CHAPTER - III

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF PANCHAYATI RAJ SYSTEM

Panchayati Raj has been considered as very old innovation.

The village community in India used to utilize Panchayati Raj

Institutions for the resolution of social conflicts. Religious and such

social institutions had played a very significant role in the social

d3mamics in the ancient times. Unfortunately, with the advent of

foreign domination, these institutions lost their significance and

their social relevance declined considerably. After the advent of

independence, national leadership, especially Mahatma Ggmdhi and

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru lauded their importance and put great

stress on the revival of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and

designated these institutions as almost important for the social,

economic and political development of the nation.

The institution of Panchayati Raj is as old as the human

civilization. It has been in existence since ancient time. In history of

human civilization, it is an early concept of democracy.

If we look back into the political history of human civilization,

then we will find that village Panchayat was the basic unit of

democracy. The concept of Panchayati Raj has a hoary past. An

element of local self government was operative in the Vedic period.

It is widely accepted idea that the self governing village agrarian

communities had existed in India from the earliest times. The

Panchayati Raj system, which dates back to ancient time and which

survived in India through Sultanate, Mughal and even the British

invasion and rule, failed to liquidate the importance of Panchayati

Raj system in this country and was given a due place in the

80

Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 40 of the Constitution

of India. In this chapter, an attempt has been made to discuss in

details, about the existence of Panchayat system in ancient,

medieval and modern India update.

India has the distinction of having the longest saga of village

self-government in the world. As a matter of fact, India has been the

cradle of rural local government which continued to flourish from

time of Vedic civilization to the advent of British rule. The

institution of local government was developed earliest and preserved

longest in India among all the countries of the world. In the Indian

history, the village was the basic unit of government whether the

central authority was monarchical or republican. The rural local

government is the very foundation stone of which every empire in

India has been reared. The half of the empires or the external

aggressions were not able to abolish this system.i

Panchayati Raj Institutions in Ancient India

The village communities with communal functions and

ownership have been the most common forms of early human

society. The village has always remained the most important unit of

our social and economic life in the history of India. It has naturally

constituted the primary territorial unit of administration ever since

very ancient times. Villages are very frequently referred to in the

Vedas. The Ja tak stories give us a faithful picture of the village life

in India in about the fourth and fifth centuries B.C. We gather from

these stories that the village was an important unit of

administration even in those days. The importance of villages in

Indian administration is attributable to the fact that majority of the

Indian population lives in the villages from the beginning.2

Manu distinguishes among three kinds of settlements village

(Gram), town (Pura) and city (Nagara). But even according to him,

the village was a fundamental unit of administration.^

81

Since earliest times, the village has been the pivot of

administration in India. Its importance was naturally very much in

an age when communications were slow. The Vedic hymns

frequently pray for the prosperity of villages. There is no doubt that

villages were the real centers of social life and important units in

the country's economy. The government was usually carried under

the supervision, control and direction of the village headmen called

'Gramini' in the Vedic literature."* He used to be the leader of the

village. Nevertheless he was a nominee of the King and according to

Jayaswal he was "the leader of the town or village as representative

person in the coronation ceremony."5

According to Pramathanath Banerjee, "In the early Vedic

times, the villager themselves managed the simple affairs of the

village, but states being small, there was hardly any distinction

between the central and local government. In course of time,

however, it was found necessary to have a separate organization for

the management of local affairs, as the states grew larger and larger

in size, and the distinction between the two kinds of government

activities become more and more marked." He further says that

"originally, it seems, the villages were completely self-governing.

They were practically free from central control. The Gramani

(headman) and other village officials were appointed by the

community and were accountable to them.^

The Valmiki Ramayana mentions two kinds of villages - the

'Ghosh' and the 'Gram', the former being smaller than the latter. Its

officials were called 'Ghosh' and 'Gram'. 'Ghosh' are indicated as

being smaller in size, generally situated near forest, which dwell the

gods that is those people who maintained cow-herds.'^

Panchayat as an institution of local self-government at the

village level had its origin in ancient India. A sort of village council

or an association of the residents of the village often consisting of

82

the village elders, Panchayat or Gram Sangh performed

administrative and judicial functions. Sometimes, the Gram

Sanghas or Panchayats were elected from among the villagers who

regulated their own lives through these bodies. We fmd reference of

Gram Sanghas in the Manusmriti (Code of Manu), Kaulitya's

Arthashastra (400 B.C.) and the Mahabharata. The Shanti Parva of

Mahabharata refers to a Sabha named Sansad also. This consisted

of the common people and was, therefore, called the J an Sansad.

Valmiki's Ramayana speaks of the Ganapada which was a sort of

federation of village republics. Only those persons could become its

members who had the general welfare of the people at their hearts;

the membership was denied to durjana or impious persons. Later,

village commonwealths are mentioned in Sukra Niti (Sukracharya's

Nitisara). In fact, the institutions of village panchayat in one form or

the other has had an unbroken continuity almost all over India and

throughout her long history.^ Thus, Sir Charles Metcalf said: "The

village communities are little republics, having nearly everything

they can want within themselves and almost independent of any

foreign relations. They seem to last when nothing else lasts.

Dynasty after dynasty tumbles down; revolution succeeds

revolution but the village communities, each one forming a separate

little state in itself has contributed more than any other cause to

the preservation of the people of India". Local government flourished

in ancient India in village, towns and cities. These institutions of

local government were not the creations of central government, but

they were having an independent origin. They were the most

democratic institutions in the world.^

Village administration was carried out under the village

headman (Grameya) during Vedic times. He was the most effective

functionary who exercised considerable control but nevertheless,

could not rule arbitrarily and despotically, being guided by and

accountable to public opinion through the village elders, who

83

formed a kind of informal council. Usually, the post was hereditary

though subject to formal approval by the central authority. Caste

was criterion for the appointment, at times even Brahmins hold this

post. According to the Jatakas, villages conducted business

themselves. The Gramin's functions were defence from external

aggression and preservation of territorial integrity; land revenue

collection, land record maintenance and updating whenever

transfer of property effected. As assistant, the village accountant

under the Gramin was primarily responsible for negotiating with the

central authority. The village assembly (Sabha) was composed of all

honourable householders. In the ancient times the unit of

governance was the village. The village head (Gramin) was

responsible for the efficient governance of the village. The system

was quite transparent because he could not work according to his

wishes; he had to run the village administration according to the

wishes of the Sabha (assembly), which was composed of village

elders. It was not a representative body. All the villagers directly

participated in the meeting of the Sabha. Caste system was not the

basis of appointment of the Gramin or other officials, which

strengthens the point that there was more social mobility in the

system. Balance between the centre and local authorities reflects

that there was proper co-ordination among the governing bodies.

System of governance during the ancient times reflects the

features of a perfect democratic system. While in the governing set­

up there was balance between the centre and local government. The

centre was not authoritative and in the field of local governance the

local bodies enjoyed a free hand. Powers were decentralized and

distributed between the centre and local bodies. In the field of

division of function among the legislature (Sabha) and executive

(Gramini), there was balance of power. Gramini, who was the

executive head, was controlled by the Sabha, which was a

democratic body of the people of the village. The above description

84

depicts that in the modern times the advanced democratic systems

are based on the same principles as the governing system of ancient

India.

Gramini used to be the leader of the village. Nevertheless he

was a nominee of the king and according to Jayaswal he was, "The

leader of the village of town as representative person in the

coronation ceremony."i°

Vedic India was predominantly rural and agrarian and there

are many Vedic hymns praying for the prosperity of villages. The

village administration therefore developed in the early periods.

'Sabha' and 'Samiti' of the Vedic period were the popular assemblies

at the central level. Gramini the village headman of the Vedic period

was a familiar figure and Valmiki also mentions 'Janpada'.

Mahabharata used the term 'Gram Sangh' (village union) and the

Ja takas mentioned 'Gram Sabha' (village assembly). The Gramin

village head man of the Vedic period was definitely a hereditary

functionary and even the other members were chosen through

informal procedures. The domination of higher caste in the old

Panchayats indicated the emphasis on natural leadership in the

villages. The Panchayat of the old times were also conspicuous by

totality of their functions. They were responsible for the defense and

development of the village being the basic unit of administration.

They also acted as the agencies of revenue collection and undertook

certain welfare activities, i

During the time of Ramayana and Mahabharata the king did

not interfere in the affairs of the villages. In Ramayana times, Ram

was the ruler servant of Ayodhaya. Every village had a similar

counterpart ruler-servant he was called Mukhiya or Sarpanch. The

panch used to be elected in an open meeting of the village by

consensus. The good man got chosen as the elder statesman. The

people's elected 'panch' was considered as parmeshwar (the God)

85

including the sarpanch and other panches they were five in

number. They were called as panch parmeshwar. The king,

sarpanch or the mukhiya obeyed the dictates of the people.

They were prepared to make the highest of sacrifices if the

community so demanded. There was neither any competition nor

rivalry for the office of sarpanch. But the number of 'gramini' who

was known as 'panch' had to be persuaded to take the crown of

thorns and burden of honour. 12

The popular assemblies of the villages are referred by Prof

A.S. Altekar by three different names, Sabha, Samiti and Vidhatha.

The Sabha was primarily the village social club but the few times of

the simple village were also transacted thereby its members, like

the steps for communal safety and decision in the matter of village

disputes. Evidences show that the Sabha was usually the village

assembly meeting for social as well as political purposes.^3

In Mahabharata, the village is mentioned as the fundamental

unit of administration under its head. The head (Gramini) had to

protect the village and its land and property, i'*

In the Vedic period, the state was essentially a country state

with villages as the basic unit of administration. The 'Gramini' or

Grampal was headman and leader of the villages. ^

The villagers were free from central control, Gramini and the

other village officials were appointed by the community and were

responsible to them.^^

The Gramini had a very high status and was a linch pin of

the village administration. The village government was usually

carried under his supervision and direction. There use to be only

one headman for each village. ^

86

Panchayati Raj in Aryan Era

The remarkable thing in this regard was that the political life

flourished well before the establishment of the state. It was not the

outcome of king's sovereignty, rather the states originated among

the people already accustomed to political life.is

The nature of these bodies was different in ancient Indian

republics. The institutions were known as Gana. These assemblies

were popular in the sense that the governing power vested in a

group of people but there was than no electoral role giving a list of

qualified voters; nor were there any periodical elections held. Gana

was the assembly or Parliament and Ganarajya, consequently,

denoted government by Assembly Parliament. ^ The very term came

to mean that those since in the early Vedic era, the society was

primitive, therefore like a primitive, assemble which does not know

any differentiation of functions, members of Sabha debated and

sacrificed.

The word 'Samiti' means meeting together or i.e., an

assembly. The Samiti was the national assembly of the whole

people. It was presided over by the king. Rather it appears that the

king was under a duty to go to Samiti. Thus we can say that the

historians, foreigner as well as Indian, do not agree as to the precise

nature and composition of these bodies.

This can be concluded in the world of Dr. Kane, "It is

impossible to say how the Sabha or Samiti was constituted in the

Vedic period. All that we say is that it was an assembly of people to

which the king, learned men and others went."2o

In the later times royal blood also started attending the

meeting of Samiti. They were distinguished members of the body,

which also contained popular elements. Samiti performed

numerous functions, but the most important were the political

functions.

