About 74 per cent of India’s population lives in villages. The incidence of poverty is much higher
in villages—roughly 39 per cent of the rural population are poor. Agriculture is a source of
livelihood for 70 per cent of the population but agriculture accounts for less than 40 per cent of the
national income. One of the reasons for this is the unequal distribution of land. Ten to 20 percent
of landholders hold 70 percent of the total land and 50 percent of landholders are marginal
farmers with less than one hectare (2.471 acres) of land. Thus, any agenda for fighting poverty
must address itself to the rural sector. No doubt our policy-makers have always been emphasising
agricultural and rural development ever since the planning process was initiated in 1952. But how
far have we been able to alleviate poverty in villages?
Poverty can also be measured by the persons’ access to piped water, electricity, kutcha or pucca
houses, and the public distribution system. A staggering 55 per cent of the rural population of the
country still live in ‘kutcha houses. Further, in most backward states (like West Bengal, Bihar,
Orissa, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh), 15 to 19 per cent rural homes have electricity, 9 to 11
per cent have piped water and 11 to 16 per cent have access to public distribution system.
Causes of Rural Poverty
On the basis of an empirical study in seven districts in Rajasthan in 1996 sponsored by the World
Bank, the following causes of poverty in rural areas were identified:
1. Inadequate and ineffective implementation of anti-poverty programmes.
2. Low percentage of population engaged in non-agricultural pursuits.
3. Non-availability of irrigational facilities and erratic rainfall in several districts.
4. Low agricultural productivity resulting from dependence on traditional methods of cultivation
and inadequate modern skills.
5. Non-availability of electricity for agricultural as well as industrial use in most of the villages.
6. Poor quality of livestock.
7. Imperfect and exploited credit market. Lack of link roads, communication facilities and markets
(i.e., infrastructure).
8. Low level of education. The general literacy level in the rural areas in the country is low
(42.85%) while for females it is very low (24.85%).
9. Absence of dynamic community leadership.
10. Failure to seek women’s cooperation in developmental activities and associating them with
planned programmes.
11. Intercaste conflicts and rivalries.
12. Spending a large percentage of annual earnings on social ceremonies like marriage, death
feast, etc., and people being unwilling to discard expensive customs.
These causes may be grouped together in four categories and explained through a model.
Some Effective Strategies for Alleviating Rural Poverty
For reducing poverty in the rural areas, following strategies may be suggested:
1. Strengthening credit disbursing agencies.
2. Providing cheap power supply for agricultural and industrial use.
3. Activating cooperative societies for selling products of household industries.
4. Making allocations in poverty alleviation programmes (PAPs) flexible and sanctioning special
allocations to districts/blocks/villages showing good results.
5. Integrating varied PAPs in one or two schemes and making availability of benefits easier.
6. Developing human resources by focusing on education, health and skill programmes.
7. Introducing double distributive system for the destitutes and the extremely poor.
8. Creating social awareness to arrest increasing debt growth among the poor.
9. Improving animal husbandry and developing dairy and poultry farming.
10. Activating panchayats to focus on adult education programme, road construction and
maintaining tree plantations.
11. Activating NGOs in role-play like digging of tanks, tree plantations, training of youth,
imparting skills to women, creating social awareness among the people, and so forth.
Bonded Labour
A man keeping another man in perpetual bondage for his selfish and personal designs is a kind of
man’s cruelty to man which is not confined to a particular country or a particular region but is
found as a global phe-nomenon for thousands of years, right from the Biblical days to the present
era. The nomenclature changed from period to period and place to place: slave, serf, and bonded
labour. In India, this type of exploitation of man remained prevalent in the name of begar and ryot
for years. The term ‘bonded labour’ or bandhua mazdoor is of recent origin. Despite the abolition of
the zamindari system, land reforms, Bhoodan movement, enactment of legislation (Bonded Labour
Abolition Act, 1976), establishment of Panchayati Raj, interest shown by Social Action Groups and spirited individuals from society, lakhs of bonded labourers continue to be exploited and carry the
yoke of neglect, suffering and frustration in abject silence. In fact, the system of bonded labour, as
prevalent in Indian society, is a relic of feudal hierarchical society. A considerable interest has
come to be shown in bonded labour during the past two decades by social workers, social scientists
and the government because it is considered incompatible with our social ideal of egalitarianism
with our commitment to human rights. The magnitude of bonded labour is just baffling as lakhs
of adult males and females as well as children are condemned to suffering under its yoke.
The Concept
We have to understand the terms ‘bonded labour system’ and ‘bonded labour’. The ‘bonded
labour system’ refers to “the relationship between a creditor and a debtor who obtains loan owing
to economic compulsions confronting his day-to-day life, and agrees to abide by the terms dictated
by the creditor”. The important term of agreement is that the debtor agrees to mortgage his
services or services of any or all the members of his family for a specified or unspecified period.
The relationship built on the agreement is on such unequal terms that while for every labour or
service, there must be some fair remuneration equivalent to the price of labour in the market,
under the bonded labour system, the service is rendered for the debt or in lieu of the interest
accruing to the debt. The debtor either works without receiving any remuneration or if at all there
is any remuneration, it is much less than the minimum wage (notified under the Minimum Wages
Act) or the prevailing rate of market wage.
The 1976 Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act defines ‘bonded labour system’ as “the system of forced
labour under which a debtor enters into an agreement with the creditor that he would render
service to him either by himself or through any member of his family or any person dependent on
him, for a specified or unspecified period, either without wages or for nominal wages, in
consideration of loan or any other economic consideration obtained by him or any of his ascendants,
or in pursuance of any social obligation, or in pursuance of any obligation devolving on him by
succession”. The agreement has other consequences too, such as, forfeiting the debtor the freedom
of employment, denial of freedom of movement in any part of the country, and denial of the right
to sell at market value any of his property or product of his labour.
The term ‘bonded labour’ has been defined by the National Commission on Labour as “labour
which remains in bondage for a specific period for the debt incurred”. The Commissioner for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes explained the term bonded labour in its 24th report as
“persons who are forced to work for the creditors for the loan incurred either without wage or on
nominal wage” (Sharma, 1990:52). The ‘bonded labour’ is different from ‘contract labour’ employed
in industries, mines, plantations and docks, etc. Contract labour includes workers who are not
directly recruited by the establishment, whose names do not appear on the pay-roll and who are
not paid wages directly by the employer. In theory, contract labourers in India are covered by the
Factory Act, 1948, the Mines Act, 1952, the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 and the Dock Workers
Act, 1948 so as to give them benefits as are admissible to labour directly employed. However, the
advantages of employing both bonded labour and contract labour are the same: (i) labour is
engaged at a lower cost, (ii) the employers have not to extend fringe benefits to the workers, and
(iii) the employers are not under any obligation of providing welfare and security measures to the
workers as stipulated in various Acts. The system of contract labour in our country was abolished
in September 1970 by an Act called ‘Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act’.
