into account the uncontroversial fact that in every country there is a governing class.
- They fail to realize that the resistance of a governing class is inconsistent with democracy and self-government.
- Self-government and democracy become real when the governing class loses power to capture the power to govern.
- The governing class may be so well entrenched that the service class will need other safeguards besides adult suffrage to achieve the same end.
- Social outlook and social philosophy of the governing class is not taken into account. (Vakil, 1991: pp. 130–131)
Ambedkar’s model of democracy, its basic character and importance in economic and social change and its ways of successful operation, rights of the people and safeguard for the minorities are not different. All these were reiterated by Ambedkar – decentralization of power is a system of governance where powers are transferred from centre to the states and from states to the villages.
In fact, Ambedkar’s views differed from Gandhi’s views on decentralization only because of the fact that caste is a predominant factor in the affairs of the village. He said that the village republics spelled ruin for the country and played no part in its affairs and destiny. He described, ‘Village Panchayat as a sink of localism and den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism’ (Ambedkar, 1982: p. 39). According to him, India could not build up a national spirit because of its village system, saturating the people with local particularism and local patriotism.
According to Ambedkar, Panchayats played the role of a judiciary. And the literal meaning of it signified the prevalence of God, reflecting their spiritual sacredness as providers of justice; Ambedkar opposed it. ‘Panchayat being an elected body could be illiterate or literate but not necessarily with the qualifications needed to adjudicate. Nowhere in the World had he found an elected judiciary’ (Ambedkar, 1982: p. 39). He observed in a village of Satara district in which non-Brahmins boycotted the Brahmins; consequently the Brahmins could not get a barber to shave them. They could not get the village Bania to see their provisions, and they could not get people to do any service for them. The Brahmin has either to grow a beard or to walk 7 miles to Satare to have a shave. These kinds of trends were common in villages. It was impossible for him to believe that justice could be distributed between men of different castes and creeds. The pragmatic compulsion for any elected members of Panchayat as judicial functionary acted against with suitable legal knowledge.
Ambedkar’s prime concern was the status of the depressed classes in the new Panchayats, with franchise for the whole village community. He said, ‘Without communalism there can be no self-government in India.’ Ambedkar was not against the objective of devolution of powers to the people in principle. He suggested preconditions for the success of 13he decentralization of powers to the grass-roots, via special representation of the minorities on community line, extension of judicial circles and expertise to the villages instead of Village Panchayat working as a judiciary. Social and economic equality in the villages is the essential pre-requisite for transferring powers to the local bodies.
Ambedkar opposed the introduction of Panchayati Raj on the ground that in the unequal class structure village democracy would become exceedingly conservative and liberal. The traditionally dominating class would use the political institutions of Panchayati Raj to perpetuate their privileged position. Unless power is concentrated in the hands of the socially suppressed section of society, it was not possible to wipe out the social, legal and cultural disparities cutting the section.
At a point of time, Ambedkar did oppose ‘the establishment of decentralized system that bestow powers to the states and Village Panchayats but he suggested preconditions and to do some homework before providing wide ranging powers to the governing class for their establishment and subsequent success’ (Social Action, 2001: pp. 305–308). Ambedkar said, ‘It is a positive proof that the people are not anxious for the introduction of village Panchayats’ (Louis Fischer, 1950: p. 108).
Ambedkar appreciates the bill of local self-government, the function of Panchayat as a body of local self-government. In fact, he does not have any objection in principle to the policy of devolution. He said,
If it is found that the local boards of the presidency are overburdened by the functions which are placed upon them by the local board act and if by reason of that they are unable to discharge their functions efficiently, then I say, by all means institute village Panchayats.
If the desire is to constitute Panchayati Raj for their own sake, then it is a very dangerous system. Many have eulogized the ancient system of Village Panchayats. Some have called them ‘rural republics’ but ‘whatever be the merits of the rural republics, Ambedkar said it is bane’.