87

Thus, assembly system was common among the people

during the Vedic age. At all levels the political system was regulated

by the assembly system. The national life and activities in the

earliest times on record was expressed through popular assemblies

and institutions. The greatest institution of these times was Samiti

of Vedic times. 21

During Jain and Buddhist texts dating from the 5^ century

B.C. the village headman was called 'Bhojak'. His duty was to

collect the revenue for the state and to organize the constructive

programmes. He was selected by villagers on the basis of local

customs and traditions but in practice his post was hereditary. In

each village there was a main gate known as 'Gram-Dwara'. The

Gopalka was there to protect the village cattle heads. During this

period, various occupational Panchayats were also active. Each

group had its own Panchayats. The Sarpanch of the Panchayat was

known as 'Pramukhi' (Chairman of Pramukh).22

During the Buddhist and Jain Period

The villages were classified according to the size and mode of

habitation. The villages during Buddhist and Jain period were self-

sufficient and self-reliant. The pastures and the forests were

collectively owned and managed, while the agricultural land was

parcelled into individual holdings. The villagers were free to

participate in the decision making process and various other loceil

programmes. The village headman was frequently consulted in local

affairs, but he could not violate the public opinion. No one liked to

go to the king for doing up paid work (begar), because 'begar' was

criticized as a mental task.22

In that period the village continued to be keystone of Indian

polity. Each of them was a tiny self-governed republic. The

Buddhist Church was itself based on the ancient political

institution of the Aryan village community which formed the

88

foundation of the Indo-Aryan polity. The Buddhist record throws

light on the constitution and procedure of these ancient popular

assemblies.^'^ The basic principle of the Panchayat during the Jain

period was sarve varash saman manarach (equality for allj.^s

The Panchayat system of this period has been described in

some Jaina texts as "dearer to all varnas because of their equitable

treatment". The religious orders founded by Buddha and Mahavira

observed highly democratic procedures in arriving at a decision.

There was no interference on the part of central government in the

internal affairs of the religious institutions. In the past Buddhistic

period, the Sarpanch or headman was known a Ja thak (elder

brother). He was also respected in King's Court.26 Aryan evolved

their villages system in India. It was mixture of old Dravidian village

and the new Aryan ideas. The villages were almost independent and

were governed by the elected Panchayats. In the centre of village

there was a Panchayat Ghar, where the village elders met.27 It is to

be noted that this system was first introduced by king Prithu while

colonizing the Doab between the Ganges and Jamuna . In the

Manusamriti and the 'Shanti Parva' of Mahabharat, there are many

references to the existence of Gram Sanghas.^s

High Grey remarked that the inspiration of Panchayati Raj is

derived from the tradition of 'panch parmeshwar', where God

speaks through the five. In India, most indigenous local

consultative bodies seem to have had a caste origin. Within most

castes there are Panchayats meeting to hear cases and arbitrate

between follow caste members uninvolved in disputes, and punish

offenders against caste rule and customs.^^

Panchayati Raj Institution in Mauryan Era

During the Mauryan empire, India was united under a strong

central government. However, Chandragupta was not a despot but a

constitutional Monarch bound by the common law of Aryavarta. His

89

great Minister Kautilya in his famous Arthashashtra, gives an

elaborate classification of villages for revenue, economy and defense

purpose and makes a mention of Gramika or the village headman.

Villages were classified according to population and administration

during this period was closely linked with agriculture. The village

size varied from 100 to 500 families. The boundaries were

demarcated by rivers, hills, forests, ditches, tanks, ponds and trees

situated at one or two krosha (1 krosha equal to 2 miles)

presumably for mutual protection with neighbouring village.30

The village administration during 324-236 B.C. was clearly

linked with agriculture. The villages were organized under union of

10 called Samgrahna, of 200 called Karvatika, of 400 called

Dronomukha and of 800 villages constituting a Mahagram and

administration termed as Sthatnuja. The Sthatnuja was a center of

trade and fair of the neighbourhood villages which comprised of the

following administration staff.

(i) The 'Adhyaksha' (village headman) used to have control over

the village administration and also had the responsibility of

collected revenues. Arthashastra talks about many other

officials such as.

(ii) The 'Samkyaka' (accountant);

(iii) 'Sthanikas' (village officials of different grades),

(iv) 'Anikitsaka' (Veterinary Doctor),

(v) 'Jamgh Karika' (Village Courier),

(vi) 'Chikitsaka' (Village Medical Officer), and

(vii) Ashwa-Damak (House Trainer).

The above officials were also village leaders.^i

This view is strengthened by the writings of Magasthenese

who visited the Court of Chandra Gupta 303 B.C. Stayed in the

90

subcontinent for a long period, and compiled an extremely elaborate

account of Indian life and community. He describes the system well,

classifying village communities as also but rural units and little

republics, aptly said to be self-contained and self-governed.^^

Kautilya, the famous statesman in his work the

Arathashastra, has also discussed in detail the village government.

He was a supporter of a powerful king but yet did not oppose village

autonomy. During his time (Mauryan Period) the village headman

was designated as Gramik and appointed by the king. He continued

to be the most influential adviser to the king who constantly, by

and large consulted him about rural affairs. Initiative and

administrative responsibility in particular was vested exclusively

with him. Kautilya stated that rural administration was mainly so

designed as to meet revenue administration needs. The Samaharta

was the head of the Janapada, primarily responsible for revenue

assessment assisted by Sthanik and Gopa who were local leaders,

carried out detailed census periodically for revenue administration.

Besides revenue assessment and collection, these officials enforced

law and order, showing that revenue, police and magisterial

functions were vested together in one hand.-^^

After the Mauryan epoch's and the process of decentralization

began, central authority being decentralized. It was an age of small

monarchies or chieftainship, the Satavahans and Kusanas being

the only two large kingdoms. A highlight of this time was that these

two large kingdoms developed their feudal relations with small

states of north India. However, a dozen or so small states emerged

in north India during post Mauryan period in the second and first

century B.C.3'* However, there is scant literature or other evidence

of the details of urban administration, though some literary

evidence of the existence of guilds can be inferred from early Pali

texts as well as from Buddhist texts. The earliest epigraphic

evidence can be seen during the Kusana period.^^

91

The Nigma (guild) system gained ascendancy and spread wide

and become popular, four seals from Bhita referring to it. In

addition an inscription refers to two guilds or Srenis, one of them

was Mathura of flour dealers.^^

In Vedic period the village was essentially considered as an

independent unit of administration and the village government had

almost carried out the activities through the village headman

'Gramins' who was assisted by village elders. During the Mauryan

period, Panchayats organized works of common utilities, education

and settlement of disputes between groups.^'^

LxDcal elements become important in the local administration.

They were given due regard in local affairs. Inscriptions refer to the

participation of leading elements in the village administration or

small towns called Vithis. No land transactions could be effected

without their consent and this may also be true about other

affairs. 38

Local elements also played an important role in executive and

judicial functions. Thus the Gupta period was less bureaucratic as

compared to the Mauryan period. The major causes were that the

state was less involved in the economic activities, nor was a large

standing army necessary at the same scale as was maintained by

the Mauryans. Participation of artisans, merchants, elders in the

administration also reduced the official work.^^

Panchayati Raj Institutions in Gupta Era

In Gupta period, village councils become regular bodies which

had the permanent features of local administration. In Chola period

well organized village Panchayat system i.e. local self government

was in existence. The villages had the economic and administrative

freedom. The elected representatives forming village council

performed the administration of the village. The function of village

councils were to: (i) Controlling village land; (ii) survey and

92

measurement of agricultural land, (iii) collection of land revenue,

(iv) settlement of village disputes, and; (v) management of

education."^o

Inscriptions bear out that decentralisation was marked. As

such, the village became a vital unit of overall administration, the

state not exercising any close supervision or control as in Mauryan

times. Autonomy was so great that even households were not

registered. Village affairs fell directly under the village headman and

assisting elders or Mahattara, the later also associated with the

government in Visaya (district).'*!

The Gupta period marked the sudden elevation of the village

administration to a high position of authority with local elements

having an important role in the administration of law and justice

more organized than the earlier periods. Various inscriptions reveal

that jurisdiction of the Grama authorities extended over houses,

streets, markets, cremation grounds, temples, wells, tanks,

wastelands and forests.''^

The Gupta period which is known as the golden age of Indian

history reflects the evolution of guild system in India and emergence

of decentralized administrative system in which the power of local

authorities increased tremendously. Local government system

described by historians during the Gupta period can be called local

self government. In this system the native people had a dominating

role. Due to increased importance of the Nigma who were

economically sound, most of the local affairs were managed by the

local bodies with the help of Nigma. These developments led to the

decentralization of powers. Now the central government was limited

to those functions which the lower echelons of the government

failed to manage such as protection of boundaries, trade with far

flung areas etc. The basic development of the local government in

Gupta period resembles the Panchayati Raj after 73''«i Amendment

93

of Constitution of India. Like the Gupta period centre has realized

the importance of decentralization and devolution in the field of

functions and powers. The centre and states are also motivating the

local institutions to raise their own resources and manage the

affairs.

Panchayati Raj Institutions in Harsha Era

After the Guptas, the great king Harsha ruled northern India.

During this period, the smallest unit of administration was the

Grama (village). A cluster of a dozen households and a dozen of

such cluster may be called Grama."^^

In Harsha period the village headman, known as grameyaka

or Grama Adhyaksha was in charge of village administration. The

Grameka was assisted by Karani (clerk) and Mahattaras. Elderly

people of the village were probably selected by common consent on

the basis of their age, ability, integrity, wealth, etc.'''' The study of

Harsha's system of administration reveals that how the ancient

institutions came to be inherited into the body politics later on

through immemorial practices and uses. But then, Harsha's system

had one more institution intervening between Vishaya's and

villages. It was the Pathakas, which probably corresponds to the

modern tehsil or taluka. Harsha Charita also mentions,

Mahattaras, it means that the council of village elders existed

during the time of Harsha. The village government looked after all

local matters concerning houses, streets, markets, temples, wells

tanks, cremation grounds, cattle, pasturages, forest arable and

unarable land.''^

Satavhana 200 B.C. to 200 A.D.

Despite the vast extent of the Satavahna empire its policy was

simple and local administration was left largely to feudatories

subject to the general control of royal officials. The state was

divided into Aharas (administrative divisions) each under an

94

Amatya. Below these came the villages, each with its own Gramiyka

(head man).'*^

Villagers met periodically to consider matters of common

concern and for the settlement of disputes and the administration

of justice. Everywhere rural administration grew from timed and

tentative improvisation to the more elaborate and complicated

machinery of committees and officials, that are in Chola

inscriptions of the tenth and eleventh centuries and the evolution of

the Tamil country appears to have been more progressive than the

rest of South India. The village had a headman called Munda, Kilan,

Grambhojaka and so on, who was the village leader and the

mediator between the village and the royal government. Besides this

there were village assemblies and the village assemblies regulated

irrigation rights, administered charitable endowments, maintained

tanks, roads and managed the affairs of temples, either directly by

means of executive officer or through committee working under it. It

also made its own rules, regulating its own affairs.'*'^

In the Decan local government, there are many references of

Mahajans, who were in charge of the local administration under the

leadership of Gamunda (headman). Besides, the little changes in

the rural local government in ancient India, the basic system of

rural local government remained same. The inscriptions of 9^ , 10^^

and 11'*^ centuries A.D. show that village assembly was the

supreme authority in the village and it was highly developed

organization. In some places it consisted of young and old i.e. all

the adults of village, whereas in some other places, it was a select

body consisting of the learned and other distinguished men of the

village and it was the obsolete proprietor of the village land,

including the amount of revenue to the government later these

bodies were known as Panchayats.'*^

95

The functions and the powers of the assembly since Vedic age

seems to fall in two broad categories : judicial and executive.''^

In the executive field the assembly had a number of functions

and duties. But the two important functions were to collect the

revenue and to secure the village defence against the external

attacks. Outer functions were known as Gram Karya (village works).