The two basic features of bonded labour are: indebtedness and forced labour. Forced labour can
hereditarily descend from father to son or be passed on for generations together. During the
period of bondage, the debtor cannot seek employment with any other person. In economic terms,
this means that he cannot ‘sell his labour in the market at market value’. The bonded labour
system is mostly found among agricultural labourers in villages, though today it has extended to
workers working in stone quarries, brick kilns, bidi factories, glass factories and in detergent,
carpet, gem stones and many other factories.
Bonded labourers are known by different names in different parts of India. For example, in Andhra
Pradesh and Karnataka they are known as ‘Jeetbams’, in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh as ‘Halis’, in Bastar district in Madhya Pradesh as ‘Kabadis’ in Hyderabad as ‘Bhagela’, in Rajasthan as ‘Saggris’
in Bihar as ‘Kamias’ or ‘Kamiantis’, in Orissa as ‘Gothees’, in Tamil Nadu as ‘Pandiyals’, in Kerala as
‘Adiyas’, ‘Paniyas’, and ‘Kattu-naikens’, and in Uttar Pradesh as ‘Koltas’.
Causes of Bonded Labour
Though the main causes of origin, growth and perpetuation of bonded labour system are economic,
the social and religious factors too support the custom. The economic causes include: extreme
poverty of people, inability to find work for livelihood, inadequate size of the landholdings to
support family, lack of alternative small-scale loans for the rural and urban poor, natural calamities
like drought, floods etc., destruction of men and animals, absence of rains, drying away of wells,
meagre income from forest produce, and inflation and constant rising prices. The social factors
include: high expenses on occasions like marriage, death, feast, birth of a child, etc., leading to
heavy debts, caste-based discrimination, lack ol concrete social welfare schemes to safeguard
against hunger and illness, non-compulsory and unequal educational system, and indifference
and corruption among government officials. Sometimes, exploitation by some persons in a village
also compels people to migrate to some other place and seek not only employment on the employer’s
conditions but also get protection from influential persons. Illiteracy, ignorance, immaturity and
lack of skill and professional training sustain such beliefs. Broadly speaking, it may be maintained
that bondage originates mainly from economic and social pressures (Sharma, 1990:52)
The Legislation
The pernicious and inhuman, callous, reprehensible practice of bonded labour existed in many
states in India. After independence, it could not be allowed to continue to blight national life any
longer.
However, no serious effort was made to give effect to this Article and stamp out the shocking
practice of bonded labour. The Forced Labour (Abolition) Convention adopted by the International
Labour Organisation (ILO) in 1919 was ratified by India only in November 1954. Some states in
India had also enacted laws for abolishing bonded labour. For example, the Bihar Kamianti Act
was passed in 1920, the Madras Agency Debt Bondage Regulation in 1940, Kabadi System Regulation
in Bastar in Madhya Pradesh in 1943, Hyderabad Bhagela Agreement Regulation in 1943, Orissa
Debt Bonded Abolition Regulation in 1948, Rajasthan Sagri System Abolition Act in 1961 (which
was amended in 1975), and Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, Kerala in 1975. It was specifically
laid down in most of these regulations (like those of Madras, Orissa, Bihar, and Hyderabad) that
the agreement between the creditor and the debtor entered into after the commencement of the
regulation was to be wholly void if (a) the full terms of the agreement were not expressed in
writing and a copy there of was not filed with the designated authority, (b) the expressed and
implied period of labour exceeded one year, (c) the interest provided for was not simple interest
over one year, and (d) the interest exceeded 6.25 per cent per annum. But it was after the
announcement of the 20-point programme on July 1, 1975 that the legislative excercise at the
national level began with some amount of seriousness and urgency. The ordinance was enacted in
October 1975 which was later replaced by the Act passed in February 1976, called the Bonded
Labour System (Abolition) Act. All the state laws became inoperative after the enactment of the
Act by the union government in 1976.
The Act implies: (i) identification of bonded labourers; (ii) release of bonded labourers; (iii) action
against offenders, i.e., creditors who had forced agreement upon the debtors; (iv) holding of
regular meetings of vigilance committees at the district and tehsil level; (v) maintenance of the
prescribed registers; and (vi) conferring of judicial powers to executive magistrates. The Act also provides for the rehabilitation of bonded labourers who are freed from their creditors. The 1976
Act was amended in 1985 in which it was clarified that the contract workers and inter-state
migrant workers, if they fulfil the conditions laid down in the Bonded Labour System (Abolition)
Act, will be considered as bonded labour.
The main problem that is faced in the implementation of the 1976 Act is the identification of
bonded labourers. Neither the administrators at the district and tehsil levels admit the existence of
bonded labourers in their areas nor do the creditors accept that any bonded workers are serving
them, nor are the workers themselves willing to give statements that they are being forced to work
as bonded labourers since long. It is the social workers attached to non-political social action
groups and voluntary organisations who identify the bonded labourers. The other handicap which
aggravates the problem is the economic rehabilitation of the released labourers. The economic
rehabilitation includes: finding jobs for them, getting them minimum wages, giving them training
in arts and crafts, allotment of agricultural land, helping them in developing the allotted land,
helping them in the processing of forest produce, educating them and their children, arranging for
their medical care, etc. All these are Herculean tasks. Besides ensuring economic rehabilitation,
the state governments are also expected to arrange for their psychological rehabilition and
integration’of various schemes of central and state governments. In chalking out plans and strategies
of rehabilitation, the freed labourers are to be given the choice between various alternatives (Sharma,
1990:54).
Misery and Suffering in Bondage
One former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Justice P.N. Bhagwati) described bonded labourers
as ‘non-beings, exiles of civilisation living a life worse than that of animals’, for the animals are at
least free to roam about as they like and they can plunder or garb food whenever they are hungry,
but these outcastes of society are held in bondage and robbed of their freedom even. They are
consigned to an existence where they have to live either in hovels or under the open sky and be
satisfied with whatever unwholesome food they can manage to get, inadequate though it may be
to fill their hungry stomachs. Not having any choice, they are driven by poverty and hunger into
a life of bondage, a dark bottomless pit from which, in a cruel exploitative society, they cannot
hope to be rescued (Yojana, May 1-15, 1987:32-33).
It is estimated that there are about 32 lakh bonded labourers in India. Of these, 98 per cent are said
to be bonded due to indebtedness and 2 per cent due to customary social obligations. The highest
number is believed to exist in three states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, followed
by Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. According to the figures released in May
1997 on the basis of a state government-sponsored survey (conducted as per the Supreme Courtdirection), Tamil Nadu has the maximum number of 24,000 bonded labourers, in the country,
engaged in 30 different occupations (The Hindustan Times, May 13, 1997). It has been pointed out
that the majority of bonded labourers work as agricultural labour in villages and belong to the
outcaste or tribal communities. Of the total labour force in the rural areas, about 33 per cent are
engaged in non-agricultural activities, 42 per cent work as cultivators, and 25 per cent as agricultural
labourers. Of those who work as agricultural labourers, 48 per cent belong to Scheduled Castes
and 33 per cent to Scheduled Tribes. Being unskilled and unorganised, agricultural labourers have
little for their livelihood other than personal labour. Bonded agricultural labourers occupy the
lowest rung of the rural ladder. Social and economic stratification in a village is linked with land
and caste which in turn govern economic and social status of the people. Bonded labourers thus
live in pitiable and miserable conditions. They are socially exploited because though in theory they are assured food, clothes, free tobacco, etc., in practice they get the food that is left over, and
clothes that are discarded by family members. They are made to work for 12 to 14 hours a day and
are forced to live with cows and buffaloes in shed. If they fall ill, they may be procured some
medicines from the local Hakim depending upon the sweet will of the employer.
