WORKING OF THE PANCHAYATI RAJ INSTITUTIONS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Transcription

1 Chapter - IV WORKING OF THE PANCHAYATI RAJ INSTITUTIONS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS This Chapter focuses on the working of the PRIs in both and in a comparative perspective. This Chapter is divided into two sections. Section I titled as Panchayati Raj in Action highlights the working of the PRIs particularly GS and GP. It also focuses on the capacity building measures taken up for the ERs and highlights the involvement of the PRIs in the various Rural Development programmes. Section II titled as Women Representatives and the functioning of PRIs tries to explore the extent of involvement of the Women elected Panchayat representatives in the decision making process. SECTION - I 4.1 Panchayati Raj in Action The passing of Panchayat Acts across the states laid down in details the activities and functions of Panchayats. The Acts broadened the scope for people s participation by enhancing and ensuring adequate representation of women, poor and deprived sections of the society in all elected bodies. Mechanisms for the decentralization of administration and development works down to the village, block and district levels have been created. Powers have been vested in elected representatives enabling them to determine the needs and priorities, to initiate socio-economic development and to build a society based on democratic principles. The people have been given an opportunity to enhance their capability as well as capacity to plan and execute development programmes, projects and schemes from below.1 164

2 4.1.1 Working of the PRIs: Before analyzing the working of the PRIs it is essential to understand the perception of the members on its working. In the following table (D1) the responses of the members have been presented. Table D1: Respondents idea about Panchayati Raj Arunachal Pradesh Good for Rural development 22 (18.3) 15 (19.4) Good for encouraging people s participation 34 (28.3) 19 (24.7) Essential for local areas to develop as per their needs 21 (17.5) 8 (1.4) ERs do not work for well being of the locality 11 (9.2) 6 (7.8) Sources of corruption 2 (16.7) 16 (2.8) response 5 (4.2) 4 (5.2) t essential for villages 7 (5.8) 9 (11.7) 12 (1.) 77 (1.) Ideas Positive Negative Source: Filed work. The figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total. The table demonstrates that the majority of the respondents (28.3 per cent in and 24.7 per cent in ) in both the states are of the view that PR is good for encouraging people s participation. If we make an average of the available data relating to positive aspect of PR, we find that majority of the respondents (64.1 per cent in and per cent in respectively) opined that PR is good for rural development, encourages people s participation and is essential for local areas to develop as per their needs. On the other hand, only 31.7 per cent respondents in and 4.3 per cent in expressed their doubt about the role of PR. They consider the PRIs as not essential since the elected representatives do not work for the well being of the locality and these bodies also encourage corruption. It can be stated that in 165

3 case of, PR is still in the process of transition and in course of time PR will create more zest among the representatives for active participation. Knowing their perception, respondents from both the states have been asked to state the positive contributions of their respective PRIs (if any) in the post Seventy Third Amendment phase. In response to this a variety of observations have been recorded and after a thorough analysis the most common observations are stated below under Table D2. D2: Positive contributions of PRIs in the post Seventy Third Amendment Phase Perceptions Gradual decline of traditional system of local governance Generated employment opportunities Increased People s enthusiasm towards politics Developed leadership qualities Women are taking part in local governance Initiated the development process Providing facilities for marginalsed groups Developing people s awareness Source: Field work. From the above table it is observed that the introduction of the PRIs have brought significant changes at the grassroots level. Respondents from both the states shared that comparing to earlier position, women are now participating more in number in the decision making process at the village level. t only this, they also viewed that PRIs have developed people s enthusiasm towards grassroots politics, making efforts to develop leadership qualities among the villagers, generating employment opportunities and also developing people s awareness about various rural development schemes. As there is the availability of reservation facilities for 166

4 the marginalized groups in, respondents are of the view that PRIs are providing facilities to the people belonging to these groups, while in separate facilities for the marginalized groups are not available due to unavailability of reservation facilities. Further in Arunachal Pradesh, it is observed that respondents are agreed on the declining role of traditional way of governance (Village Council) and stated that the flow of fund at the villages has actually geared up people to take active part in the activities of the PRIs. It is in this background the workings of the GPs are explored in both the States and presented below: Working of GS GS is a pivot of PR and there is a clear provision for conduct of GS in the Panchayat Acts of both and. In, as per the Act the GS meets from time to time but a period of three months shall not intervene between any two meetings. As such the dates for these meetings are fixed on 26th January, 1st May, 15th August and 2nd October. The meeting of the GS is convened by the Secretary of the GP with due approval of the President of the GP and in consultation with the BDO. The meetings of GS are to be chaired by President of the concerned GP and in his absence by the Vice-President or any other person selected by the majority of the GS member. Initially the quorum for the meeting of the GS was fixed at 1/3rd of the voters of the GP and later it was reduced to 1 per cent (State Profile, 27-8). In every GS meeting receipts and expenditure of the current year, works taken up, the vouchers of all the purchases, salary paid to the Panchayat Staff, measurement book etc., should be placed for public scrutiny. The funds allocated to the GP for development and other schemes should be checked to know whether the allocated funds are utilized properly. Besides there is no provision for Ward Sabhas at the Ward level. 167