For the better management of land, defense, tanks, charities,

supervision of justice etc. these committees were constituted

according to the established rules and regulations. These

committees performed their functions according to the established

rules and regulations. In the field of finance, village assembly acted

as a trustee for public charities of all kinds and received deposits of

money. The village assembly regulated the market and assigned

places for the sale of particular commodities. It could levy taxes and

had the inhabitants of the village for public works.so One more

important function was banking system. Sometimes assembly

functioned as local bank and kept deposits of money, out of the

interests of which, they fulfilled the conditions laid down by the

donors.51

The only condition seems to have been that they should not

run administration counter to the sacred laws. Regulations passed

by the village assembly required the sanction of the king. Thus

ancient India had a developed and unique system of village

government. The system was different from the modern polity of the

western countries which is the creation of the central polity.

According to R. K. Mukerji in respect of local government as it

developed in India, however, we shall find that the Indian

institution are practically sui generies represented a type which

may be sharply distinguished from the type representing by the

corresponding institutions in modem polity. The fundamental

difference is that, while in the latter case, the state was fully

developed and completely constituted body, consciously creates

96

autonomous center within itself for devolution and domination of its

own functions, in the former communal institutions, guilds and

local bodies have an independent origin and growth out of fluid and

inchoate conditions of tribal life and organization. When the state

comes to supervene or be superimposed upon these, it has to treat

them more or less on terms of equality and recognize their

preexisting rights by conventions and agreement.52

Panchayati Raj Institution during Medieval Era

The medieval period covers roughly the period between 100-

1700 A.D. The first phase of this medieval period i.e. 100-1500

A.D., is a period of political instability, frequent foreign invasion

and of the atrocities of the invaders. The early invasions in India

were directed towards the capturing of wealth rather than for

attaining political sovereignty.^^

During the medieval period in Sultanate period also there was

Panchayat System, in the village level, who looked after education,

sanitation etc. and acted as a 'judicial body' to settle disputes. The

people of the village constituted a small 'commonwealth' and looked

their affairs.S"* The Sultanate of Delhi was essentially military feudal

state. All legislative, judicial, executive and administrative, power

were vested in it. There were no representative institutions. Sultan's

will was the law. Under the Sultanate of Delhi the unit of

administration was village with its headman called Magaddam or

Mukhia and accountant or Patwari and village communities

continued to function in accordance with their old traditions and

the government dealt with the peasants through headman.

With the advent of Muslims, the Mughal rulers succeeded the

Hindu pujas. Their feudalistic bent of mind and their quest for

larger finances for the state, made them to centralize the

administration. They worked out a new land policy. Under this

policy all land which comes under their empire, was regulated by

97

one central revenue system. The provinces, districts and villages

were put under the charge of the centrally appointed Subedars,

Malguzar, Muqaddams and Patwaris.^s

At the top of the hierarchy of Delhi Sultanate, was the

provinces which was divided into districts, which were further sub­

divided into smaller units. The lowest unit of administration was

the village which was self sufficient. There was a village assembly

like the Panchayat of North India in every village. It carried on the

village administration through its hereditary offices such as the

village accountant, village watchman. The village watchman and the

village officers were paid by grants of land, by a portion of

agricultural produce. The central administration maintained

contact with the village through an officer, called Mahanayakcharya

who had kind of supervisory authority over the administration of

village, s

During the early Mughal period village administration was

effective. There existed well organized village communities which

managed their affairs on domestic lines. Because in the beginning

the Mughal emperors were mostly occupied in settling themselves

and conquering other state and had no inclination to interfere with

administration and organization of the country. However, when the

Muslim rulers consolidated their hold, they introduced the Jagir

system and began to collect revenue through Malguzar or

contractors. So the system developed under the Mughal was not

totally Indian. It was a mixture of Indian system with Arabic

system. 57

Muslim rulers tried to preserve the ancient local government

system. But the rulers paid attention to develop agriculture in the

villages. For this purpose from time to time they extended financial

help to local bodies. The central authority gave due regard to village

Panchayats. Village autonomy was respected and the village

98

Panchayat constituting of five person or more continued to keep a

vigilant eye on breaches of time honoured customs, to secure order

and Mughal cooperation, to settle petty disputes, king paid full

respect to the institutions of Panchayati Raj.58

Even during the sultanate period, the Panchayat system had

remained important and performed functions in the fields of

education, sanitation, judiciary, etc. During the Mughal period,

particularly under the rule of Sher Shah, the villages were governed

by their own Panchayats. The Panchayat primarily consisted of

elders of the village who served the people through administration

of justice. The headman of the village had acted as a coordinator

between the village Panchayat and that of the authority of higher

level. Excepting the case of any emergency, the central or provincial

administration during that period did not intervene in the

administrative matters of the Panchayat. With the weakening of the

Mughal rule and at the advent of the British rule in India, the

village administrative system started collapsing.^9

Panchayati Raj Institution during British Period

Panchayati Raj on the eve of British rule was quite strong and

living, when the Britishers took ever the administration of the

country. Many authorities pointed out the distinguished character

of Panchayati Raj on the eve of British conquest. Elphinstone

stated, "These contain in miniature all the materials of a state

within themselves, if other governments were withdrawal. Though

not comparable with very good government, they are excellent

remedy for imperfection of a bad one, they present the bad effect of

negligence and weakness, even present barriers against it tyranny

and rapacity.60

With the advent of the British, the self-contained village

communities and their Panchayats ceased to get sustenance. In

course of time, formally constituted institution of village

99

administration replaced them. It is historical fact that local self

government in India, in the sense of an accountable representative

institution, was the creation of British.^^

The village Panchayats were not the first priority of British

rulers. They were mainly concentrated around the trading centers,

their interest in the beginning was limited to the creation of local

bodies of nominated members in the major towns. It was thus that

as early as 1687 Municipal Corporation came to be formed in

Madras, setup on the British model of a Town Council this body

was empowered to levy taxes for building a guilds hall and

schools.^2

The report of the Congress Village Panchayat Committee

states "the inordinate greed of the East India Company caused slow

but steady disintegration of these village Panchayats. The deliberate

introduction of landlordism and the Ryatwari system as against the

Mauzwari of village tenure system dealt almost a death blow to the

corporate life of the village communities. The excessive

centralization of the executive and judicial powers in the hand of

the government officials deprived the village of their power and

influence.63

The village still continued to remain the primary unit of

administration. The system of administration was changed in

working. The age old village headman (Gramini) and the accountant

became paid government servants, therefore, the village government

was deprived of their share in land revenue, their leaders were also

reduced to salaried government servants, in judicial field also they

destroyed the indigenous system of judiciary and introduced the

regular courts established by low which influenced even the distant

village. The British administration did not implement the local

Panchayat Court decisions. Thus, the old traditions were replaced

by the statiae laws. The Panchayat which was the pivot of all the

100

village activities was replaced by more formalistic, legalistic and

impersonal entity.

Despite all the hardships village remained the primary unit of

administration Dr R. K. Mookerji has aptly described these bodies

as "the shell of the tortoise" as they stood the test of time. The

continuation of village community system in India from times

immemorial with hardly any change worth the name through ages

cannot but surprise many observes of the Indian social structure.^''

The village communities are little republics having nearly

everything they want within themselves and almost independent of

foreign relation. They seem to last where nothing else dynasty after

dynasty tumbles down; revolution succeeds revolution. Hindu,

Pathan, Mughal, Maratha, Sikh, English are all masters in turn;

but the village communities remain the same. In times of trouble

they arm and fortify themselves. A hostile army passes through the

country. The village communities collect their cattle within their

walls, and let the enemy pass unprovoked. The union of village

communities each one forming a separate little state in itself has

contributed more than any other cause to the preservation of the

people of India through all the revolutions and changes which they

have suffered, and is in a high degree conducive to the happiness,

and to the enjoyment of a great portion of freedom and

independence.^5

The establishment of British rule in India gave the final death

blow to the ancient village autonomy. "The village community,

which had so far been the basis of Indian economy, was

disintegrated, losing both its economy and administrative functions.

The destruction of village industries was a powerful blow to these

communities. The balance between industry and agriculture was

upset, the traditional division of labour was broken up, and

numerous stray individuals could not be easily fitted into any group

101

activity. The village community was deprived of all control over the

land and its produce; what had always been considered as the chief

interest and concern of that community now become the private

property of the newly created land owner. This led to the breakdown

of the joint life and corporate character of the community and the

co-operate system of service and functions began to disappear

gradually."66

With the establishment of British rule in India all the powers

and responsibilities were withdrawn from the people of India and

concentrated in the hands of the Governor General of India and

ultimately in the British Parliament. James Bryce, a noted political

philosopher says that "there was under Rome and there is in British

India no room for popular institutions or popular interference with

the acts of rulers from the viceroy down to a district official."^''

The Britishers had no real interest in the welfare of the Indian

people. They believed that the Indians were illiterate and backward

in the art of government and so they were unwilling to part with any

sort of power and to entrust Indians with any responsibilities of self

government. Whatever little reforms or changes they had to

introduce in their highly centralized government was only

necessitated by the pressure of public opinion. The Britishers also

believed that the Indians were unfit and incompetent to work

democratic institutions, and that the popular and representative

institutions were totally alien to India.

However, the British administrations themselves wanted to be

relieved of the heavy burden of the highly centralized functions of

the government. So they thought of introducing local self

government from the top for their own convenience. Consequently

when the machinery of local self-government was first set-up, it was

more or less an official body. Municipal administrations were first

introduced in the towns of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta on a

102

statutory basis by the Charter Act of 1793. This Act empowered the

Governor General to appoint justice of the peace for these three

towns who were authorized to levy taxes on houses and lands to

meet the cost of scavenging, police and maintenance of roads.

The first Municipal Act X of 1842 was passed for Bengal. The

taxation enforceable under it was of a direct nature which met with

great opposition from the inhabitations. So this Act was repealed

and another Municipal Act was passed in 1850 with a provision

that it might be applied to any town only on the voluntary request

of the inhabitants. In the Provinces of Bombay, Bengal and Madras

and also in U.P. this Act was applied to a number of towns. Under

this Act a Town Committee was to be appointed for managing the

local functions which included conservancy, road repairs, lighting

and the collection of octroi and house-tax which it was authorized

to levy.68

The real development of villages, in the modem sense, started

after the report of the Royal Army Sanitary Commission, 1863. The

report pointed out the filthy conditions of the villages and the

importance of increased attention to sanitation. Accordingly the

Village Sanitation Acts were passed in many provinces.

Local self-government as a conscious process of

administrative devolution and political education may be said to be

initiated by the scheme of financial decentralization of Lord Mayo's

government.^^

The year 1870 marks a further stage in the evolution of local

government. In that year Lord Mayo's Resolution which advocated a

measure of decentralization from the centre to the provisions

emphasized the desirability of associating Indians in

administration.•^o

By Resolution of 14 December 1870, the Government of India

declared but beyond all this, there is greater and wider object in

103

view. Local interest, supervision, and care are necessary to success

in the management of funds devoted to education, sanitation,

medical relief and local public works. The operation of this

Resolution in its full meaning and integrity will afford opportunities

for the development of self-government.