The total number of bonded labourers identified and freed in India by March 1989 was 2.42 lakhs,
of whom 2.18 lakhs (i.e., 90%) were said to be rehabilitated also (Yojana, May 1989:23). Thus,
hardly 8 per cent of total bonded workers in India have been identified so far, indicating lack of
interest of state governments in solving the problem of bonded labour.
Rehabilitation
Getting bonded labourers identified and freed was the statutory obligation of the state governments
only but from November 1987 onwards, voluntary organisations also came to be authorised both
for identification and rehabilitation. Of the 2.18 lakh bonded labourers rehabilitated up to March
1989, three-fourths were in four states of Orissa (23.8%), Karnataka (23.3%), Tamil Nadu (17.1%)
and Uttar Pradesh (12.1%), one-fifth in three states of Andhra Pradesh (11.1%), Bihar (5.2%) and
Madhya Pradesh (3.5%), and the remaining 4 per cent in three states in Rajasthan (3.2%),
Maharashtra (0.4%) and Kerala (0.4%) (Indian Labour Journal, August 1989:1277). There is also a
provision in the 20-point programme (of 1986) regarding the identification and rehabilitation of
the bended labour. Under this programme, the Government of India issued instructions in August
1986 to the Deputy Director General (Labour Welfare) of all the states to take follow-up action.
Since then, the Union Ministry of Labour has been monitoring and evaluating the programme of
identification, release and rehabilitation of bonded labourers from time to time.
Rehabilitation is both physical and psychological. Physical rehabilitation is essentially economic
whereas psychological rehabilitation has to be built up through a process of assurance and
reassurance. The two must go side by side. The first prerequisite of psychological rehabilitation is
that the freed bonded labourers must be wrenched away from the old habitat and be rehabilitated
at a place where they will no longer be subject to the ruinous influence of the erstwhile bonded
labour-keepers. Unless they are psychologically assured that after release from bondage, debt will
not regulate their destiny any longer, there is every possibility that they may slide back to debt
bondage.
Basically, there are three phases of rehabilitation: (i) immediate physical subsistence after release;
(ii) short-term measures to help the freed workers to start a new life (for example, allotment of a
house site, assistance for construction of a house, allotment of a plot of agricultural land, supplying
a pair of bullocks and agricultural implements, or provision of avenues of gainful employment,
etc.); and (iii) long-term measures (such as, arranging credit, training in new skills, developing
existing skills, providing a remunerative price support, ensuring non-formal literacy of adult
members and formal literacy for children, securing medical care, protection of civil rights…). It is
thus rehabilitation which will give the freed bonded labourers the status of human beings so that
they may be able to identify themselves with the mainstream of a civilised human society and
realise the dignity worthy of human existence.
Lacunae in Effective Rehabilitation
Qualitatively reviewing the implementation of the rehabilitative programmes for bonded labourers
in different states, we find that while some states, like Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala and Andhra
Pradesh point out the welcome features of identification and rehabilitation, some other states need
to introduce innovative changes. The following visible lacunae in the implementation of the
programme need to be dealt with immediately:
Firstly, instead of treating the programme in isolation as the programme of a particular ministry/
department, there has to be coordination among various ministries/departments concerned like
those of agriculture, animal husbandary, irrigation, forest, fishries, etc., so that the programme is
dealt with as an integrated national programme. Secondly, since the social milieu and the social
structures which prompted the bonded labour system in the past continue to dominate the village
life and its economy even today, they need to be probed and changed with commitment. Thirdly,
the development departments are so much burdened with schemes like IRDP, JRY, TRYSEM, etc.,
that their programmes mostly remain time-bound and target-oriented without taking into account
the needs, aptitudes and preferences of the beneficiaries.
The group-approach to development will bring the freed bonded labourers together, enable them to
pool their resources, get help from various agencies, departments and banks, and integrate
themselves for a common purpose for a qualitative and permanent rehabilitation. Such a ‘groupeffort’ can be land-based, craft-based or asset-based for success. This requires proper selection of
beneficiaries, the place where they are to be rehabilitated, selection of skills to be taught to them,
and building awareness among the beneficiaries themselves and converting them into willing
partners in a joint venture for their rehabilitation, progress and advancement.
Effective Concern
The plight of bonded labourers continues to be a serious social problem and a matter of concern
for public, government, judiciary, social scientists and social workers. If about 17 lakh crimes in a
year, for which about 26 lakh persons are arrested under the IPC, are considered a serious issue
for the Indian society, freeing of three million bonded labourers must be viewed as a very crucial
issue. For this purpose, it is necessary that researches be sponsored by different funding agencies
to ascertain the extent and the nature of the problem, examine handicaps in identification, utility
of various rehabilitation schemes, coordination of activities between central government and
voluntary organisations, necessity of amending the 1976 Act, determining responsibilities and
accountability of the concerned officers, and introducing after-care programmes for the freed
bonded labourers. Unless serious efforts are taken to save bonded labourers from ruthless
exploitation by vested interests, the problem will continue to be a social menace. The total abolition
of the system of bonded labour through legislation may not be feasible in the forseable future, yet
doing away with the legislation may cause further distress to the victims. Removing poverty,
unemployment and illiteracy, which are believed to be the three basic causes of bonded labour
system, is also not easy. The formulation of future plans, programmes and projects for bonded
labourers would require a broad approach and action at various levels.
The problem of bonded labour has, thus, to be fought at various fronts/social, psychological and
legal. We have to educate the exploited not to succumb to pressure tactics. We have to tell the
exploiters that law cannot be circumvented and has to take its course in democratic India. We have
to create committed opinion among the masses. We have to involve not only intellectuals but also
the enlightened citizens to carry the message to those who matter. We have to enforce laws
rigidly. We have also to impress upon politicians to tackle the issue with concerted interest and
missionary zeal. The system based on exploitation by a few socially and economically powerful
persons, trading on the misery and suffering of large numbers of men and holding them in
bondage constitutes a shameful feature of our national life. The bondage of the economically
impoverished segments of society for a small debt is totally incompatible with the egalitarian
socio-economic order promised to Indians. Wiping out this system is basic and crucial to human
dignity and is in conformity with constitutional values.