5 However, in, GS has made provisions to conduct the Social Audit of Panchayats work. It is provided that the GP and other executing agencies has to make available all relevant documents including the muster rolls, bills, vouchers, measurement books, copies of sanction orders, photos before, during and after the completion of the work for the purpose of conducting the Social Audit (State Profile, 27-8). The GS, in, also meets from time to time but a period of six months shall not intervene between two meetings. The meetings of GS are to be chaired by Chairperson of the concerned GP and in his absence by a member of GP to be chosen from amongst the members of the GP. However, there is no provision of Vice-Chairperson in the APPRA. There are no pre-fixed days for meetings of GS and they are conducted as per requirements and ease of villagers. The Act outlines that the GS meetings are to be held two times in a year. The Member Secretary of GP has to convene GS and the quorum required for meetings of GS is 1/1th of its total membership. Like, there is also no provision for of Ward Sabhas at Ward level. In, GS are entitled to select beneficiaries for various schemes and programmes, determine the needs for economic and social development, selection of plans in open meetings, monitoring and review of plans and pass the budget prepared by GP. However, GS have no power to approve plans under different schemes and programmes and issue of utilization certificates. The GS is, therefore, considered to be a body in which beneficiaries of various development programmes are identified. It is also a medium that audits and approves the accounts of the GP. As such, it is in the GS that ordinary citizens can make their representatives accountable and demand transparency in their functioning. Keeping this in consideration a set of 168

6 question on organizing, attending and functioning of GS has been asked to the respondents. This is done with a view to examine the working of the GS in both the state in a comparative perspective. Organizing, Participating and Functioning of GS Table D3: Frequency of GS meeting Members M F Regularly 3 (4.2) 5 (1.2) Twice in a year 1 (14.1) Four times in a year Members M F 8 (6.6) (.) (.) (.) 7 (14.3) 17 (14.2) 18 (38.3) 7 (23.3) 25 (32.5) 24 (33.8) 8 (16.3) 32 (26.7) (.) (.) (.) Whenever required 26 (36.6) 13 (26.5) 39 (32.5) 23 (48.9) 9 (3.) 32 (41.5) response 8 (11.3) 16 (32.7) 24 (2.) 6 (12.8) 14 (46.7) 2 (26.) 71 (1) 49 (1) 12 (1) 47 (1) 3 (1) 77 (1) Source: Field work. Table (D3) demonstrates that respondents are divided in answering the question. It is observed from the table that majority of the respondents (32.5 per cent in and 41.5 per cent in ) in both the states viewed that GS meeting are conducted whenever required. That is to say, GS meetings are basically conducted at the time of selection of beneficiaries under various governmental schemes, though the respective Panchayat Acts directed to conduct the GS meeting four times in a year in and two times in a year in. Only 26.7 per cent in and 32.5 per cent in responded that GS meetings are held as per the Act. An analysis of the table further reveals that most of the women respondents in both the states are not keen to respond to the question. This indicates two things: (a) they are less informed compared to 169

7 male respondents, and (b) due to the prevailing social practice the women generally are unwilling to come forward. This also confirms the finding of the Table C 17, which highlights that most of the female representatives joined PRIs under the influence of their family members and hence they are having the attitude of dependence on their family members as regard to the working of the PRIs. Table D4: Participation of the elected representatives at the meeting of GS Response Members M F Yes 58 (81.7) 15 (3.6) 9 (12.7) response Members M F 73 (6.8) 28 (59.6) 5 (16.7) 33 (42.9) 13 (26.5) 22 (18.3) 14 (29.8) 12 (4.) 26 (33.8) 4 (5.6) 21 (42.9) 25 (2.8) 5 (1.6) 13 (43.3) 18 (23.3) 71 (1) 49 (1) 12 (1) 47 (1) 3 (1) 77 (1) Source: Field work The activities of the grassroots democracy demands active participation of the elected representatives and it is their responsibility to create a healthy environment for the local community and particularly for women so that the members of the GS are motivated to participate in GS meeting and present their opinion. Table D3 indicates that majority of the male respondents (81.7 per cent) in participate in the meetings of the GS. The situation is just reverse for women representatives (3.8%). This becomes evident from the fact that 42.9 per cent of them did not respond to the question as they are not familiar with the idea of GS. Similar situation prevails in also. In, the participation of the male respondents stands at 59.6 per cent where as only 16.7 per cent of the women respondents have participated in GS meeting. Likewise, in 17

