A few weeks ago, Balineni Tirupati, a sub-sarpanch in Telangana’s Jayashankar Bhoopalpally district, committed suicide due to debt. He had taken a loan to do development work in the village and was unable to bear the burden after inordinate delay by the state government in releasing the bill payments.
A few days before the incident, some sarpanches of the Bharatiya Rashtra Samithi (BRS) – Telangana’s ruling Telangana Rashtra Samithi has now been renamed as BRS – resigned from the office and filed their resignations after not receiving government funds for nearly a year. Got angry
The sarpanches alleged that the failure of the state government to release funds on time has forced them to either use private resources or borrow huge amounts to carry out panchayat activities and meet various targets.
More than three decades after the 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts, which gave constitutional status to local governments, state governments, through local bureaucracies, continue to exercise considerable discretionary power and influence over panchayats. In India, the powers of local elected officials (such as these sarpanches in Telangana) remain severely curtailed by state governments and local bureaucrats in a number of ways, undermining the spirit of constitutional amendments seeking to empower locally elected officials. It happens.
We analyzed the statutory provisions of Panchayat Acts in various states and spoke to several sarpanches and local bureaucrats to assess the extent of decentralization of powers to panchayats. It became clear to us very quickly that meaningful decentralization required administrative or financial autonomy to the sarpanches.
funding issue
Gram Panchayats are financially dependent on state and central grants (discretionary and non-discretionary grants) for day-to-day activities. Broadly speaking, panchayats have three main sources of funding – their own sources of revenue (local taxes, revenue from common property resources, etc.), grants-in-aid from central and state governments, and discretionary or plan-based funds. Its own sources of revenue (both tax and non-tax) constitute a small proportion of the total panchayat funds. For example, in Telangana, less than a quarter of a panchayat’s revenue comes from its own sources of revenue.
Furthermore, access to discretionary grants for panchayats depends on political and bureaucratic ties.
Even when higher levels of government allocate funds to local governments, sarpanches need help accessing them. Inordinate delay in transferring sanctioned funds to panchayat accounts stalls local development. In Telangana, this has forced sarpanches to use private funds for panchayat activities to meet mandated targets and avoid public pressure. The delay in disbursement of funds by the local bureaucracy has led to increased pressure on sarpanches, which has led to some people ending their lives.
There are also severe restrictions on how panchayats can use the funds allocated to them. State governments often impose expenditure limits on various expenditures through panchayat funds. This can include everyday activities such as buying posters of national symbols, serving refreshments for dignitaries, or distributing sweets at a local school on national festivals.
Moreover, in almost all the states, there is a system of dual authorization for spending panchayat funds. Apart from sarpanches, disbursement of payments requires the concurrence of the bureaucracy. The Sarpanch and the Panchayat Secretary, who reports to the Block Development Officer (BDO), should co-sign the check issued for payment from the Panchayat Fund.
Taxation process of obtaining approval
State governments also bind local governments through local bureaucracies. Approval of public works projects often required technical approval (from the engineering department) and administrative approval from local officials of the rural development department, such as the block development officer, a tedious process for sarpanches that required multiple visits to government offices. is required. It is also not uncommon for high-level politicians and bureaucrats to interfere in selecting beneficiaries for government programs and further limiting the power of sarpanches. We surveyed sarpanches in Haryana’s Palwal district and found that they spend a lot of time visiting government offices and waiting to see or hear from local bureaucrats. Sarpanches reported that if they wanted access to discretionary resources, timely disbursement of funds, and were able to successfully execute any project or program in their village, they needed to be in the “good books” of politicians and local bureaucrats. need to stay.
The ability of sarpanches to exercise administrative control over local workers is also limited. In many states, local functionaries reporting to the panchayat, such as village watchmen or sanitation workers, are recruited at the district or block level. Often the sarpanch does not even have the power to dismiss these local level employees.
shadow of bureaucrats
Unlike elected officials at other levels, sarpanches can be dismissed while in office. Gram Panchayat Acts in many states have empowered district-level bureaucrats, mostly district collectors, to take action against sarpanches for official misconduct. For example, Section 37 of the Telangana Gram Panchayat Act allows district collectors to suspend and dismiss existing sarpanches. On what basis can the Collector take action against the Sarpanchs? Besides abuse of power, embezzlement, or misconduct, the conditions include refusal to “carry out the orders of the District Collector or Commissioner or the Government for the proper functioning of the concerned Gram Panchayat”.
It is not just a legal provision. Across the country, there are regular instances of bureaucrats taking decisions to dismiss sarpanches from office. In Telangana, more than 100 sarpanches have been removed from office in recent years. In one such case, the official reason was a protest (by boycotting an official event) against the denial of land for an electrical substation.
The situation in Telangana is a reminder for state governments to re-examine the provisions of their respective gram panchayat laws and consider greater devolution of funds, functions and functionaries to local governments. State level politicians and government officials oppose giving power to sarpanches as they feel that sarpanches will misuse the funds allocated to a village. It is a case of calling the pot black the kettle. Decentralization in India is limited because if local governments are given real autonomy to allocate funds, power will shift from a bureaucracy controlled by legislators and the state government to the sarpanch.
(Help to overcome suicidal thoughts is available on the state health helpline 104, tele-manas 14416 and Sneha’s suicide prevention helpline 044-24640050. People in distress can also call this helpline to get support and counselling. contact,
Pradeep Chhibber is Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley; Pranav Gupta is a PhD candidate at the University of California, Berkeley