Land Reforms: Nature and Social Consequences
Land Reforms
The important land reforms introduced after independence in our country are: (1) abolition of
zamindari system; (2) accepting the fundamental principle that lands belonged to those who do
the tilling; (3) enacting Land Ceiling Act; (4) encouraging Bhoodan and Sarvodyay movements;
and (5) devising suitable rational basis for obtaining land revenue. The proposal ‘land belonging
to the tiller’ was meant to redistribute rural income to the advantage of those who work in the
fields and to the disadvantage of those who do not. Another effect of this proposal was that
control of a very considerable amount of land was to pass from rent-receivers to tenants, cropshares and labourers. What were the possible measures to effect this proposal through legislation?
(i) to provide that at the death of non-tilling owners, their rights in land could pass only to those
who already are actual tillers, or (ii) the legislation might lay down that no further transfers of agricultural land may occur except to those who are now tillers and who propose to till the land
with their own hands, or (iii) to take away forthwith the rights in the land of non-tiller landowners
and compensation be provided to them or providing them re-habilitation grants to take up other
occupations. But the programme of abolishing proprietary rights was not easy to implement.
Bhoodan Movement
With the disappointing progress of legislative land reform, Acharya Vinoba Bhave’s Bhoodan
(land-gift) movement offered a promising way forward. The focus was on improving the position
of the landless. Assuming that there were 50 million landless peasants in India, Vinobaji set
himself the task of collecting land-gifts of 50 million acres so that one acre could be given to each
landless peasant. He called upon the landowners to give to the Bhoodan movement one-sixth of
their holdings. Since roughly 300 million acres were under cultivation in 1951 in India, the gifts
would have totalled up to the required 50 million acres. These gifts were then to be distributed to
the landless under the guidance of Bhoodan workers. The movement got off to a good start as
within three years (1952 to 1954) more than 3 million acres of land were received as Bhoodan.
However, the movement soon slowed down. It was found that much of the land donated was
rocky, barren or otherwise agriculturally poor or was under dispute in litigation. Further,
distribution of land created more problems. Out of a total of 3.75 million acres of land received by
May 1955, about 0.2 million acres (or 5%) could be redistributed. The district and taluk leaders
were far from enthusiastic. They associated themselves with the Bhoodan only to enlarge or
strengthen their following. Vinobaji resisted these efforts. The appeal was to the rich and landed
peasants who opposed all types of land reform in their vested interests. Thus, like ceilings, Bhoodan
also failed.
The Green Revolution
The green revolution which aimed at increase in agricultural productivity, was brought about in
1966. The introduction of high-yielding varieties of wheat, rice, maize, millet, etc., benefited the
larger landholder more than the small landholder. This was because it required a reliable supply
of water, costly fertiliser, high quality of seed, and pesticides, and use of machinery. These could
be afforded only by the richer farmers. According to P.C. Joshi (1974:33) in Punjab, Haryana and
some other regions, the trend that emerged was that small landowners rented their land to big
farmers who needed a larger landspread to use their machinery profitably. On the one hand, this
enriched the larger landholder, on the other hand, it increased the number of landless labourers
most of whom are low caste and untouchables.
Before independence, though about 70 per cent of the rural population was engaged in agriculture
yet agricultural production was so low that we were dependent on foreign countries for our food
supply. The low agricultural production was the result of British policy of collecting land revenue,
lack of use of modern technology in agriculture, lack of credit facilities to small owners of land,
exploitation of small cultivators by zamindars and jagirdars, and lack of interest on the part of
cultivators to accept new models of cropping. The result of the British policy of land revenue was
that many cultivators who were unable to pay taxes had either to sell or mortgage their land or
turn for help to money lenders. Because of this, the proportion of landless and land labourers
increased from 13 per cent of the rural population in 1891 to 38 per cent in 1951 (Patel, 1952).
When population of the country in the early 1950s was growing at the rate of 0.67 per cent, the
agricultural output was growing at the rate of 0.5 per cent. The land reforms introduced after
independence further led to the concentration of land in the hands of the larger landowners. The
principle of land reform was ‘land to the tiller’. The large landowners, anticipating this type of
legislation, had got evicted long-term tenants prior to the enactment of legislation. Many tenants
had voluntarily given up their land rights to the owners out of fear. Thereafter, the large land-owner
rented out his land to short-term or seasonal tenants, or cultivated it himself with the help of
casual labour. By 1953-54, the upper 10 per cent of landowners owned more than half of the land,
47 per cent owned less than 1 acre per household, and 23 per cent were landless. The agricultural
production which was growing at the rate of 3 per cent per year in 1951-52 increased to 6 per cent
in 1994-95, 10 per cent in 1996-97, but decreased to 6 per cent in 1998-99 (India Today, March 8, 1999: 18-19). It is estimated that using high-yield techniques, the upper 10 per cent of land-holders
could produce enough food to feed urban and other non-agricultural population of India. This
means that about 48 million cultivators’ families would be pushed off the land. This is a wrong
assumption. Commercialisation of agriculture and the green revolution of last three decades would
neither affect the cultivators adversely nor spell the demise of patronage system in the villages.
Planned Rural Development
Two types of policies affect rural life: (i) production-oriented activities targeting production and
services, e.g., subsidised fertilisers, providing irrigation, credit, locating village industries, and so
on; and (ii) non-production oriented activities targeting living standards. The first type of activities
are defined as rural development measures. These activities may affect either the whole community
or a particular section of the community. Examples of the former type of activities are: community
development projects (1952), Panchayati Raj (1962), land reforms (1950s), poverty alleviation
programmes (PAPs) like Integrated Rural Development Programme (1978) etc., while of the latter
type of activities are Tribal Development Programme (1959), Drought-prone Area Programme
(1979), Desert Development Programme (1977), Food for Work Programme (1977), National Rural
Employment Programme (1980), TRYCEM, etc. (Sagar, 1990:251-261). Some programmes aimed at
increasing assets (including increasing production) and benefitting people economically, e.g., IRDP,
Minimum Agricultural Wage, Rural Employment Programme, etc., while others aimed at social
uplift of people, e.g., zamindari abolition, land reforms, Panchayati Raj, TRYSEM, etc. Some
programmes indeed aimed at poverty alleviation (e.g., self-employment programmes of NREP,
DPAP, training programme of TRYSEM, etc.) while some others were politically motivated, e.g.,
Garibi Hatao and 20-point programme. However, the basic aims of achieving community
participation, removal of social evils, and improving the quality of life have yet to be achieved.
The Strategies
Three distinct strategies for rural development may be identified:
1. Initially, in the 1950s, policy-makers stressed maximisation of economic growth by stepping up
investment assuming that the benefits arising out of it would ‘trickle down’ and diffuse among
all sectors of the rural society. But in the 1970s, it was realised that the benefits of agricultural
growth did not percolate to the rural poor.
2. This gave birth to the second approach led by structural school which suggested distribution of
assets through land reforms, community development programmes and cooperative farming.