8 43.3 per cent respondents did not respond to the question. Over all, the picture is gloomy in both the states so far as female participation is concerned. It is disheartening to note that GS meetings are not held as per the respective Acts rather these are held as and when required and this is actually negating the spirit of the grassroots democracy. One important fall out of low level of participation by women representatives is that they fail to mobilize common women of the villages to participate in the GS. In some of the states like Himachal Pradesh there is a healthy practice of conducting Mahila Gram Sabha before the main GS, where common women of the respective areas come together and discuss their problems. This offers them the opportunity to prepare their agenda for the main GS meeting and accordingly the selected issues are placed before the main GS by the women members. This kind of healthy practice facilitates the participation of women in the process of village development and for the states like and such kind of arrangements will definitely improve women s participation and this in turn will lead to empowerment of women. The GS is empowered to function as unit of local self-government. It provides the taste of direct democracy to the rural people. Being the foundation of the whole pyramidal structure of local self-government, the GS is the life-blood of grassroots democracy. The GS is supposed to discuss the common problems of the village community in a participatory manner and the final decision has to be taken on the majority principle and to be documented in the form of MoM. Keeping this in view respondents have been asked to mention the issues discussed in their respective GS. Their responses are presented below (Table D5) 171

9 Table D5: Matters put up for discussion at GS meeting Matters Selection of beneficiaries for various government schemes Yes Yes Identification of BPL families Yes Yes Reviewing activities of GP including existing schemes Scrutinize annual accounts and audit report Endorsing village plan Taxation proposals Yes Making plan for rural development works Yes Selection of local schemes Issue of utilization certificates Source: Field work. The table depicts that both in and, GS meetings are basically concentrated on the Selection of beneficiaries for various governmental schemes (like IAY, MGNREGA etc.) and Identification of BPL families. While a wide range of functions like reviewing activities of GP including existing schemes, scrutinizing annual accounts, endorsing village plan, selection of local schemes and utilization certificates are totally untouched. The table highlights that in, GS meetings sometimes discuss on the taxation proposals and making plan for rural development works. However, from the responses recorded in the table it appears that GS has just been working as an agency of selecting beneficiaries for RD programmes ignoring the other relevant matters pertaining to GP. It can be inferred here that due to this nature of working of GS that meetings are not held as per the Act. It is only when the question of selection of beneficiary under various RD programmes comes the GP conducts the GS meeting. The findings of the above tables also confirm the impression that the meetings of the GS are just a formality and the actual role of the GS remains in paper only. Even the social audit by the GS in has not become a reality. Though in case of, the Panchayat Act of 1997 did not 172

10 provide provision for social audit but an executive order has already been issued in February 28 for social audit at GP level for EFC grant. It is also yet to come into force. Working of GP As regard the functioning of the GP, the Panchayat Acts of both and have been entrusted a large number of functions and responsibilities in different spheres of development activities. The GPs in both the states are entitled to prepare annual budget, mobilize relief for natural calamities, remove any encroachments on public property, maintain statistics of the village, organize voluntary labours and prepare annual plans for village developments. In addition, the GPs also exercise jurisdictions relating to agriculture, animal husbandry, dairy development and poultry farming; fisheries; social and farm forestry; khadi, village and cottage industries; rural housing; drinking water; road, buildings, culverts, bridges, ferries and waterways; rural electrification; non-conventional energy source; poverty alleviation programmes; education including primary and secondary schools; adult and non-formal education; libraries; cultural activities; markets and fairs; rural sanitation; public health and family welfare; women and child development; social welfare; welfare of the weaker sections; public distribution system; maintenance of community assets; construction and maintenance of public/community hall; construction and maintenance of cattle sheds, pounds and cart stands; construction and maintenance of slaughter house; maintenance of public parks, playgrounds etc.; regulation of manure pits in public places etc. the similar functions are also entrusted to AP/AS. To assess the actual working of the GPs respondents have been asked to highlight the area of 173