In 1871 Acts were passed in respect of local self-government,

for rural areas in the Provinces of Bombay, Bengal, Punjab and the

North Western Province (UP) as a result of Mayo's Resolution. A

similar legislation (Act of 1869), was already in operation in the

Province of Bombay.

The provisions of the local Acts may be summarized as under:

1. Existing cesses were legalized and increased to meet

expenditure on these subjects.

2. Committees for a District as a whole were to be formed.

3. All the members- both officials as well as non-officials were to

be nominated.

4. The Chairman was to be an official.

It is obvious that the Committees were dominated by

officialdom and that there was no provision for elections. Further,

the private members could have only inadequate knowledge and

little interest in affairs of a large area like the district.'^i

The next important landmark in the sphere of rural local self-

government was the famous Resolution of Lord Ripon of the 18^

May, 1882, with provision for local boards with a majority of

members being elected and presided over by a non-official person.

This Resolution was referred to as 'Magna Carta' of local democracy

in India. It gained its importance as it advocated local self-

government not only for attaining administrative efficiency but it

also aimed at training the politically as well as educationally

enlightened groups to participate in the system.'^^

104

During the Viceroyalty of Lord Curzon, this policy of

centralization and cult of efficiency put back the hands of clock in

the sphere of local government. He put administrative efficiency

before local democracy and centralization before decentralization of

authority and thereby evolved a 'mabap' government which shaped

local initiative.

Viscount Morley the then Secretary of State for India from

1901-10 was alarmed at the stupendous growth of over

centralization and he took a serious notice of it. Not only this, he

went even further and called it a great mischief and he attributed it

to the widening gulf between the officials and the people in India.'^^

Contrary to the expectation of the Ripon's Resolution, the

follow-up actions at various levels were tardy. In the year 1906, the

Congress Party under the presidentship of Dadabhi Naoraji had

adopted 'self-government' as the political goal for the county. As a

response to the above, the British had constituted in 1907 a Royal

Commission on Decentralization which submitted its report in

1909. It was jus t an elaboration of provisions already made in the

Ripon Resolution. Nevertheless, the Commission did realize the

importance of the Panchayati Raj system and recommended that "It

is most desirable, alike in the interests of decentralization and in

order to associate the people with the local tasks of administrating

that an attempt should be made to constitute and develop village

Panchayats for the administration of local village affairs. In its 24*

Conference the Congress supported the Royal Commission's

recommendations and urged for early implementation of those

recommendations. As in the case of Ripon Resolution, the Royal

Commission's recommendations too met with the same fate of

neglect and merely remained on paper. The Congress criticism was

aimed at the indifferent attitude and inefficiency of the

bureaucracy. •7''

105

During the next few years not much was done for

strengthening the local government institutions. After the First

World War, another resolution namely, Government of India

Resolution of May 1918, was issued. The Resolution was like that of

Ripon's Resolution in its character and contents.

In the Resolution it was made clear that the local bodies

should not be subjected to unnecessary control. The officials should

be nominated to give expert advice and should be given the right to

vote. There should be elected Chairman for all rural bodies. The

rural bodies were empowered to levy special taxes. They were to

receive a part of land cess.'^^

During 1919, another twist of event occurred when

government brought in Montague-Chelmsford reforms under which

the local self-government was treated as 'transferred subject'. It

meant that local self-government was brought under the

administrative control of the provincial governments. The reforms

had suggested that "there should be as for as possible, complete

popular control in local bodies and the largest possible

independence for them of outside control". Despite the ambitious

objective of Montague-Chelmsford reforms, not much could be done

to make Panchayat institution a true and vibrant instrument of self-

governance at the local level. Curiously enough. Acts have been

passed for establishment of Panchayati Raj in almost all provincial

governments and native state during that period.'^^

The British Parliament passed the Government of India Act

1921-26. Panchayat Acts were passed in eight provinces in British

India for the establishment of village Panchayats. Thus the Acts

were passed in Assam, Bengal, Bihar, Bombay, Madras, the Central

Province, Punjab and United Provinces. These Acts aimed at

lowering the franchise, at increasing the elected elements in local

bodies and at passing executive direction into non-official hands.'^'^

106

The Government of India Act, 1935 had provision for

provincial autonomy and this in turn created another opportunity

to strengthen Panchayats in the country. Most of the popular

provincial governments felt duty bound to enact legislation for

further decentralization giving more power to local governments

including village Panchayat. The above position remained

unchanged until 1947 when the country attained independence^^

Development and Growth of the Panchayati Raj and the National Movement

No doubt, during the early years of national movement

Panchayats were not the major issue, but it would be wrong to say

that the national leaders remained unconcerned with the issue.

Ramkrishan Mission, Indian National Congress, Arya Samaj, YMCA

and other such organizations under took the work to strengthen the

village economy and village Panchayats.

In 1906 congress adopted a resolution on 'self government'

and made demand for extension of the power of local bodies and

removal of the official control over the local bodies. Indian leaders

asked the British government to implement the model of English

local government.

In 1912 in the Congress session, leaders demanded

implementation of the report and expansion in the financial

resources of Panchayats and widening the powers and functions of

local government bodies. The demands of the national leaders were

to make the local bodies more representative, remove the official

interference, make provision for elected chairman and hand over to

them minor functions like minor civil suits, primary education,

sanitation and hygiene. On the basis of above view, it can be stated

they demanded the delegation of power from British rule and local

bodies should remain agencies of the central or state government.

Among the national leaders another trend developed

simultaneously. It was represented by Annie Besant and Bipin

107

Chander Pal. The synthesis of t±ie thought of the latter trend was,

village must be incorporated as a unit in the constitutional system

with autonomy in the area of operation. Annie Besant supported

her view by stating that everyone should have voice, a share of the

power of guidance over the things he understands. This system

must begin at the bottom, laying our foundation in universal

suffrage, with the village in the country and the ward in the town or

units.79

Gandhi on Panchayati Raj

It will not be out of place here to know the views of Mahatma

Gandhi on village Panchayats, since he was the architect of the

Indian nation. Lokmanya Tilak, the then uncrowned king of India,

passed away on l^t August, 1920. Mahatma Gandhi thereafter

became the undisputed leader of the country and the country

passed through three most outstanding upheavals under his

leadership that have rarely taken place in any country in the world.

The first upheaval that had roused the country from slumber of

slavery was non-co-operation movement which inter alia boycotted

the legislature in 1921. The second was the Civil Disobedience

Movement in 1930-32 and the third and the last one was Quit India

Movement in 1942-45.

Mahatmaji was not satisfied with any of the reforms till the

Government of India was made completely responsible to the people

of India. Ultimately he succeeded in getting independence for India

in 1947. His whole attention was concentrated on getting freedom

for India from 1920 to 1947 though from time to time he expressed

his ideas about village Panchayats.^o

Gandhi great visionary, scientific in outlook, realized the

importance of democratic decentralization as the most suitable

system for India. His rationale to support the village and Panchayat

was India's historical, social and cultural background. He equated

108

the village to the backbone of man. He held the view, "if the village

perishes India will perish too. It will be no more India. Her mission

in the world gets lost". Great propagator of the idea of power to

people to decide their own destiny advocated the concept of

'Sawaraj' in which Panchayats have distinct role in managing the

village affairs on the basis of democratic decentralization. He

strongly supported the view that true democratic system is only

possible where the democratic system is strong enough at the

grassroots level. He opposed democracy from the top to bottom.

According to Gandhi, "true democracy cannot be worked out by

twenty men sitting at the centre. It has to be worked out from below

by the people of every village." i

His concept of village Panchayat could not take concrete

shape till India got freedom. One such concept which is often

quoted is given below: "My idea of village Swaraj is that it is a

complete republic, independent of its neighbours for its vital wants

and yet interdependent for many others in which dependence is a

necessity. Thus every village's first concern will be to grow its own

food-crops and cotton for its cloth. It should have a reserve for its

cattle, recreation and play-grounds for its adults and children.^2

Although with the rise of British power, the community life in

the village was disrupted, the concept of Panchayats lingered and

caught the imagination of the country and the nationalist

movement. On the eve of the independence, the role of the local self-

government got momentum and acquired a new significance in the

changing scenario. The advent of freedom and acceptance of the

concept of welfare state passed a new challenge to the Constitution

makers. In Gandhiji's dream of free India, village self-government or

Swaraj, was the basis of the administration of the country. Gandhiji

rightly claimed that India lives in the village and pleaded for the

transfer of power to the rural masses. He believed in overall

supremacy and sovereignty of the rural masses of the grassroots

level, which is known, by democratic decentralization or Panchayati

Raj. In cherished dreams of Mahatma Gandhi and other nationalist

leaders, India could attain 'Ram Rajya' by returning to some of the

golden traditions of ancient India and reviving the indigenous

institutions more suited to the Indian culture. Gandhiji was

convinced that village Panchayats had enormous potentialities,

organization based on grassroots democracy, mutual cooperation

and voluntary efforts. He was firm in his belief that "greater the

power to Panchayats, the better for the people.^^

The Panchayati Raj aims at establishing democracy at

grassroots level and providing a sense of involvement to the people

at the village level as Mahatma Gandhi said, "in a democracy,

decentralization of political and economic power is essential,

because a few centers of power cannot realize or fulfils the needs of

vast multitudes of people. If India is to develop, the power and

responsibilities must be shared by all. When Mahatma Gandhi

discovered that there was no mention of Panchayati Raj in the

earlier draft of the Constitution, he insisted on its inclusion in the

revised draft, because Panchayati Raj was an important component

of his vision of future India in which economic and politicsd power

was decentralized and each village was self-reliant economically. He

felt that people's voice should be reflected in our independence

through Panchayats.84

In the field of power, Gandhi stressed on the point that

maximum powers should be with Panchayats. This would be helpful

in achieving the goal of ideal society. He opposed the concentration

of power in the hands of few at the top. But there will be close

relation state and nation.^s

Gandhi opined that society is the best society where there is

perfect decentralization of power and the each body wants to

strengthen the other. There will no contradiction and clash among

110

the institutions from village to the national level in which each will

rely on the other. Even the remotest unit of political system (centre)

would derive its power from the individual. Sovereignty will be

diffused among units rising horizontally till they reach the national

level. ^

Nehru and Panchayati Raj

Jawaharlal Nehru, preferred the term Panchayati Raj to

democratic decentralization because it conveyed the essential

massage to the people of rural areas. He established the institutions

of Panchayati Raj as the primary instrument for bringing

development to the doorstep of rural India. He wanted, the

Panchayats to be elected by the people and endowed with the

powers and authority and charged with the responsibility to become

the primary means of development. He wanted finances to be

developed on the Panchayats to make them viable, responsible and

disciplined. Nehru in the period after 1958 was intensely interested

in decentralization and Panchayatti Raj as a means of taking

democracy down to the grassroots level.s'^

Nehru while inaugurating the Conference of Local Self-

government Ministers in the Provinces in 1948, said, "local self-

government is and must be the basis of any true system of

democracy. People have got into the habit of thinking of democracy

at the top and not so much below. Democracy at the top may not be

a success unless you build on this foundation from below."^s

Nehru, one of the architects of Indian polity, felt the need of

decentralization of power for the advancement of the overall

development of the individual and society. He stressed on the

balanced development between industrialization and

decentralization for the balanced growth of civilization.^^

I l l

Jaya Prakash Narayan and Panchayati Raj

Jayaprakash Narayan after Gandhi once again strongly

supported the idea of democratic decentralization after realizing the

weaknesses of the centralized model of Nehru. He was a critic of

emerging centralized, urbanized and industrialized society. In his

opinion in the centralized system of governance power rests with

the elite of the society. To defuse the centralized system, he

proposed a system of communitarian society, in which village would

be the primary unit of the system. In comparison to the cities and

towns he stated village society is based on the value system and the

system evolved there would be more democratic. After experiencing

the centralized federal system in India Jayprakash Narayan stated,

"Panchayat government in India would be more democratic than the

present federal structure that we have. The more you take

government from Delhi, down below, as near to the people as

possible, the more democracy you have, because then the more

people have a chance to participate in the management of their

affairs, in the conduct of the affairs.^°

Post Independence Developments and Panchayati Raj

India achieved its freedom on August 15, 1947. Constituent

Assembly started discussion on a Draft Constitution for new India

but in the first draft there was no mention of village Panchayats.