But this also did not work.
3. Then came the idea in the 1980s that suggested attack on poverty through rural development
programmes, such as IRDP, TRYSEM, NREP, and RLEGP which later on merged in JRY
programme. Before analysing these anti-poverty progranmmes, we shall evaluate the role of
Five Year Plans, and 20-Point Programme in poverty alleviation.
The Five Year Plans
The Planning Commission set up in 1950 has been formulating Five Year Plans for India’s
development taking an overall view of the needs and resources of the country. The First Plan was
launched in April 1951 and the Third Plan ended in March 1966. After this, there were three one
year plans from April, 1966 to March 1969. The Fourth Plan started in April 1969 and the Ninth
Plan started in April 1997 (though it got cabinet approval only in January 1999).
The First Five Year Plan (1951-56) aimed at achieving an all-round balanced development and
accorded top priority to agriculture and irrigation investing 44.6 per cent of the total plan budget
in this sector. This was to reduce the country’s dependence on agricultural imports and save
foreign exchange. However, the plan did give importance to the development of social welfare
programmes. At the end of the plan, the country’s national income increased by 18 per cent and
per capita income by 11 per cent.
The Second Five Year Plan (1956-61) strongly felt that the benefits of development should accrue
more to the relatively underprivileged sections of society and that there should be a progressive reduction in the concentration of income. However, the performance of the plan did not justify the
hopes that had been placed on it. Achievements in almost all sectors of the economy were lower
that the plan targets. Consequently, as against a near 13 per cent fall in price index during the First
Plan, the Second Plan witnessed a 12.5 per cent rise in the price level.
The Third Five Year Plan (1961-66) aimed at securing a marked advance towards self-sustaining
growth. It listed a set of five objectives, namely, increase in annual national income by 5 per cent,
self-sufficiency in agriculture, growth of basic industries (like steel, power, chemicals), maximum
use of manpower resources, and decentralisation of economic power. Agriculture was once again
given top priority and about 35 per cent of the outlay was allocated to this sector. The performance
of the Third Plan was also as disheartening as that of the Second Plan. Over the five year period,
the national income grew by 2.6 per cent as against the target of 5 per cent. In the agricultural
sector also, the production suffered a setback.
The shape of the economy was in fact so bad at the end of the Third Plan that the Fourth Plan,
which was to be launched in March 1966 had to be abandoned and was replaced by three Annual
Plans. The three year period between 1966 and 1969, sometimes described as a period of ‘plan
holiday’, was devoted to rectifying the ills that had crippled the planning process during the
operation of the Third Plan. The main objective of the three Annual Plans was to continue the
unfinished tasks of the Third Plan.
The Fourth Five Year Plan (1969-74) aimed at increasing national income by 5.5 per cent, creating
economic stability, reducing inequalities in income distribution, and achieving social justice with
equality. Simultaneous growth of both agricultural and industrial sectors was fully recognised under
the Fourth Plan. But this plan could not ensure economic growth. Neither could it achieve self-sufficiency
in foodgrains, nor could the generation of employment opportunities make any significantdent in the
widespread unemployment problem. The inflationary situation was also aggravated.
The Fifth Five Year Plan (1974-79) mainly aimed at removal of poverty and attainment of selfreliance. The plan also aimed at increase in employment opportunities, self-sufficiency, policy of
minimum wages, removal of regional imbalances, and encouragement of exports. The plan ended
during the Janata regime in 1978 instead of 1979 and the Sixth Plan was started as the ‘rolling
plan’. But when the Congress once again came to power in 1978, the period of the Fifth Plan, was
described as being 1974 to 1979. The Fifth Plan however, could not achieve its targets in any field,
except in increase of foodgrains.
The Sixth Five Year Plan (1980-85) was formulated after taking into account the achievements and
shortcomings of the past three decades of planning. Removal of poverty was the foremost objective
of the plan. Stress was laid on economic growth, elimination of unemployment, bringing down of
inequality in the distribution of income, self-sufficiency in technology, raising the lifestyles of the
weaker sections of society, improving the public distribution system, and control of the increasing
population. This plan had a fairly convincing success. According to NSS (National Sample Survey),
the proportion of people living below the poverty line declined from 48.3 per cent in 1977-78 to
36.9 per cent in 1984-85.
The Seventh Five Year Plan (1985-90) had three priorities of increasing food, work and productivity.
With its emphasis on generating substantial productive employment, the Seventh Plan aimed at
significant reduction in the incidence of poverty and improvement in the quality of life of the
poor. However, this plan also failed totally in achieving its targets. There was a severe setback on
the agricultural front, in the manufacturing sector, in creating employment, and in the balance of
payments position of the country.
The Eighth Five Year Plan (1992-97) which was to be started in 1990 was actually enforced from
April 1992. The 1990-91 and 1991-92 years were considered to be yearly plans. The plan was
supposed to be oriented towards employment generation. The plan size was nearly double the
previous plan but then all plans have been twice the size of the previous plans. The growth rate
was also more or less what the previous plans aimed at. The fact that they rarely reached the
target except in the First and Sixth Plans is a different matter. The Eighth Plan was thus no
different from the earlier plans, and its results also were no different either. The Ninth Five Year Plan (1997-2002) was approved by the Cabinet only in January 1999. It is
described as ambitious and growth-oriented. The plan’s thrust areas are: agriculture, employment,
poverty, and infrastructure. In agriculture, the top priority is to be given to irrigation. The efficiency
and productivity of five infrastructure sectors—irrigation, power, mining, railways and
communication—is also expected to improve. The plan is described as ‘delivery-oriented’.
Assessment of Five Year Plans
If we make an appraisal of all the eight completed plans, we find that in the five decades of
planning, all our plans have been oriented towards something, sometimes self-reliance in
agricultural production, sometimes employment, sometimes industrial growth, and so on. But
poverty and unemployment have always increased.
During this period of 48 years, the average rate of economic growth has been 3 per cent. Though
it is not bad in comparison to the world’s average of 4 per cent, it is definitely poor in comparison
to the average of the developing countries of 7 per cent to 10 per cent. During 1951-1998, our
annual national income had increased by about 3.5 per cent, agricultural production by 2.7 per
cent, industrial production by 6.1 per cent, and the per capita consumption by 1.1 per cent. While
the government claimed that the number of people below the poverty line had come down to 33
per cent by 1998, since the number of unemployed people had increased, we cannot concede that
poverty has been contained. No wonder, more people feel frustrated today and the number of
agitations is increasing every year.
20-Point Programme
Indira Gandhi announced this programme in July, 1975 for reducing poverty and economic
exploitation and for the uplift of the weaker sections of society. The five important goals of this
programme were: (a) controlling inflation, (b) giving impetus to production, (c) welfare of the
rural population, (d) lending help to the urban middle classes, and (e) controlling social crimes.