11 functioning/operation of the GP and on the basis of the common responses the following table is constructed. Table D6: Common Functions undertaken by the GP ( and ) Nature of work Implementation of RD programmes Preparation of project proposal under MGNREGA and forward it to the AP/AS Selection and approval of beneficiary list in GS meeting Extension of benefits to BPL families Making people aware of different governmental schemes Undertaking Sanitation Campaign Construction of road Source: Field Data The above table shows that both in and, GPs are involved in carrying out a number of government sponsored programmes. The functioning of GP revolves around the RD programmes only such as IAY, SGSY, MGNREGA, HARIYALI, BRGF, KALPATARU and the like. The GPs participate actively in selecting beneficiaries, identifying BPL families, constructing village roads under MGNREGA and developing awareness among the people about different governmental schemes. However, the functions that are mentioned under their respective Acts get hardly any attention from the GPs. They are performing the agency functions mainly because of the indifferent attitude of the government and also due to financial crisis. It has also been observed that there is a communication gap between the Panchayat functionaries and the government (line department) personnel. As a result, the GPs of both and are relatively far behind than the states like West Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka and Gujarat in terms of their working. 174

12 In the following table we present the perception of the respondents about the working of the PRIs in their respective districts. Table D7: Perception regarding functioning of PRIs Opinion PRIs functioning independently and in right direction Yes Don t Know M F M F 24 (33.8) 11 (22.4) 35 (29.2) 14 (29.8) 8 (26.7) 22 (28.6) 44 (62.) 3 (4.2) 34 (69.4) 4 (8.2) 78 (65.) 7 (5.8) 31 (66.) 2 (4.2) 18 (6.) 4 (13.3) 49 (63.6) 6 (7.8) 71 (1) 49 (1) 12 (1) 47 (1) 3 (1) 77 (1) Source: Field work From the above table it is seen that majority of the respondents in both the states (65 per cent in and 63.6 per cent in ) feel that the PRIs are not working independently and in right direction, while 29.2 per cent () and 28.6 per cent () view that PRIs are independent and working in a right track. It is worth mentioning here that most of the Presidents/Chairpersons of the GPs have stated that PRIs are functioning in a right direction. This indicates a clear gap between the perception of the GP members and GP President/Chairperson as regard to the working of the GPs. A set of questions have further been asked to those who recorded their impression in the negative (in Table D7) with a view to understand the inherent problems in the functioning of the GPs. 175

13 Table D8: Problems relating to functioning of the GPs Reasons Fully Agree To some extent Do not agree response The party leaders determine the agenda of PRIs 46 (59.) 11 (14.) 19 (24.4) 2 (2.6) 78 (1) Working as per the guidelines of the Government 36 (46.2) 25 (32.1) 14 (17.9) 3 (3.8) 78 (1) Social elites influence the working 21 (26.9) 9 (11.5) 44 (56.4) 4 (5.1) 78 (1) There is no unity among the members 43 (55.1) 16 (2.5) 17 (21.8) 2 (2.6) 78 (1) Too much interference from the district administration 12 (15.4) 15 (19.2) 49 (62.8) 2 (2.6) 78 (1) The party leaders determine the agenda of PRIs 3 (61.2) 7 (14.3) 11 (22.4) 1 (2.) 49 (1) Working as per the guidelines of the Government 2 (4.8) 11 (22.4) 15 (3.6) 3 (6.1) 49 (1) Social elites influence the working 33 (67.3) 8 (16.3) 7 (14.3) 1 (2.) 49 (1) There is no unity among the members 12 (24.5) 25 (51.) 9 (18.4) 2 (4.1) 49 (1) Too much interference from the district administration 8 (16.3) 7 (14.3) 31 (63.3) 3 (6.1) 49 (1) Source: Field work Out of the total respondents who have the negative opinion about the GPs the table shows that both in and the working of the PRIs is not moving in a right direction as it is evident from the above responses. In, 59 per cent respondents fully agree with the view that the functioning of the PRIs is not moving in the right direction as the party leaders determine the agenda of the PRIs. Another 14 per cent also partially supported the view. It is again observed from the responses that along with the Party s dictation issues like lack of unity among the members further aggravate the problems. The guidelines of the government also create problems in the smooth functioning of the PRIs, while issues such as influence of the social elites and the interference from the district administration are not the real hurdles in the functioning of the PRIs. The 176