Dr. Ambedkar defended the non-inclusion on the ground that the

basis of the Draft Constitution was 'individual' not the Village'. He

opposed the placing of Panchayats in the Constitution. Besides this

many members like, H. V. Kamath, T. Praksham, Man Mohan Das,

Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar, Prof. N. G. Ranga, K. Santhanm, etc.

emphasized the importance of giving, due place to village

Panchayats in the Constitution.^^

The Constituent Assembly did not accept the Gandhian

proposal and stressed that stability, unity and economic progress

112

demanded a more centralized government. When our Constitution

was being framed someone brought to the notice of Mahatma

Gandhi that the Constitution did provide for his most cherished

institution of Panchayat. Mahatma Gandhi remarked, it is certainly

an omission. It demands immediate attention if our independence is

to really reflect the people's aspirations.^2

He insisted on its inclusion in the revised draft because

Panchayati Raj was an important component of his vision of future

India in which economic and political power was to be decentralized

and each village was self-reliant economically. Dr. Rajendra Prasad

had given expression to the found hope that there should be a fuller

consideration of Gandhian concept of villages as units of self-

government. But it was difficult to draw up any balance between

the opposing views. Ultimately, in 1948 a meeting of Ministers of

Local Self-government in Provinces was held under the

Chairmanship of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru.

In his inaugural speech Nehru said, "local self government is

and must be the basis of any true system of democracy. People have

got into the habit of thinking of democracy at the top and not so

much below. Democracy at the top may not be a success unless you

build its foundation from below."^^

After a good deal of thought and discussion, K. Santhanam

moved a resolution for the incorporation of the 'Panchayats' in the

Constitution. The Constituent Assembly which was drafting

Constitution for independent India, accepted the ideals of Gandhian

thought and incorporated provisions relating to Panchayats in the

Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 40) paving the way for

enabling State Governments for creation of Panchayats and

endowing them with such powers, functions and resources so as to

enable them to function as units of self-government.^''

113

Dr. Amberdkar accepted the amendment without any

comment. The Assembly also readily adopted it presumably as a

homage to Ghandhiji's views and to the long cherished Congress

ideals during the national struggle for independence. The

amendment which became Article 40 under Directive Principles of

the State Policy reads:

"The state shall take steps to organize village

Panchayats and endow them with such powers and

authority as may be necessary to enable them to

function as units of self-government."^^

Also Article 246 empowers the state legislature to legislate

with respect to any subject. Constitution indicates a clear-cut policy

directive with regard to the manner how local government has to be

developed. As a result, it became obligatory on the part of the state

governments to ensure the proper functioning of the local bodies in

the rural areas. The goal of state was to develop local bodies into

efficient instruments of administration, capable alike of formulating

policies and of executing them. It was felt that the rural

reconstruction could be possible only through Five Year Plans and

the gram Panchayats were the instruments of development in rural

areas.^^

The inclusion of the Panchayats in the Constitution gave a

new impetus to the growth of this institution. Every state enacted

Panchayat Acts with a view to democratizing the structure of each

village Panchayat and also to vest more and more powers of rural

development in it. Special departments were established to organize

the Panchayats and to look after their working.

After independence the most important task before the

governments was to restructure the socio-economic set-up of the

country. True picture of the country was living in the villages. More

than ninety percent of the population was rural. Centre and State

114

Governments took many programmes and schemes for community

development, some of the important schemes are as fallow:

Firka Development Scheme

The intensive rural reconstruction scheme, popularly known

as the Firka Development Scheme, was launched by the

Government of Madras towards the end of 1946. It was based on

the idea of concentrated development and involved the coordination

of work of the various departments. The scheme had two basic

features: first, the object of the welfare activities was community

development, second, the way people were taught, encouraged and

guided to improve their standard of living. The firkas or regions

selected for development work were placed under trained rural

welfare officers. Some of the major achievements were in providing

rural water supply schemes, completing works of urgent

importance, encouraging cottage industries and formation of

Panchayats.^"^

Etawah Pilot Project

After the Second World War, a project for rural development

and welfare was started in Etawah (U.P.) in September, 1948 with

the active assistance of Albert Myer, who came to India during the

war and had a background of this type of work in U.S.A. and

Horace Holmes. The Government of India was much impressed by

the achievements of this project and considered it a shining

example of rural development work.^^

Sarvodaya Scheme

Sarvodaya Scheme was based on the constructive programme

of Mahatma Gandhi. Other great socialist leaders Vinoba Bhave and

Jayaprakash Naryan were the guides of the scheme. The State of

Bombay took active interest in this scheme since 1948-49. This

scheme emphasized on the co-operative principles and methods in

115

organising sarvodaya activities and tried to inculcate the habits of

self help, mutual aid, toleration, and thrift among the people.^^

Indian leaders took vigorous steps to fulfill the aims of the

Constitution through planning and community development. In

March, 1950, the Planning Commission came into existence. This

Commission entrusted the Panchayats with new responsibilities. °°

In 1951, the Ford Foundation expressed through its President

to assist India to improve the pathetic conditions of rural masses.

These projects started functioning in early 1952. The Indo-U.S.

Technical Cooperation Agreement was signed in January 1952. The

first scientific and systematic programme of community

development was started in India under this agreement, oi

Community Development Programme (CDP)

The Community Development Programme (CDP) was started

on October 2, 1952 with 55 Community Development Projects

under the Indo-US Operational Agreement. Each of the 55 projects

was to cover about three development blocks or 300 villages and a

population of about three lakhs.

The objective of the Community Development Programme was

four fold : (a) transformation in the outlook of the people, (b)

nucleation of the spirit of self-reliance, (c) generation of the habit of

co-operative action though popular bodies, and (d) these three lead

to new enlightenment, strength and hope.i°2

Fifty five community development projects were started. This

programme soon caught the imagination of the people and there

was a demand to increase the number of blocks. In the meanwhile

the Committee which was set-up earlier submitted its report and

stressed on the development of the agriculture. But it suggested

that the agriculture, could not develop unless steps would be taken

for the socio-economic development of the rural India. At this point

116

of time the importance of extension of CDP increased more. But the

government had not sufficient resource to extend the CDP. The

Grow More Food Enquiry Committee recommended the introduction

of National Extension Services and government accepted this

recommendation and started National Extension Service on 2"^

October 1953. Then CDP and NES were the two major schemes for

rural development. The original view of these two schemes was that

community development would mark an intensive phase of rural

development lasting for these years and was thus not permanent,

whereas the National Extension Services was to be permanent multi

functional extension agency in the block. io3

The basic aim of both the schemes was rural development.

Both the schemes were brought under the Ministry at the Centre as

well as in the States. Both the programmes were complementary

and ran concurrently. The idea of NES programmes was to cover

the entire country within a period of ten years or upto 1963.'°'' The

First Five Year Plan states, community development is a method

and rural extension the agency through which the Five Year Plan

seeks to initiate a process of transformation of the social and

economic life of village. °^

In other words, the central objective of CDP was to develop

the capacity of the common man and women and to organize

themselves for working for their own development and the progress

of the country, by making the; best possible use of the available

technical know-how. 1°

During the First Five Year Plan (1951-56), Community

Development Programme was launched throughout the country.

The country was divided into the development blocks. Block was the

operational unit for Community Development Programme. All the

developmental activities started at the block level. For the rural

reconstruction various development activities were taken at the

117

block level including animal husbandry, agriculture extension,

social education, construction of roads and buildings, health

programmes, etc. At the block level a Block Development Officer

(BDO) with a team of extension officers was appointed to carry the

developmental activities, at the village level. Gram Sevaks and

Sevikas were appointed to assist them in the rural construction

programmes. Efforts were made to seek people's participation in

these programmes through the help of village Panchayats also. lO''

In the early years of CDP there was fanfare among the masses

as well as in the officials. But after three to four years, it lost its

initial momentum and the participation and involvement of the

people showed a decline. °8

Gradually the CDP lost its basic nature. It started as the

people's programme with the official assistance. Therefore, it

converted into official programme with least people's participation.

The villages Panchayats were found weak and ineffective in

mobilizing the masses in support of the programme. The Advisory

Committee at the block level was not able to formulate programmes

and motivate people to participate enthusiastically in the

development programmes. Thus the representative bodies at the

village level and advisory body at the block level realized that failure

of the programme were: (i) lack of consciousness among rural

masses, (ii) too much emphasis an shramdan (self labour), (iii) lack

of financial resources, (iv) wrong approach in the training process,

(v) absence of proper local leadership, (vi) neglect by political

parties, (vii) lack of proper propaganda. i°^

Therefore, the results of these programmes were not expected.

It was realized that there was need to review the performance of the

programmes and try to search out the problem areas which posed

problems in achieving the goals of CDP and NES.

118

For this purpose the National Development Council

constituted a Committee on Plan Projects, which in turn appointed

a study team for community projects and National Extension

Service in 1957 headed by Balwant Rai Mehta as its Chairman. The

study team was assigned the task to assess, along with other

things, the extent to which CDP had succeeded in utilizing local

initiative and in creating institutions to ensure continuity in the

process of socio-economic change. Committee submitted its report

in late 1957. The Committee observed that CDP and NES

programmes have failed to evoke popular initiative, local bodies at

the level higher than the Panchayati had evinced but little

enthusiasm in the CDP and even the Panchayats had not come into

the field of community development in any significant way.^^°

Existing institutions did not possess the qualities

recommended by Balwant Ra Mehta team. It was, however, decided

that the 'Panchayat' with necessary organizational and functional

modifications, should form the basis of our democracy and should

also act as an agency of the community development. ^ i

Hence, Mehta Committee stressed on the need of

decentralization of powers till the grassroots level, development of

power not only in the political field but also in financial as well as in

administrative field.

The Committee recommended that the old District Boards to

be replaced by a three tier system of rural self-government with

each tier linked by indirect election and genuine transfer of power

and responsibility of planning and development activities to these

bodies done at the state level. The three levels suggested were:

Gram Panchayat at the village level, Panchayat Samiti at block level

and Zila Parishad at the district level. The team suggested direct

elections at the village level and indirect elections for Samitis and

119

Zila Parishad. Out of these three the most effective body was

visualized at the block level. ^

According to the Committee, there was to be a Panchayat

Samiti at the block level which was to be indirectly elected by the

village Panchayats, some representation being given also to

Municipalities and cooperative organizations in the block area. The

Samiti was to be assigned specific functions and specific items of

revenue. At the district level there was to be a coordinating body

called the Zila Parishad consisting of the Presidents of the

Panchayats Samities, Members of State Legislatures and Parliament

and all district level officers of the development department as

members and, with the Collector as the Chairman.