He opined that, if India has not succeeded in building up a national spirit, the chief reason for the existence of the village system is that it has no room for larger civic spirit. Under the ancient Village Panchayat, instead of being a country of united people, there was a loose conglomeration of village communities, with no common tie except common allegiance to a common king. Ambedkar’s next objection is to the constitution of the Panchayats themselves. He proposed that the Village Panchayat should be elected on the basis of adult franchises both for male and for female. He talked about depressed classes, who are in the minority in every village, a miserable minority. He said that adult suffrage could not convert a minority into majority. Ambedkar insisted that if these Village Panchayats are established, there shall be special representation for the minorities.
Speaking for the depressed classes, he said, ‘I can never accept the principle of self-government unless I am satisfied that every self-governing institution has provisions in it which give the depressed classes special representation in order to protect their rights.’
Ambedkar has some disagreement with the local self-government bill on the provisions of discharge of the functions of criminal and civil cases. The bill goes like this,
We shall elect a Panchayat based on adult suffrage, consisting of five or seven members. Those gentlemen will hold office for three years. “During the course of these three years they shall not only discharge the functions of local self-governing body, but also discharge the functions of trying certain criminal and civil cases.”
(Louis Fischer, 1950: p. 108)
Ambedkar raises the question as to whether these five gentlemen (members of Panchayati Raj) who will be elected on the basis of adult suffrage will have sufficient judicial training to discharge the duties of a judge? Since people are illiterate, steeped in ignorance and swallowed up in superstitions. Can five good men be entrusted to discharge the duties of judges? Even if they do not have necessary legal training, Ambedkar thinks, ‘They should at least have proper notion of right, of duty, of equality and good conscience’ (Louis Fischer, 1950: p. 108).
Can the population that is hidebound by caste and infected by ancient prejudices and thinks some are high and some are low be expected to have the right notions even to discharge bare justice? The purpose of recalling the descriptions of village by Nehru and Ambedkar is not to highlight the basic differences between them and Gandhi or to suggest that their understanding of the village social situation was necessarily wrong. But it was to illustrate why they did not understand Gandhi’s conception of Indian village properly and why Gandhi insisted on the village as a basic unit of reconstructing the Indian society.
It has been attempted to project the picture of an ideal village life as conceived by Gandhi and to point out the rationale behind recommending such scheme of social reconstruction. Here we can see the theory gap and praxis lag involved in Gandhi’s position.
The theory gap in Gandhian scheme of village life lies mainly in the nature of individual group relationship postulated by Gandhi. For Gandhi, the individual was the supreme consideration. He wrote, ‘No society can possibly be built on a denial of individual freedom. It is contrary to the very nature of man’ (Louis Fischer, 1950: p. 108). But individual freedom is exercised by the conceded for personal ends. Quite the contrast, individual freedom alone equips a man for the service of society. The individual is expected to be in permanent readiness to sacrifice himself or herself at the altar of society, yet the retention of his or her freedom is an essential pre-requisite to serve the society.
The Panchayat is an old institution in India, but it has come to occupy an important place in the post-independence era, indicating a trend towards the decentralization of powers to the local authorities. The pattern of decentralization involves both the delegation or development or transfer of political and administrative powers. It also implies the extension of democracy to the grass-roots level for people participation. Panchayati Raj seeks to link the units of administration established in the remotest villages of a vast country with units of higher government at the regional level.
The concept of Panchayati Raj has faced various interpretations from its protagonists and antagonists. A few among them emphasized maximum local autonomy and minimization of supervision and control by the higher authorities, and some others considered it to be the ruination of the country, leading to the strengthening of traditional ties. Here I am looking into Ambedkar’s view of local self-government with four aspects:
- The perception on village system and Gram Panchayat
- Panchayat as a judiciary
- Representation and election to Village Panchayats
- Pre-conditions for the success of Panchayati Raj
Ambedkar has a different view on the nature of the village and traditional Gram Panchayat in India. Caste is a predominant factor in the affairs of a vill...