14 picture is not much different in as 61.2 per cent respondents clearly stated that the party leaders determine the agenda of the PRIs and about 14.3 per cent respondents partially agreed with the view. It is further noticed that in lack of unity among the members of PRIs and the guidelines of the government also create troubles in the functioning of the PRIs as about 75 per cent and 63 per cent (combining fully agree and to some extent) agreed with this. As regard the influence of the social elites it is observed that unlike, in Arunachal Pradesh there is more influence of the social elites as about 83 per cent (combining fully agree and to some extent) respondents confirmed this view. The reason for such influence lies in its social tradition. Though modern PR has been under progress in but the influence of the traditional ways and means can not be ignored and hence social elites, who also constitute the traditional elite, are in a position to dictate the terms. However, majority of the respondents recorded that there is not much interference from the district administration. It deserves to mention here that the majority of the member-respondents opined that the GP President / Chairperson do not inform them about the various schemes and the fund allotted for that. It is alleged that GP President / Chairperson in connivance with the GP Secretary are actually using the fund keeping the members in dark. This has created a feeling of deprivation among the members which hampers the smooth functioning of the GPs Training and Capacity Building Training is of paramount importance as it equips the candidates with a good variety of skills, abilities and knowledge that helps them becoming more responsive. It is said that the ability of the elected representatives to contribute significantly to village development flow from their knowledge 177

15 of rules and regulations. Training generates awareness among the elected representatives about their allotted powers and responsibilities. The training process sensitizes the participants about leadership issues, communication issues and the importance of PRI representatives in strengthening grassroots democracy. Thus, the overall purpose of the basic training is to introduce the key aspects of the functioning of the PR to the participants. PRIs need adequate capacity building support to effectively discharge their assigned roles and responsibilities as institutions of local self governance. Appropriate training of PRI representatives given in time is one of the crucial components of capacity building process. The issue of training has been discussed and debated intensively on various forums. The Seventh Round Table of State Ministers of Panchayati Raj held at Jaipur in December 24 adopted several action points on training of PRI representatives. Similarly, the Fifteenth Anniversary Charter on Panchayati raj adopted in April 28 by PRI representatives from all over the country demanded that Panchayat representatives and officials should be provided sustained and high quality training through a system that fulfils their own training needs. Acknowledging the importance of state specific training and capacity building framework, the NCBF (National Capability Building Framework) designed by MoPR, has also suggested state governments to undertake state-wise training for PRI representatives.2 In the states like and the responsibility of providing training to the elected representatives of PRIs are taken over by SIRD and NGOs. In, the SIRD, SLCTC at Jorhat and three ZLETC imparts training to the elected Panchayat representatives. The SIRD, organizes training programmes for the elected representatives of Panchayat in 12 extension 178

16 centres/growth centres besides its Head Quarters in Guwahati. The data collected from the SIRD reveals that during 22-3 to 26-7, 44,798 elected representatives were trained in 617 courses. The SIRD, has now prepared a comprehensive plan on capacity building for the elected representatives and functionaries of Panchayats. The training process covers - general orientation; activity orientation; role orientation; micro planning orientation; programme orientation; management orientation; orientation on resource mobilization and management; orientation on social justice, women empowerment, monitoring, social audit etc. The SIRD also organizes exposure visits for the elected Panchayat representatives to gather experience of the best practices in other Panchayats both inside and outside the State. For the women Panchayat representatives special courses are designed on gender issues, women and children welfare with a view to make them aware of their responsibilities. Special attention is provided to the SC/ST Panchayat representatives. However, video-conference facility has not yet been established. Likewise, in also, SIRD (Itanagar) along with NGOs initiates training programmes for the elected Panchayat representatives. During 26-7, district level training programmes were conducted for training of all ZP, AS members and some GP Chairperson. However, this did not include GP members. The curriculum designed for such training included features of APPRA, roles and responsibilities of Panchayat members, preparation of annual plans and programmes of rural development. Exposure visits for some ZP members to the State of West Bengal were also arranged. However, unlike, no special training programmes were arranged for women members. Video-conference facility is also not available in. 179

17 To intensify training programmes and capacity building of the elected representatives both the State Governments have issued grants under RGSY, which is presented below in table D9. Table D9: Position of releases and utilization of fund for Training and Capacity Building under RGSY (as on 31st March, 21) (Rupees in Lakh) State Arunachal Pradesh Component Grant Released Status of UC Grant Released Status of UC Grant Released Status of Exp. Grant Released Status of Exp. Training RC Training RC 6 6 RC: Resource Centre, UC : Utilization Certificate, Exp.: Expenditure Source: Annual Report 29-1, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India The Table makes it clear that a huge amount has been released since 26 for capacity building under RGSY. Though during 27-8 Arunachal Pradesh did not received any fund for capacity building but in 28-9 a significant amount of Rs.6 lakh was released to create RC with a view to intensify the training process. During 28-9 and in 29-1, also released a considerable amount of RS.474 lakh for the same purpose. It also deserves mention here that both the states have conducted Panchayat election twice in the post-seventy-third Amendment era and thereby a good number of elected representatives from various sections of the society were elected. Hence, training has been conducted for the elected representatives and other functionaries of PRIs under various rural development programmes like RGSY, BRGF and other Central / State Schemes. The detail is presented below. 18