The village Panchayat was to be constituted by direct election

on the basis of adult franchise with a special provision to co-opt two

women members and one member each from Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes. The Panchayat was to have specific items of

revenue like a share in land revenue and certain obligatory duties

like acting as the agents of the Panchayat Samiti for executing

schemes. Thus, the plan envisaged a three-tier system of

decentralization, namely the Village Panchayat, the Panchayat

Samiti and the Zila Parishad. The above scheme recommended by

the Committee was endorsed by the National Development Council

on 12 January, 1958. It was also decided at the national level that

while the broad pattern and the fundamentals of the new system

may be uniform throughout the country, there should not be any

rigidity. What was important was the genuine transfer of power to

the people, not the details of the pattern adopted, ii^

The implementation of the scheme was hailed by prominent

persons of the country. To Jaya Prakash Narayan, it was a matter of

great satisfaction that in our country a beginning had already been

120

made in laying the foundation of participatory democracy in the

shape of Panchayati Raj.'''*

S. K. Dey also observed that "in Panchayati Raj, the people of

India would govern themselves through their representatives in

institutions from the Panchayat to Parliament and thus the

democracy would travel from Lx)k Sabha to Gram Sabha/ ' i '^

It was in this context that Nehru described Panchayats as the

"foundations of democracy" in India. Speaking on the occasion of

the inauguration of Panchayati Raj in Rajasthan on 2 October

1959, he expressed his faith in the capability of the people in

managing their affairs in the manner considered best by them.i'^

No doubt, after the report of Balwant Rai Mehta all the States

introduced Panchayati Raj System. But the system differed from

State to State. Since then in Andhra Pradesh three tier system was

functioning under the Andhra Pradesh Act, 1964 till the enactment

of 73'''' Amendment of the Constitution.

Reports of various Committees and Development of Panchayati Raj after Balwant Rai Mehta Team

After independence Balwant Rai Mehta Committee was the

first which was appointed to review the performance of Community

Development and National Extension Service. Recommendation of

the Committee gave a shape to PRIs. But the system which grew

after the implantation of the report had many weaknesses which

proved hurdles in the way of achieving the goals of PRIs. Further

many Committees were appointed by the Central and State

Governments to review the working of PRIs and to suggest other

measures to improve the rural local government system.

By the year 1962, study team on Nyaya Panchayats

recommended the setting up of Nyaya Panchayats for a group of

villages and for administration of justice in petty civil and criminal

121

cases. The members of Nyaya Panchayats were to be elected directly

by the people themselves.'^'^

Whenever, Nehru found that the functioning of the system

was hampered by some impediments - financial, administrative or

others, the government took remedial measures. Thus, another

Committee was appointed in 1961, under the Chairmanship of K.

Santham, Member, Rajya Sabha, to make a study of the resources

and finances of Panchayati Raj.'i^

The study team on the position of Gram Sabha in Panchayati

Raj movement (1963) recommended that Gram Sabha should

statutorily be recognized and encouraged to play a more active role

in the village affairs. The study team on Audit and Accounts of

Panchayati Raj Bodies (1965) suggested measures for activating the

system of financial transactions of PRIs. It emphasized that audit

was not to be confined to the voucher check. It was also to satisfy

itself that the necessary sanction to any expenditure was in order

and was related to performance. The Committee on Panchayati Raj

Elections (1965) made recommendation on the size and composition

and made of election to the Panchayati Raj Bodies at the village,

block and district level. It suggested the size ranging between nine

to nineteen for the Panchayats, twenty to forty for Panchayat

Samities and forty to sixty for the Zila Parishads.^'^

From time to time States have also appointed committees to

improve the structure and machinery of Panchayati Raj and to

examine the recommendations made by Balwant Rai Mehta

Committee. Madhya Pradesh Rural Local Self-government

Committee (1959) stood for a three tier system of Panchayati Raj.

The village Panchayat at the village level, Janapada Panchayat at

the block level and the Zila Panchayat at the district level.^^o

The Naik Committee (1961) appointed by Maharashtra

Government was the most outstanding. This Committee made out a

122

strong case for democratic decentralization. The Committee was of

the view that it could be effective only when the Zila Parishad, not

the Panchayat Samiti was given the central or local place in any

scheme of decentralization. It recommended indirect election to Zila

Parishad. It advocated a system under which all district officials

connected with development work would be placed under the direct

control of Zila Parishad.

The Committee on Panchayati Raj (1963) set up by Karnataka

Government suggested the creation of an executive body at the

district level, observing that the Zila Parishad would implement all

schemes and works of a District Collector to guide and supervise

the technical personnel at the district level to the lower bodies and

assume overall responsibility for planning the development in the

district. 121

The Andhra Pradesh High Power Committee (1964) on the

Recognition of Panchayat Samiti Block and Allied Matters was in

favour of enlarging the size of the block, consisting of large number

of Panchayats provides a build-in corrective measure against the

excessive prevalence of local factions which is all the more

necessary when the blocks are recognized as uni ts of planning and

Panchayat Samities are evolving as agencies to implant the various

development programmes of the government. 22

In Rajasthan, Sadiq Ali Committee (1964) was to analyses the

functioning of grassroots democracy, cited specially the examples of

Zila Parishads in Maharashtra and Gujarat and advocated that

adequate resources and power should be entrusted to the Zila

Parishads for certain original executive functions and for this

purpose, district level officers should be transferred under the Zila

Parishad. 123

The Ram Murthy Committee (1965) for the appraisal of

Panchayati Raj Institutions in Uttar Pradesh recommended

123

enlarging powers of the Zila Parishads. These powers include

agricultural activities and promotion of small scale industries. It felt

that the power of disbursement of loans should be given to the Zila

Parishad and it was in favour of entrusting completely the executive

functions to the officials. The Chief Executive Officer should be an

IAS officer. The Committee suggested powers of levying taxes to the

Zila Parishads. 124

In Punjab, the Punjab Administrative Reform Commission

(1966) and the Prakash Singh Badal Study Team on Panchayati Raj

(1970), have made a number of recommendations to improve the

working of Panchayati Raj Institutions and greater decentralization

of powers to it.^^s

The Haryana Adhoc Committee on Panchayati Raj, 1972

recommended that more powers and funds should be given to

Panchayati Samiti and Zila Parishad should be abolished.^26

The Rajasthan High Power Committee (1973) recommended

strengthening of Zila Parishad in the three tier system of Panchayati

Raj. It observed that in the present set up of decentralized powers,

Panchayat Samiti emerged as the strongest tier. The Committee

after the detailed study concluded that the Zila Parishad should be

the strongest tier, instead of Panchayat Samiti. 127

Besides these Committees a number of other Committees

were established from time to time such as Uttar Pradesh : Govind

Sahai Committee 1959, Karnataka: Besappa Committee 1963,

Rajasthan: Mathur Committee 1963, Andhra Pradesh: Purushtam

Pal Committee 1965, Himachal Pradesh: Hardyal Singh Committee

1965 and Andhra Pradesh: Narasimhan Committee 1972.^28

In early seventies Indian political system showed its will

towards centralism. In all the spheres Central Government became

stronger and the States become weaker. During Mrs. Indira

Gandhi's period the pace towards centralization of power got

124

accelerated under the Prime Ministership, the State Governments

were being made subservient to the Central Government in general

and to her in particular.'29

Elections of Panchayati Raj Bodies have been deferred from

time to time in various states in one context or the other. Floods,

famines, national or state elections first and Panchayati Raj election

lager and national emergency have been steeple pretexts, to count a

few since the Congress Party was in powers, the opposition parties

alleged that the Congress Party wanted to consolidate its position

through maintaining status quo of leadership in Panchayati Raj

Bodies and had given rise to misgivings in the mind of the people in

the one hand and authoritarian trends in administration on the

other. All this was bound to undermine the very legitimacy of

institutions. As far as functioning of Panchayati Raj Institutions in

various States in concerned was not much encouraging. The

political environment was not good for the growth of these bodies.

Panchayati Raj in many States appeared to be taking the last

breath on the death bed of history, centralizing force become too

strong to resist with. National emergency ended in 1977 and the

Jana ta Party swept the Lok Sabha Polls. With the commuting of

Jan ta Party in power in 1977 at the centre and in many States,

hopes for restoring democracy at all levels in the political system,

became strong. Decentralization of power and authority had been

one of the planks of Jan ta Party during Lok Sabha and Assembly

Elections. 130

At this time several state level committees and regional

studies that Panchayati Raj System was suffering from a number of

weaknesses. Therefore, with a change of government at the Centre

in 1977, there was a revival of interest in Panchayati Raj in the

context of emphasis in the Draft Plan (1973-83) on the removal of

125

rural poverty and unemployment within a time bound period of ten

years. 131

The Central Government appointed a High Level Committee

on Panchayati Raj Institution in 1977 under the Chairmanship of

Asoka Mehta. The Resolution reads: "The government accords the

highest priority to rural development so as to increase agricultural

production, create employment, predicate poverty and bring about

all round improvement in the rural economy. The governments

consider that the maximum degree of decentralization, both in

planning and in implementation is necessary for the accordingly

territories, to set up a Committee to require into the working of the

Panchayati Raj Institutions and to suggest measures to strengthen

them, so as to enable a decentralized system of planning and

development to be effective." 12 The Committee submitted its report

in August 1978 and made 132 recommendations.

Ashok Mehta Committee (1977) was appointed by the Jan ta

Party to recommend measures to make the democratic

decentralization effective. Due to change in the leadership at the

centre attention was not paid to the Ashok Mehta Report in which

he suggested two tier system of Panchayati Raj only Andhra

Pradesh, Karnatka and West Bengal adopted some of the

Committee. Reports places specific stress on creation of two tier

system at district and mandal levels. They laid much stress on

Mandal Panchayats (covering about 15,000 to 20,000 population)

as centre of growth. It was conceived as a base level organization.

The Committee has also suggested a draft constitutional status to

the Panchayat.133

The recommendations of the Committee were not accepted by

the Union Government due to change again in the ruling Congress

Party headed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi at the Centre in 1980.i^''

126

However, West Bengal, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh accepted

few of these recommendations. But most of the recommendations

were not implemented. M. L. Dantwala Committee (1978) examined

the issue of planning at the district level.

Hanutnantha Rao Committee

The Planning Commission appointed a working group in 1983

as the Hanumantha Rao Committee to suggest measures for

making decentralized planning at district level more effective. The

Committee stressed the need for public participation at the local

level. The people's participation being a necessary ingredient of the

planning especially at the grassroots level, the PRIs have naturally

significant contribution to make in the formulation, execution and

evolution of the planning at the local level. But the growth of rural

development with social justice and poverty alleviation continued to

be emphasized in the Seventh Five Year Plan.i^s

G. V. K. Rao Committee

The Government of India, in the Planning Commission,

constituted a Committee on 25"^ March, 1985 under the

Chairmanship of Prof. G. V. K. Rao, popularly known as G. V. K.

Rao Committee. This Committee was constituted to review the

existing administrative arrangements for rural development and

poverty alleviation programmes and to recommend appropriate

structural mechanism to ensure that they are planned in an

integrated manner and implemented effectively. The Committee

recommended strengthening of Zila Parishads and district level

planning as well as better integration of block and lower level of

planning with lower level PRIs. It also contemplated delegation of

state's planning functions to the decentralized planning units at the

district level. 36

127

L. M. Singhvi Committee (1986-87)

The Government of India set up another Committee in June ,

headed by Dr. L. M. Singhvi to prepare a concept paper on the

revitalization of the PRIs. The Committee recommended that the

PRIs should be constitutionally recognized, protected and preserved

by the inclusion of a new chapter in the Constitution. It suggested

constitutional provision to ensure regular, free and fair elections to

the PRIs.i^'^ The Committee also wanted PRIs to be closely involved

in planning and implementation of rural development programmes

at lower levels.