The programmes included in the 20-point programme were: increase in irrigational facilities,
increase in programmes for rural employment, distribution of surplus land, minimum wages to
landcless labourers, rehabilitation of bonded labour, uplift of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes, growth of housing facilities, increasing power production, formulating new
programmes of family planning, tree plantation, extension of primary health facilities, programmes
for the welfare of women and children, making primary education measures more effective,
strengthening of public distribution system, simplification of industrial policies, control of black
money, betterment of drinking water facilities, and developing internal resources.
State Poverty Alleviation Programmes
Several poverty alleviation programmes have been launched by the central government for the
rural poor, comprising small and marginal farmers, landless labourers and rural artisans. The
important programmes currently functioning are: IRDP (subsidies/loans for self-employment and
supportive land-based activities like irrigation, animal husbandry, etc.), TRYSEM (Training Rural
Youth in Skills for Self-Employment), Jawahar Rozgar Yojna (generating additional gainful
employment for the rural unemployed and underemployed, and providing employment for 50 to
100 days in a year to at least one member in a poor family, NREP (wage employment in slack
season), RLEGP (80 to 100 days of wage employment to every landless household), DPAP (area
development of drought-prone areas), and DDP (area development of hot and cold deserts).
We will discuss each of these programmes separately.
IRDP
The Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) is a major instrument of the government to
alleviate poverty. Its objective is to enable selected families to cross the poverty line by taking up
self-employment ventures in a variety of activities like agriculture, horticulture and animal
husbandry in the primary sector, weaving and handicrafts in the secondary sector, and service
and business activities in the tertiary sector. The aim of the IRDP is to see that a minimum
stipulated number of families is enabled to cross the poverty line within the limits of a given investment and in a given time-frame. Thus, the three variables involved are: (a) number of poor
households, (b) resources available for investment, and (c) the time-span over which the investment
would yield an income which would enable the family to cross the poverty line.
The IRDP was launched by the centre in March 1976 in 20 selected districts, but from October 1982
it was extended to all districts in the country. This programme considers a household as the basic
unit of development. The functional aspect of this programme can be gauged from the fact that
above 80 lakh households are said to have been assisted within five years—between 1993-94 and
1997-98—in the matter of improving their economic conditions and rising above the poverty line.
A number of institutions have undertaken studies with respect to the implementation and working
of the IRDP. They point out flaws in the implementation of the programme. None of these studies
have, however, questioned the utility of the programme. The main criticisms against this scheme
are: (1) There are leakages in the programme and all assets created under IRDP are not with the
poor. This is mainly because of three factors: (a) the poor are unable to pay large bribes, fill up
complicated forms, influence the village headman and find ‘guarantors’ for themselves; (b) bank
officials are often reluctant to deal with poor borrowers because they believe—rightly or wrongly—
that giving loans to the poor is risky since recovery is often used as a major indicator of the
performance of a particular branch of a rural bank; and (c) the poor themselves take inadequate
interest in the programme because they are afraid of being cheated or of not being able to repay.
(2) There is much corruption, misuse and malpractice in the implementation of the loan programme.
The loans are often misallocated with little apparent violation of the guidelines of the schemes for
(a) the guidelines make it clear that for fair allocation of loans, Gram Sabha (village assembly)
meetings should be convened for selecting the beneficiaries but in practice this does not happen
because the village headman and the Gram Sevak act as intermediaries between the villagers and
the administration; (b) bribing is a spine qua non of obtaining a loan; and (c) household surveys on
which the list of eligible households are supposed to be based are conducted only once in five
years. (3) The programme is household-based and is not integrated with the development needs
or resource base of the area. Thus, the IRDP loan neither raises the living standards of the
beneficiaries nor does it have any impact on rural poverty by raising the poor people above the
poverty line. This has been indicated by studies in several, districts in Rajasthan, Gujarat, West
Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka. The latest study was conducted in seven districts in Rajasthan
under a World Bank project on poverty. The reports were separately submitted by each district in
April 1997. Similar studies have been planned in three other states also—West Bengal, Andhra
Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.
TRYSEM
The scheme called Training Rural Youth for Self-Employment was started on August 15, 1979 to
provide technical skills to the rural youth to enable them to seek employment in fields of agriculture,
industry, services and business activities. Only youth in the age group of 18-35 and belonging to
families living below the poverty line are eligible for training. Priority for selection is given to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe persons, ex-servicemen and those who are ninth pass. Onethird seats are reserved for women. Stipend to the trainees ranges from Rs. 75 to Rs. 200 per
month. On completion of training, TRYSEM beneficiaries are assisted under the IRDP. In four
years between 1992-93 and 1995-96, about two lakh youths were trained every year, of whom
about 45 per cent became self-employed and 30 per cent remained employed on wages (Economic
and Political Weekly, 1995). The main criticisms against this programme are: (i) its coverage is very
small in relation to need; (ii) skills provided have not been linked with rural industrialisation
process. Training is provided on the basis of ad hoc considerations and skills imparted are of low
level; and (iii) amount of stipend is rather inadequate to motivate the youth to go for training.
NREP
The National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) was planned for creating additional
employment opportunities in the rural areas with the help of surplus foodgrains. Initially, this
programme was called Food for Work Programme (FWP). It was drawn up at the end of 1976-77
but it actually came into effect on April 1, 1977. Under this scheme, millions of mandays of employment were created every year by utilising lakhs of tonnes of foodgrains. The works
undertaken were flood protection, maintenance of existing roads, construction of new link roads,
improvement of irrigation facilities, construction of panchayat ghars, school buildings, medical and
health centres and improvement of sanitation conditions in the rural areas. On finding certain
shortcomings in the programme, it (FWP) was restructured in October 1980 as part of the Sixth
Plan (1980-85) and came to be known as NREP. It took care of those rural poor who largely
depended on wage employment and virtually had no source of income in the lean agricultural
period. The important points on which stress was laid in the implementation of this programme
were: (1) 10 per cent allocation was earmarked exclusively for drinking water wells in harijan
colonies and community irrigation schemes in Harijan areas. Likewise, another 10 per cent was
earmarked for social forestry and fuel plantations. (2) Only such works were under-taken which
had some durability. (3) Allocations were made both at the inter-state and inter-district/block
levels. The central government released the state’s share of the NREP allocation in cash every
quarter.(4) Maintenance of assets created under this programme was the responsibility of the state
governments. (5) PRIs were actively involved in this programme. This programme has now been
merged in JRY.
RLEGP
The Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP) aimed at providing supplemental
employment to the poor on public works at a very low wage of Rs. 3 per day. Maharashtra was
one state which had used the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) for the unemployed in rural
areas by levying EGS surcharge or collections on land revenue, sales tax, motor vehicles, irrigated
holdings, and on professionals. The amounts so collected, with matching contributions from the
state government, were credited to an EGS fund for taking up employment works. This programme
too has now been merged (along with NREP) into the JRY.