18 Table D1: Details of training of ERs and functionaries under Central / State Government Schemes (as on 31/12/29) Under BRGF State Arunachal Pradesh Last electio n held August, 26 April, 28. of ERs Under Other Schemes Under RGSY Year. of ERs traine d. of function -aries trained. of ERs trained. of functio naries trained. of ERs traine d. of function -aries trained ERs: Elected Representatives Source: Annual Report 29-1, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India The above table reveals that the training programmes under Central/State Government development schemes in and were successively conducted during 28-9 and The analysis of the data clearly states that training programmes are comprehensive in as it covered more number of elected representatives. It is expected that such training would have a positive impact in the functioning of the PRIs and thereby realising the spirit of democracy and development. 181

19 It is in this backdrop the respondents have been asked a set of questions with a view to assess the training process and its impact in the functioning of the PRIs. Table D11: Received training after becoming Panchayat Member ERs ERs Yes 26 (21.7) 15 (19.5) 82 (68.3) 58 (75.3) response 12 (1.) 4 (5.2) 12 (1) 77 (1) Opinion Source: Field work The table presents a contradictory result. It is seen from the above table that majority of the respondents (68.3 per cent in and 75.3 per cent in ) in both the states did not receive any training after becoming Panchayat member. During interaction it is noticed that those who become Panchayat member for the second term have actually received some kind of training earlier but the majority of the fresh entrants are not trained. To know the reasons for not receiving any training even after becoming Panchayat member, representatives (those who did not receive training) have been asked to highlight their problems. The responses are presented below in Table D12. Table D12: Reasons for not receiving training on capacity building ERs ERs information about Training 52 (63.4) 4 (69.) Personal work 4 (4.9) Distance from home 24 (29.3) 15 (25.9) response 2 (2.4) 3 (5.1) 82 (1) 58 (1) Reasons Felt not important Source: Field work 182

20 The table shows that respondents who did not receive any training mainly cited non-receiving of information about training (63.4 per cent in and 69 per cent in ) as the key reason for their nonparticipation in training, The next important reason they cited is distance from home as 29.3 per cent in and 25.9 per cent in Arunachal Pradesh confirms this. Only 4.9 per cent in cited their personal work as the reason for non-participation. However, it is worthwhile to note that all the respondents felt the necessity for training as the function of the PRIs has now become exhaustive and they are required to know their responsibilities. Thus, it can be inferred that as majority of the elected representatives did not receive any training so the quality of functioning of the PRIs in respective states are not up to the expectation of the people. Without knowing the responsibilities, functioning and other obligations members cannot provide the quality leadership. Besides, the general perception about training is also assessed from those who received training. A total of 38 ERs from and 19 ERs from have been asked a few questions and the responses are recorded below in table D13. Table D13: Perception about Training Perception ERs ERs Yes Yes Training was participatory in nature 32 (84.2) 6 (15.8) 38 (1) 16 (89.5) 3 (1.5) 19 (1) Materials were provided during training 14 (36.8) 24 (63.2) 38 (1) 11 (57.9) 8 (42.1) 19 (1) Instruction was understandable 22 (57.9) 16 (42.1) 38 (1) 1 (52.6) 9 (47.4) 19 (1) Satisfied with training content 16 (42.1) 22 (57.9) 38 (1) 7 (36.8) 12 (63.2) 19 (1) Source: Field work 183

21 The table highlights that majority of the respondents, constituting 84.2 from and 89.5 per cent from recorded that they found the training programmes as participatory in nature. They felt comfortable in interacting with the trainers. As regard the receiving of materials, 57 per cent of the respondents from reported that they were provided with the materials during training while 36.8 per cent respondents from reported that materials were not provided to them. However, almost equal percentage of respondents from both the states reported that instruction given during training was understandable. Respondents are also asked whether they are satisfied with the training content. The responses show that they are not satisfied with the training content and they do not have thorough knowledge about their respective Acts also. Hence, the respondents suggested the following points in order to strengthen the training programme (Table D14). Table D14: Priorities as regard to the content of Training Arunachal Pradesh Rules, regulations and responsibilities of Panchayat Knowledge/Information on GP Fund Rural Development Programmes and other Government Schemes Preparation of village action plans Preparing Budget Content Source: Field work It is apparent from the table that respondents from both the states have recorded that training must be held compulsorily and its content should cover rules, regulations and responsibilities of Panchayat; Knowledge/ information on GP Fund; rural development programmes and other governmental schemes; preparation of village plans; and preparing budget 184