Sarkaria Commission

The report of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre State

Relation (1988) also deals with the Panchayati Raj. The Thungton

Committee (1988) (a sub-committee of the Consultative Committee

attached to the Ministry of Personnel) also made exhaustive

recommendations. 138

Prime Minister Rajeev Gandhi had introduced the

Constitution (64'h Amendment) Bill in Lok Sabha on 15'^ May, 1989

for strengthening and revitalizing PRIs and to enable to function as

effective unit of self government. The Bill was passed by the Lok

Sabha but defeated in the Rajya Sabha. ^

In 1991, as soon as the Narsimha Rao government came into

power at the Centre, on the basis of recommendations of a Group of

Ministers the Constitution (72>'d Amendment) Bill 1991 was

introduced in the Lok Sabha on 16 September, 1991, the Bill was

referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for its examination.

Based on its recommendations and a general consensus, a revised

Constitution (TSrci Amendment) Bill 1991 was piloted, which was

finally passed by the Lok Sabha on December 22, 1992 and the

Rajya Sabha on December 23, 1992 as the Constitution (TS-'d

Amendment) Bill, after ratification by more than half the State

128

Assemblies, tJie President of India gave his assent on April 20, 1993

and the Act was brought into force by a government notification on

April 24, 1993. The amendment required that all the States must

change their Panchayati Raj Acts within one year.

In the Constitution of India, Part IX, Schedule XI under

Article 243-A to 243-D has been inserted to contain major

provisions for the Panchayats from the village, block and district

levels.

The Constitution (73"> Amendment) Act, 1992

The main characteristics of constitution (TS"" Amendment)

Act are:

1. In all States there shall be a Gram Sabha (GS) in each village

to which the Panchayat will be accountable. The powers and

functions of the GS shall be assigned by a law passed by state

legislature.

2. All States will have a three tier system of Panchayati Raj

(except the States whose population is less than 20, 000) by

forming Panchayat at the village, intermediate and district

level. The composition and members of these bodies will be

determined by a law passed by the State Legislature.

3. All members of village Panchayats, intermediate Panchayats

and district level shall be chosen by direct election and

method of the Chairperson of the village Panchayat will be

decided by the State Government, while Chairperson of

intermediate Panchayats and district Panchayats shall be

elected indirectly by the members from amongst the elected

members only.

4. The terms of the office of Panchayats at every level shall be for

five years and if dissolved earlier, fresh elections must be

completed within six months from the data of dissolution.

129

5. (a) Reservation for the candidates of SCs and STs at all levels

in proportion to their population, (b) one third of the total

numbers of seats has been reserved for women (including the

numbers of seats reserved for women belonging to SCs and

STs). (c) The offices of the Chairpersons in the Panchayat

shall be reserved for SCs and STs in proportion to their

population in the State and one-third of such offices shall be

reserved for women by rotation in different Panchayats.

6. The legislature of the State, by law will provide for the

representation of Chairperson of the village Panchayats in the

Panchayat at the intermediate level and to MPs and MPLs

whose constituency fall in the area of intermediate and

district level Panchayats. All the directly elected members,

chairpersons, MPs and MLAs, shall have the right to vote in

the meetings of the Panchayats. But MPs and MLAs are

debarred from becoming Chairpersons of these Panchayats

and they cannot even have right to vote in the election of

Chairpersons.

7. The State Legislature shall make laws for maintenance of

accounts by the Panchayats and relating to audit of such

account.

8. Panchayati Raj Bodies will prepare plans for economic

development, social justice and social welfare and the

subjects enumerated in the Eleventh Schedule.^'^o

9. PRIs got constitutional recognition and it is included in 1 1 *

schedule and Chapter 9* of the Constitution.

10. Twenty one years as the minimum age for the membership as

well as Chairperson.

130

11. Elections to the Panchayats are to be conducted regularly

under the overall supervision of Panchayati Raj Election

Commission of a State.

12. A person who is disqualified under any law for election to the

legislature will not be entitled to become a member of

Panchayat.

13. The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 does not apply

to the States of Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and certain

other areas as specified in the Article 243-M.

14. There shall be a separate institution for the election petition

of Panchayats and these petitions are out of the jurisdiction

of courts.

15. Election to PRIs at every level would preferably be held on

non-party basis.

16. Panchayati Raj Bodies will receive finance from the State

Governments in the form of grants. They can also earn money

by imposing taxes and fees on the commodities falling within

their purview. Every five years the State Finance Commission

(SFC) will review the financial position of Panchayats and

recommend principles for governing, distribution of tax and

grant-in-aid to PRIs.i''i

Post - 73'''' Amendment

1. The Parliament extended the 73'"'' Amendment Act to the

Scheduled areas located in eight States on 24 December,

1996 according to D. S. Bhuria Committee Report by

legislating the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas)

Act, 1996.i''2 Although one year time limit was given to the

eight States to amend the State Panchayat Acts, to bring

them in conformity with the provisions of the Extension Act,

131

Bihar and Rajasthan did not amend their Acts within the

stipulated period, i'*

2. The 74th Amendment to the Constitution provides for

constitution of District Planning Committee (DPC) under

Article 243-ZD to prepare a draft plan of the whole district

comprising Panchayats and Municipalities. The States have

agreed to extend this provision in the 73'"'' Amendment Act.

Constitutional Review Commission and PRIs

The National Commission to Review the Working of the

Constitution was set up vide the Government of India Resolution

dated 22 February, 2000. The Commission comprised 11 members

and was headed by Justice M. N. Venkatachaliah. The Commission

submitted its report in two volumes to the government on 31 March

2002. The eleventh chapter consists of the Commission's

recommendations with respect to local bodies.^'*'' There are so many

recommendations regarding PRIs especially extension of 6'^

Schedule to the hill districts of Meghalaya and Assam, etc. ^^^

In spite of several limitations PRIs have to play a very

important role in the overall development of the country and one

cannot deny the potential of Panchayati Raj in India.

132

References

1 R.C. Majundar, et. al., An Advanced History of India, London : Macmilan and Co., 1970, p. 556.

2 S.V. Samant, Village Panchayat, Bombay: Local Self Government Institute, p. 1.

3 A. K. Majundar and Bhanwar Singh, Historical and Conceptual Development of Panchayati Raj, New Delhi : 1997, p. 38.

4 A. S. Altekar, State and Government in Ancient India, Delhi : Motilal Banarsidass, 1958, p.p. 225-226.

5 K. P. Jayaswal, Hindu Polity : A Constitutional History of India in Hindu, Bangalore : Printing and Publication, 1955, p. 15.

6 A. K. Manjundar and Bhanwar Singh, Historical and Conceptual Development of Panchayati Raj, New Delhi : 1997, p. 30.

7 H. D. Malaviya, Village Panchayats in India, 1956, p. 45.

8 D. Sunder Ram, Dynamics of Grassroots Governance in India, New Delhi : Kanishka Publishers, 2007, p. 1.

9 M. Venkataramaiya and M. Pittabhiram, Local Government in India, Calcutta : Selected Readings, 1969, p. 1.

10 K. P. Jayswal, A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times, 3''^ ed. Bangalore : Printing and Publications, 1955, p. 15.

11 B. Maheshwari, Studies in Panchayati Raj, New Delhi : Metropolitan Book Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1963, p. 1.

12 A. K. Majumdar and Bhanwar Singh, Historical and Conceptual Development of Panchayati Raj, New Delhi : Radha Publications, 1997, p. 39-40.

13 A. S. Altekar, State and Government in Ancient India, Delhi : Mod Lai Banarasidass, 1958, p. 140.

14 Quoted in B. L. Tak, Sociological Dimensions of Gram Raj, Gaziabad : Vimal Prakashan, 1973, p. 8.

133

15 S. N. Mishra, Politics and Society in Rural India, Delhi : Inter-India Publications, 1980, p. 8.

16 Parmathanath Banerjee, Public Administration in Ancient India, New Delhi: Uppal Publishing House, 1985, pp. 289-290.

17 A. S. Altekar, op. cit., p. 226.

18 A. S. Altekar, op. cit, p. 26.

19 K.P. Jayaswal, op. cit, p. 23.

20 B. A. Saletore, Quoting Dr. M. Kane, Ancient India Political Thought and Institutions, 1968, p. 406.

21 K. P. Jayswal, A Constitutional, History of India in Hindu Times, 3'"^ ed. Banglore : Printing and Publications, 1955, p. 12.

22 Jataka 1/119, 1/343, Quoted in B. L. Tak, Sociological EHmensions of Gram Raj, Ghazibad : Vimal Prakashan, 1973, p. 9.

23 Jataka, 1/119, 1343, Ibid., p. 9.

24 R. L. Khanna, Panchayati Raj in India, Chandigarh : The English Book Depot, 1956, p. 9.

25 R. L. Khanna, op. cit, p. 9

26 S.N. Mishra, Politics and Society in Rural India, Delhi : Inter India Publications, 1980, p. 34.

27 J. L. Nehru, Glimpses of World History, New Delhi : Asia Publishing House, Reprint 1967, pp. 24-25.

28 Ratna Ghosh and Alok Kumar Praminik (ed)., Panchayat System in India Historical Constitutional and Financial Analysis, New Delhi : Kanishaka Publishers, 1999, p. 7.

29 A. R. Desai, Rural Sociology in India, Bombay : Popular Prakashan, 1969, Reprint 1984, p. 535.

30 B. L. Vinta, Emerging Trends in Rural Power Structure, New Delhi : Ansari Road, 2007, p. 34.

31 S. Chandra Sekar, Panchayati Raj and Financial Resources, New Delhi : Regal Publications, 2008, p.2.

134

32 Marcinadie, Ancient India, p. 21 .

33 Mridula Sharda, Evolution of Panchayati Raj in India, New Delhi : Kanishaka Publishers, 2010, p. 7.

34 Mridula Sharda, op. cit., p. 8.

35 Mridula Sharda, op. cit., p. 8.

36 Mridula Sharda, op. cit, p. 8.

37 S. Chandra Sekar, op. cit., p. 2.

38 Ram Sharan Sharma, Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India, Delhi : Mittal Banarsi Dass, 1959, p. 261.

39 Ram Sharan Sharma, op. cit., p. 302.

40 Ratna Ghosh and Alok Kumar Praminik (ed.), Panchayat System in India : Historical, Constitutional and Financial Analysis, New Delhi : Kanishka Publishers, 1999, pp. 208-209.

41 Ram Sharan Sharma, op. cit, p. 301.

42 Epigraphic Indicia XIX, 130, Quoted in D. Devahuti, Harsh : Political History, Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1970, p. 198.

43 Mridula Sharda, Evolution of Panchayati Raj in India, New Delhi : Kanishaka Publishers, 2010, p. 10.

44 Mridula Sharda, op. cit, p. 199.

45 Epigraphic Indicia XIX, 130, Quoted in D. Devahuti, Harsha : Political History, Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1970, p. 198.

46 K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, A History of South India : From Prehistoric Times to The Fall of Vijayanagar, London : Oxford University, 1971, p. 96.