Jawahar Rozgar Yojna
This programme was announced in April 1989. Under the scheme, it is expected that at least one
member of each poor family would be provided with employment for 50 to 100 days in a year at
a work place near his/her residence. About 30 per cent of the jobs under this scheme are reserved
for women. Both the rural wage employment programmes (i.e., the REP and the RLEGP) were
merged in this scheme. Central assistance to the scheme is 80 per cent. The scheme is implemented
through village panchayats. The central government claims that 3121.33 million mandays of
employment were generated in various states between 1992-93 and 1995-96 under JRY at an outlay
of Rs. 13,248 crore (Rajasthan Patrika, June 16, 1966). The scheme covers 46 per cent of our population.
Antyodaya Programme
‘Antyodaya’ means development (udaya) of the people at the lowest level (ant), that is, the poorest
of the poor. This programme was initiated by the Government of Rajasthan on October 2, 1977 for
special assistance to the people below the poverty line. The idea was to select five of the poorest
families from each village (out of 27,000 inhabited villages) every year and to help them in their
economic betterment. Initially, a random survey was undertaken in 25 villages situated in different
ecological regions of the state and information about individual families with regard to indebtedness,
dependency ratio, physical assets of land, cattle, occupation, educational level, income and size of
the family was collected. Thereafter, a detailed scheme of Antyodaya was drawn up. The economic
criterion, in order of priority, for the selection of the poor families was laid down as: (1) families
under severe destitution without any productive assets and with no member in the age-group of
15-59 years capable of any economic activity; (2) families without any productive assets of land or
cattle but having one or more persons capable of working and with a per capita income up to Rs.
20 per month; (3) families having some productive assets with per capita income up to Rs. 30 per
month; and (4) families having per capita income up to Rs. 40 per month.
The task of identification of the families was entrusted to the village assembly (Gram Sabha).
Under this scheme, help was given in the form of allotting land for cultivation, monthly pension,
bank loan or help in getting employment. Each selected family was given a pension of Rs. 30-40 per month. A bank loan was sanctioned for purchasing bullocks, carts, animal husbandry
(purchasing buffaloes, cows, goats and pigs), basket making, purchasing carpentry tools, opening
a tailor’s shop or a tea shop or a barber’s shop or a grocer’s shop and for manufacturing activities
like soap-making and niwar-making.
The administration of the Antyodaya scheme was entrusted to collectors at the district level, and
to the Agriculture Department at the state level. The Government of Rajasthan had planned to
help about six lakh families in five years (from 1978 to 1982) under this scheme. Of the sanctioned
amount, one-third was to be given as pensions, about two-third as loans, and 4 per cent as help
(subsidy and loan) through the Khadi Boards. Under this scheme, during 3 years (1978 to 1980),
out of about two and a half lakh families identified, 83 per cent were assisted. Of the selected
families, 29 per cent were allotted land, 40 per cent were given loans, 22 per cent were given social
security benefits, and 9 per cent were provided employment and other benefits (Mehta, 1983:347).
The Government of Rajasthan, however, revived the programme in 1981. It selected 1,800 families
below the poverty line in every block for benefiting them during a period of three years. Social
security benefits and allotment were taken out of the assistance package.
Garibi Hatao and Bekari Hatao Programmes
The ‘Garibi Hatao’ slogan was given by Indira Gandhi in March 1971 at the time of the national
elections while the Bekari Hatao slogan was given by the All India Congress Committee (AICC) at
its annual session in April 1988. In fact, the Congress has been talking of ‘socialism’ since the
1950s. It declared ‘socialism’ as its main goal in its Avadi session in 1955, Bhubaneshwar session
in 1964 and Kamraj Nagar session in April 1988. But the extent to which the Congress has succeeded
in achieving this goal is indicated by the fact that more than 10 lakh people in our country live by
begging and about half a lakh people survive on donated blood.
Panchayati Raj
The failure of the community development programmes in involving people with the development
of the rural communities led to the establishment of Panchayati Raj on the recommendations of
Balwantrai Mehta Committee. The objects of the Panchayati Raj were democratisation,
decentralisation and modernisation. The panchayats were expected to tackle village problems at
the grassroots level and mobilise local manpower resources for purposes of economic and social
progress. In fact, Panchayati Raj in India has come into existence through a long process of evolution.
Its expansion may be analysed in five phases: from 1950 to 1960, from 1961 to 1964, from 1965 to
1985, from 1986 to 1992 and from 1993 to 1999.
A provision was made in the Constitution of India promulgated in January 1950 about organising
village panchayats as local self-governing units. The First Five Year Plan also emphasised in 1951-
52 promoting people’s participation in the management of rural development through local
representative institutions. Balwantrai Mehta Committee reviewing the CDPs also recommended
in 1956 the establishment of PRIs to ensure continuity in the process of improving economic and
social conditions in rural areas. The Planning Commission had already forcefully opined that
village panchayats should be strengthened and this new democratic set-up should gradually be
given the responsibility for taking over development administration. The B.R. Mehta Committee
had this plea in view while recommending organisation of three-tiered Panchayati Raj system.
The Panchayati Raj system was initially set up by three states in 1959. After 1959, a network of
PRIs went on being built up by most of the state governments. By 1964-65, the PRIs began to
function in 12 out of the then 15 states in India. Among the six union territories, only one set up
Panchayati Raj. The structure, however, differed in these states. During 1965-85, the Panchayati
Raj began to stagnate and even declined in efficacy of its role in the management of development
processes. Its credibility began to suffer a setback. Its powers and functions were reduced by the
executive orders of the government on grounds of inefficiency, corruption and factionalism in
many states. The Janata Party government in 1977 appointed Ashok Mehta Committee to inquire
into the causes of decline in the working of Panchayati Raj and suggest measures to strengthen the
PRIs. In 1978, this Committee made a number of recommendations for revitalisation of PRIs. These
included: assigning more powers to PRIs, making Zilla Parishad primary unit in PR system, political parties taking part in Zila PR elections, and imparting training to panchayat members.
The Santhanam Committee was appointed to study the problems of resources and finances of
PRIs. It recommended measures like: (i) giving powers to panchayats to levy special taxes based
on land revenue, house-tax, etc., (ii) sanctioning of grants to panchayats by state governments,
(iii) handing over sources of revenue to PRIs, (iv) evolving mutual financial relations between
different levels of PRIs, (v) augmenting financial resources through gifts and donations, and (vi)
setting up Panchayati Raj Financial Corporation to provide loans and financial assistance to
panchayats and help them in providing basic amenities in villages.
Taking the views of these committees, the government decided to amend the Constitution. This
amendment was made by the Lok Sabha in December 1992, by the Rajya Sabha in December 1993,
and after being ratified by 17 State Assemblies, it came to be known as Constitution Amendment
Act, 1993. It came into force from 1994. Today, PRIs are functioning in 22 out of 25 states and in six
out of seven union territories. In 15 states, it is a three-tiered system, in four it is 2-tiered and in
three, it is one tier system.