22 of GP. The ERs clearly stated that they require Knowledge/information about GP Fund because President / Chairperson of GP holds control over the fund and did not share any information as regard to the fund position as well as the grants received from the government. They also pointed out that training must be imparted through mother tongue and the location of training should not be at a distant place. Most of the respondents stated that training must be held immediately after the Panchayat election and preferably at Block Office. The information as regard to the training must be reached to them beforehand PRIs and Rural Development Rural Development refers to overall development of rural areas to improve the quality of life of the rural people. According to World Bank Publication, rural development is a process to improve living standard of the masses of the low income population residing in rural areas making the rural development process self-sustaining.3 This concept of rural development occupy an important place in India s economic planning and this is evident from the efforts made during plan periods towards improving the quality of life of the rural people. It is during the planning period that rural development strategy has shifted from the growth-oriented to the welfareoriented and further to empowerment-oriented. To be precise, it is with the passing of the 73rd Constitution Act that rural development strategy has actually shifted from welfare-oriented to empowerment-oriented. This Act has enabled people to prepare plan for economic development and social justice. The 11th Schedule comprising 29 items provides an effective role to PRIs for involving people in decision making, implementation, evaluation and sharing of the benefits of socio-economic development projects.4 There has been a long list of rural development programmes which have been 185

23 initiated and implemented both at the national as well as the state level in India. But even then there is no sign of speedy progress in the rural areas. This raises an important question that how far rural development programmes are successfully implemented in the states of and and what is the degree of participation of PRIs in rural developments programmes in both the states. Keeping this in consideration a set of questions has been asked to the respondents and the responses are recorded in the following tables: Table D15: Procedure for selection of RD programmes As per the needs of the area ERs 1 (8.3) ERs 6 (7.8) Govt. officials announces the prgramme 69 (57.5) 42 (54.5) Political party leaders decide 17 (14.2) 12 (15.6) Decide at the GS meeting 8 (6.7) 7 (9.1) Don t know 16 (13.3) 1 (13.) 12 (1) 77 (1) Content Source: Field work From the responses as recorded in the above table it appears that almost equal number of respondents from both the states (57.5 per cent in and 54.5 per cent in ) is of the view that the rural development programmes are selected and announced by the Government officials. Hence, the question of the involvement of PRIs in selecting the programmes for their respective areas does not arise. It has been observed that one of the important functions that the GPs undertake is the selection of beneficiaries for the different rural development schemes. However, the GPs do not follow uniform procedure for the selection of the beneficiaries as seen from the following table (D16). 186

24 Table D16: Selection of beneficiaries for various RD schemes at GS meeting ERs M F Beneficiary list is prepared at GS meeting 44 (62.) 22 (44.9) Beneficiary list is not prepared / approved at GS meeting 3 (4.2) Beneficiary list is prepared in advance but it is formally approved at GS meeting ERs M F 66 (55.) 17 (36.2) 7 (23.3) 24 (31.2) 4 (8.2) 7 (5.8) 2 (4.3) 3 (1.) 5 (6.5) 22 (31.) 2 (4.8) 42 (35.) 27 (57.4) 18 (6.) 45 (58.4) Don t know 2 (2.8) 3 (6.1) 5 (4.2) 1 (2.1) 2 (6.7) 3 (3.9) 71 (1) 49 (1) 12 (1) 47 (1) 3 (1) 77 (1) Source: Field work. It can be clearly observed from the table that in majority of the respondents (55 per cent) have mentioned that preparation of beneficiary list is done at the meeting of the GS, 35 per cent opined that beneficiary list is prepared in advance but it is formally approved at GS meeting. On the other hand, in majority of the respondents (58.4 per cent) have mentioned that beneficiary list is prepared in advance but it is formally approved at the meeting of the GS and this indicates towards the chance of manipulation in preparing the list beforehand. The respondents from both the states allege that the Secretary of the GP and the Chairperson of the GP prepare the beneficiary list as per their wish and get it formally approved at the GS meeting. It is further observed from the interaction that officials do not attend the meetings of the GS until the elected representatives requested them to clarify the details of the schemes. 187