47 K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, op. cit., p. 165.

48 R. C. Majumdar, Corporate Life in Ancient India, Calcutta : S. N. Sen, 1969, p. 70.

49 R.C. Majumdar, op. cit, p. 62.

50 R.C. Majumdar, op. cit., p. 69.

135

51 R.C. Majumdar, op. cit, p. 93.

52 R. K. Mukerji, Local Government in Ancient India, Oxford : Clearendon Press, 1920, p. 67.

53 Nageshwar Prasad, Decentralization in Historical Perspectives, 1986, p. 17.

54 Ratna Ghosh and Alok Kumar Pramanik (ed.), Panchayat System in India, Historical, Constitutional and Financial Analysis, New Delhi : Kanishaka Publishers, 1999, p. 209.

55 B. L. Vinta, Emerging Trends in Rural Power Structure, New Delhi : Anamika Publishers, 2007, p. 37.

56 Ashirbadi Lai Srivastava, The Sultanate of Delhi, Agra : Shivlal Aggarwal and Co., 1972, p. 277.

57 Ashirbadi Lai Srivastava, op. cit, p. 65.

58 Ashirbadi Lai Srivastava, op. cit, p. 91 .

59 S. Chandra Sekar, Panchayati Raj and Financial Resources, New Delhi : Regal Publications, 2008, p. 3.

60 W. Forest (ed). Official Writing of Elphinstone NP, 1884, pp. 274-75.

61 George Mathew, Status of Panchayati Raj in the States of India, New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, 1995, p. 2.

62 Ratna Ghosh and Alok Kumar Pramanik (ed.), Panchayat System in India : Historical, Constitutional and Financial Analysis, New Delhi : Kanishaka Publishers, 1999, p. 210.

63 A. K. Majumdar and Bhanwar Singh, Historical and Conceptual Development of Panchayati Raj, New Delhi : Radha Publications, 1997, p. 47.

64 A. K. Majumdar and Bhanwar Singh, op. cit, p. 48.

65 Imperial Gazetter of India, Vol. IV, Quoted by Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly on 4-11-1948, p. 278-79.

66 Jawaharlal Nehru, Discovery of India, VI ed., pp. 320-321.

67 Bryce John, Studies in History and Jurisprudence, Vol. 1., 1901, pp. 29-30.

136

68 A. K. Majumdar and Bhanwaer Singh, op. cit, pp. 50-51.

69 A. K. Majumdar and Bhanwaer Singh, op. cit, p. 51 .

70 P. W. Purushotam and M. Karamatullah, Development Administration, New Delhi : Kanishaka Publishing, 1993, p. 4.

71 A. K. Majumdar and Bhanwar Singh, op. cit., p. 53.

72 S. Chandra Sekar, op. cit., p. 4.

73 Hugh Tinker, The Foundation of Local Self-Govemment in India, Bombay: Lalvani Publishing House, 1967, p. 64.

74 S. Chandra Sekar, op. cit., p. 4.

75 Sahib Singh and Swinder Singh, Local Government in India, Jalandhar : New Academic Publishing House Co. 1986, p. 85.

76 S. Chandra Sekar, op. cit., p. 4.

77 A. K. Majumdar and Bhanwar Singh, op. cit, pp. 62-63.

78 S. Chandra Sekar, op.cit, p. 5.

79 Annie Besant, Self Government for India, Madras : 1915, p. 15.

80 A. K. Majumdar and Bhanwar Singh, op.cit, p. 66

81 Shriram Narayan (ed.), The Selected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. VI, Ahemdabad: Navjivan Publishing House, 1968, p. 450.

82 A. K. Majumdar and Bhanwar Singh, op. cit, pp. 66-67.

83 Ratna Ghosh and Alok Kumar Pramanik, op. cit., p. 213.

84 Ramesh K. Arora and Meenakshi Hooja, Panchayati Raj Participation and Decentralization, New Delhi : Rawat Publications, 2009, p. 172.

85 Shriman Narayan (ed.), The Selected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. VI, Alamdabad : Novajivan Publishing House, 1968, p. 344.

86 Shriman Narayan (ed.), op. cit, p. 449.

137

87 M. R. Biju, Dynamics of New Panchayati Raj System, New Delhi : Kanishka Publishers, 1998, p. 21 .

88 H. D. Malaviya, Village Panchayat in India, New Delhi : Economic and Political Research Department, All India Congress Committee, 1956, p. 257.

89 Nehru Reffered to these Experiments as "Basically Revolutionary", Reference No. 68, p. 247.

90 Vimal Prasad (ed.), Jayaparkash Nary ana Selected Works, Vol. IX, Delhi : Mahor Publication, 2007, p. 157.

91 Pawan Kumar Jha and Chandana Jha , Panchayat Raj and Dynamics of Rural Development, Delhi : Apex Books Publishers and Distributaries, 1999, pp. 2-3.

92 Quoted in Ved Prakash Arora, "First Panchayati Raj Sammelan- A Resume," Kurukshetra, Vol. XXXVII, No. 6. March 1989, p. 33.

93 Quoted in H. D. Malviya, Village Panchayats in India, New Delhi : All India Congress Committee, 1956, p. 257.

94 S. Chander Shaker, op. cit, 2007, p. 7

95 D. Sunder Ram, Dynamics of Grassroots Governance in India, New Delhi : Kanishka Publishers, 2007, p. 7.

96 Sahib Singh and Swinder Singh, Local Government in India, Jalandhar : New Academic Publishing Co., 1986, pp. 87-88.

97 A. K. Majumdar and Bhanwar Singh, op. cit, p. 104.

98 S. V. S. Juneja, "Panchayati Raj : A Survey," The Indian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. XIX, No. 1, January-March, 1973, p. 54.

99 Rajeshwar Dayal, Community Development, Panchayati Raj and Sahakari Samaj, Delhi : Metropolitan Book Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1967, p. 22.

100 Mario D. Zamara, The Panchayat Tradition : A North Indian Village Council in Transitions, 1947-62, New Delhi : Reliance Publishing House, 1990, p. 24.

101 S. Bhatnager, Rural Development in India, New Delhi : Life and Light Publishers, 1978, p. 17.

138

102 L. C. Jain, et. al., Grass Without Roots : Rural Government under Government Auspices, New Delhi : Sage Publication, 1985, p. 17.

103 S. R. Maheshwari, Rural Development in India, New Delhi : Sage Publication, 1985, 37.

104 Rajeshwar Dayal, op. ait, p. 25.

105 First Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, 1951, p. 139, Quoted in Rajeshwar Dayal, op. ait., p. 25.

106 A. K. Majumdar and Bhanwar Singh, op. cit., 107.

107 A. K. Majumdar and Bhanwar Singh, op. cit., p. 107.

108 Srinivansan, "Structure and Pattern of Panchayati Raj", The Indian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. VIII, No. 4, Oct.-Dec , 1962, p. 460.

109 S. K. Singh, "Panchayat Raj : A View Point", Kurukshetra, Vol. XII, No. 19, July 1st 1971^ p. g.

110 Report of the Team for the Study of Community Projects and National Extension Service", Vol. I. Committee on Plan Projects, New Delhi, 1957, p. 5.

111 Report of the Team for the Study of Community Projects and National Extension Service, op. cit, pp. 7-8.

112 Report of the Team for the Study of Community Projects and National Extension Service", op. cit, p. 7-8

113 D. Sundar Ram, Dynamics of Grassroots Governance in India, New Delhi : Kanishka Publisher, 2007, p. 8-9.

114 Jai Parkash Narain, Communitarian, Society and Panchayati Raj, Varanasi: Inderprasth Press, 1970, p. 75.

115 S. K. Dey, "Faith in Panchayati Raj", Kurukshetra, Vol. IX, No. 3, Aug. 1961, pp. 4-6.

116 D. Sunder Ram, op. cit, p. 9

117 L. S. Madhava Rao, "Panchayati Raj Finance Corporation", Kurukshetra, Vol. XXVII, No. 21 , August 1974, p. 12.

118 D. Sunder Ram, op. cit, p. 13.

139

119 S. R. Maheshwari, State Government in India, New Delhi : Metropolitan, 1979, p. 259.

120 Quoted in Iqbal Narain, et. Al., Panchayati Raj Administration, The Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi, 1970, pp. 23-24.

121 Quoted in Iqbal Narain, et. al, op. cit, pp. 23-24.

122 Report of the High Power Committee on the Reorganization of Panchayat Samiti Block and Allied Matters, Panchayati Raj Department, Hyderabad, 1964, p. 8.

123 S. K. Bhongle, "The Area of Rural Local Government", Kurukshetra, Vol. XXV, No. 8, January 16, 1977, p.4.

124 S. K. Bhongle, op. cit, p. 14.

125 R. L. Khanna, Panchayati Raj in India, Chandigarh : The English Book Shop, 1956, p. 37.

126 L. S. Madhava Rao, "Panchayats Prospects and Retrospect", Kurukshetra, Vol. XXXVI, No. 3, Dec. 1987, p. 14.

127 B. S. Bhargava, "Panchayati Raj Power to the People", Kurukshetra, Vol. XXXVl, No. 3, Dec. 1987, p. 14.

128 S. R. Maheshwari, op. cit, pp. 266-267.

129 S. N. Mishra, New Harizons in Rural Development Administration, Delhi : Mittal Publication, 1989, pp. 42-43.

130 Indira Hirway, "Panchayati Raj at Crossroads", Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXIV, No. 22, July 22, 1989, p. 1663.

131 Report Committee on Panchayati Raj Institutions, Yojana, XXXIV. Nos. 14-15, August 15, 1990), p. 10.

132 K. D. Gangrade, "Revamping Panchayati Raj Institutions", Yojana, XXXIV, No. 14-15 August 15, 1990, p. 10.

133 Ashok Mehta Committee Report, Government of India, 1978, p. 68

134 Mukesh Sharma, Panchayati Raj System and Empowerment, Jaipur : Surabhi Publications, 2002, p. 18.

135 Report of the Committee to Review the Existing Administrative Arrangements for Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation

140

Programmes, (CAARD), Department of Rural Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India Dec. 1985, p. 42-43.

136 Ibid., pp. 1-3.

137 A. K. Dubey, "Panchayati Raj : The Constitutional Perspective", Kurukehetra, Vol. XLII, No. 7, April 1995, p. 109.

138 D. D. Guru, "New Economic Policy Initiatives : Panchayati Raj Amendment", Employment News Weekly, Vol. XIV, No. 18, Saturday, July 29, 1989, p. 2.

139 Sharawan Kumar Singh, "Rajeev Gandhi and Panchayati Raj Institutions", Yojana, Vol. 38, No. 3, July 31 1994, p. 17.

140 Hoshiyar Singh, "Decentralization Through Constitution 73'''' Amendment Act", Kurukshetra, Vol. XLI, No. 9. May, 1993, p. 23.

141 K. L. Mohanpuria, "The Constitution (73''d Amendment) Act, 1992", Kurukshetra, Vol. XLI, No.9, June 1993, pp. 32-34.

142 Scheduled Areas-Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharastra, Himachal Pradesh, Orissa and Bihar, Vide Clause (1) of Article 244 of the Constitution.

143 S. K. Singh, Panchayats in Scheduled Areas in George Mathew (ed.). Status of Panchayati Raj in the States and Union Territories of India 200(r, New Delhi : Concept Publishing Company, 2001, p. 27.

144 Panchayati Raj Update, Institute of Social Science, Vol. IX, No. 4, April 2002, p. 6.

145 Panchayati Raj Update, Vol. IX, No. 5, May, 2002, pp. 6-7.