The functions assigned to panchayats may be classified as obligatory, discretionary and transferred
functions. These functions include: providing civic amenities, infrastructural facilities and
developmental activities. Broadly, the functions may be described as: health and sanitation (control
of epidemic, construction and maintenance of lavatories, maintenance of burial grounds, cleaning
of roads, tanks, ponds and drains), public works (construction and maintenance of roads, drinking
water pumps, wells, street lights), agriculture and animal husbandry (distribution of improved
seeds and pesticides, planning for increasing agricultural production, arranging cattle fairs,
improving cattle breeding, development of poultry and fishing), uplifting the weaker sections
(arranging for their education, cultural activities and residential houses), and some miscellaneous
works (meeting calamities, encouraging and strengthening cottage industries, strengthening
cooperative societies, development of forests, welfare of women and children, adult education
programmes).
Since their inception, roles of panchayats have been gradually changed and the scope of their
functioning has been enlarged. Even the assumptions have undergone a change. Not only the
representatives of the people (i.e., panchayats) have been assigned the responsibility of
administering local public affairs but also of raising the required finances and locating man-power
resources.
The main problems faced by the panchayats before the 1993 Constitutional Amendment were: (1)
Functions and powers given to panchayats were limited. (2) Panchayats were ill-equipped in
terms of manpower to undertake planning. (3) Panchayats had no power to generate their own
resources through taxation, etc. (4) Elections were not held on regular basis. (5) Women and
weaker sections had no representation. Thus, the high hopes with regard to the panchayats were
not fulfilled. The main obstacles in the successful functioning of PRIs were described as: nonlegalistic status of PRIs, irregular elections, frequent suppressions and suspensions, inadequate
representation of weaker sections, insufficient powers given to panchayats, lack of financial
resources, non-cooperation on the part of bureaucracy, lack of people’s participation and lack of
political will. Barnabas (1998: 450) has identified five causes of failure of the Panchayati Raj:
confusion about functions, absence of autonomy, confusion in administrative arrangement, absence
of coordination and fragmented and overlapping structure.
After this amendment, the main changes introduced in Panchayati Raj were: (1) Establishment of
panchayats at three or two levels and a gram sabha in each village was made mandatory. (2)
Tenure of PRIs was fixed as five years, i.e., every five years, direct election of all members at three
panchayat levels was made mandatory. (3) While election of chairman at the intermediate and
district levels was to be indirect, election of the chairman at the village level was left to the state
governments to decide. (4) A list of 29 functions was provided to panchayats. These relate to rural
development, infrastructure, social welfare, public distribution system, maintenance of community
assets, etc. (5) Seats were reserved for SCs, STs, and women at all three levels of panchayats. (6)
Finance Commission was set up to devolve funds and suggest ways of financing panchayats. (7) PRIs were given power to impose taxes, duties and fees and were assigned their share in taxes
collected by the state government. The grants-in-aid were also released to them. (8) Election
Commission was empowered to conduct panchayat elections. (9) State legislatures have been
given discretion to provide for the reservation of OBCs and association of MPs/MLAs in panchayats.
(10) While before the amendment, the Sarpanchs of gram panchayats were made members of the
Panchayat Samitis and Pradhans of Panchayat Samitis were made members of Zila Parishads,
after the amendment, this provision of becoming exofficio members of panchayats at higher level
was withdrawn. However, the state governments were given the discretion of associating Sarpanchs
with Panchayat Samitis and Pradhans with Zila Parishads.
The positive consequences of these changes after making the Amendment (in 1993) are supposed
to be: (1) Structural change regarding direct elections at all three levels will improve the working
of the panchayats. Earlier, there were no direct elections to Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads.
All Sarpanchas constituted members of the Panchayat Samiti and all Pradhans of the Panchayat
Samitis became members of the Zila Parisliads. The role and the responsibilities of the directly
elected members will now widen. (2) Increasing powers of panchayats and financial resources will
improve the position of panchayats. (3) Reservation for SCs, STs and women will enable weaker
sections to participate more actively in the panchayat system. (4) The new structure will enable
panchayats to contribute to planning from below, mobilise local resources, evoke large scale
community participation, reduce corruption, and improve the quality of development effort.
The negative effect could be: (i) direct elections may check vertical interaction among panchayats
at three levels; and (ii) rotation of reserved seats might reduce the commitment of the representatives
to carry on long-term development work.
Hooja and Hooja (1998: 474-75) have pointed out several issues which need to be studied for
successful functioning of the panchayats. These are: (1) What should be the level of decentralised
planning? (2) Since District Planning Committee would now become very large, what should be
the organisational set-up to operationalise decentralised planning and implementation? (3) What
functions would be most appropriate at which level in the multi-level framework? (4) What changes
would be required at the state government level? (5) What safeguards are necessary and feasible
to keep local elite or vested interests from capturing panchayats or from distorting the decentralised
planning process? (6) When planning and implementing bodies are the same (i.e., village panchayats
and panchayat samitis), how can it be ensured that the planner would not fix targets for himself
which are easy to achieve rather than more ambitious ones? (7) How can possible conflicts between
different panchayat levels and the state level be avoided?
The Progress After the Constitutional Amendment
How serious are the state government officials in making Panchayati Raj functional? Their nonseriousness is indicated in the following manner: (1) Bureaucrats are unwilling to transfer power
to panchayats. (2) They are always reluctant to release funds. (3) Officers do not show any faith in
elected representatives. (4) Some states have not yet even conducted elections, though panchayats
were supposed to have come into existence within one year after the enforcement of the 73rd
Constitutional Amendment in 1993. Though Zila Pramukhs are to be Chairmen of the District
Rural Development Agencies, (DRDAs) which run all poverty alleviation programmes, yet in
practice they will only preside over the meetings of the Governing Councils of the DRDAs; the
financial powers would rest with the Collector who would continue to be the chairman of the
Executive Committee of the DRDA. Thus, relationship between panchayats and DRDAs needs to
be clearly specified. One fails to understand why the elected bodies should not have fully
independent charge of development plans and allowed to take initiative so that people at large
participate fully in the development process.
It may be concluded that the pragmatic philosophy of miniaturised participative democracy, where
every man matters, is the cornerstone of developmental dynamics. The growing consensus is that
rural development can be accelerated if people’s resources are mobilised and they are prompted to
take part in making the decisions that affect their lives and livelihoods (The Third World: Tomorrow,
36). At present, there is deep factionalism in our villages. Misuse of funds, oppression of the powerful, denying opportunities to women, terror against dalits, and subversion of elections are
pathologically pervasive in the countryside. To overcome these problems is a tough proposition.
No valid reason exists to reject grassroots self-government. Justice Krishna Iyer (Yojana, January
23, 1989, 20) assuming that there will be favouritism, casteism, ill-will, bureaucrats’ apathy and
non-cooperation, even so Panchayati Raj experiments will eventually open the political eyes of the
populace. It is fashionable to exaggerate villagers’ weaknesses and urbanites’ abilities, but our
rural geniuses are sure to measure up to the challenge of participative roles.