25 Table D17: Participation of PRIs in the implementation of RD Schemes Involvement of PRIs in the Schemes Scheme RD Schemes Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF) Select the list of beneficiaries Select the list of beneficiaries Handling the implementation and monitoring of the project Handling the implementation and monitoring of the project involvement. The list of beneficiaries is taken from the waitlist of 21 survey Select the list of beneficiaries Implementing and monitoring of the scheme involvement. The list of beneficiaries is taken from the waitlist of 21 survey Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme (IGNOAPS) Select the list of beneficiaries Sanitation Campaign (TSC) Hariyali/ Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY) Select the list of beneficiaries Implementing and monitoring of the scheme Indira Awas Yojna (IAY) Select the list of beneficiaries Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) Mid Day Meal (MDM) involvement involvement involvement involvement Selection and recommendation of the Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) workers National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) Selection and recommendation of the ASHA workers Panchayat Yuva Krida Aur Khel Abhiyan (PYKKA) Involved involvement Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme Select the list of beneficiaries involvement. The list of beneficiaries is taken from the waitlist of 21 survey Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme (ARWSP) involvement Select the list of beneficiaries Kalpataru (State Sponsored Scheme) Select the list of beneficiaries Source: Field work and epri Study Project, Information & Services Need Assessment for Panchayati Raj Institutions in State of, NICSI To know the level of participation of the PRIs in the implementation of RD Schemes respondents have been asked to identify the schemes in which their respective GPs are involved. The responses as recorded in table D16 depict that in comparison to, the position of PRIs in is better in selecting the beneficiaries as well as implementing and monitoring the RD Schemes. It is observed that only in the schemes like MGNREGA, BRGF, TSC, Hariyali/SGSY and NRHM the PRIs of both the states are actively involved, while in the schemes like IGNOAPS, IAY, 188

26 PYKKA, ICDS and Kalpataru (available only in ) the PRIs in are also involved. Furthermore, in the schemes like PMGSY and MDM there is no involvement of the PRIs in both the states. Surprisingly, it has been noticed that while selecting the list of beneficiaries the PRIs in follow the waitlist of 21 Survey, which has already passed a decade and hence there is every possibility of deprivation of others, not included in the list. The Panchayats have been empowered as the grassroots-level implementing agency for most of RD Schemes. In view of that, the GS has been given wide powers including identification of schemes that are required to be taken up on a priority basis for the development of a village. It is binding for the Panchayats to follow austerely the guidelines as prescribed while identifying schemes and beneficiaries. However, there is a common perception that ERs of the PRIs do not adhere to the programme guidelines. Hence, a few questions have been asked to the respondents to find out the process. Table D18: Adherence to RD Schemes Guidelines Presidents Members Chairpersons Members Always 17 (7.8) 35 (36.5) 12 (63.2) 23 (39.7) Sometimes Never Don t know 3 (12.5) 2 (8.3) 2 (8.3) 4 (41.6) 14 (14.6) 7 (7.3) 4 (21.1) 2 (1.5) 1 (5.2) 26 (44.8) 5 (8.6) 4 (6.9) 24 (1) 96 (1) 19 (1) 58 (1) Source: Field work The table shows that in both the states a relatively higher percentage of the Presidents/Chairpersons (7.8 per cent in and 63.2 per cent in ) confirmed that the list of beneficiaries is prepared as per the programme guidelines. While a relatively lower proportion of members (36.5 in and 39.7 in ) confirmed the 189

27 preparation of beneficiary list as per the prescribed guidelines. The above responses indicate that there is a gap between the programme guidelines and the process involved in the selection of beneficiary. Table D19: Successful implementation of RD Programmes Yes ERs 44 (36.7) ERs 23 (29.9) 71 (59.2) 48 (62.3) Don t know 5 (4.1) 12 (1) 6 (7.8) 77 (1) Opinion Source: Field work As the elected representatives are closely involved in the monitoring process of the RD programmes the Study further sought their opinion regarding the successful implementation of the programmes in their districts. In response to the question a significant number of respondents from both the states (59.2 per cent in and 62.3 per cent in ), as stated in table D25, are of the opinion that the RD programmes are not successfully implemented everywhere. While a relatively lower percentage of the respondents (36.7 per cent in and 29.9 per cent in ) stated that the programmes are in the right track. Of those who answered in the negative have further asked to state the reasons for ineffective implementation of the RD programmes. The responses are stated below in table D2. Table 2: Reasons for ineffective implementation of RD Programmes ERs ERs Apathy of the State officials Funds do not come regularly Lack of knowledge about different RD programmes Lack of infrastructure The quality of the works done is not good Lack of coordination at various levels Needs of the locality is ignored 71 (1) 48 (1) Reasons Source: Field work. 19

28 As per the opinion recorded in the above table it is clear that there are certain similarities as well as dissimilarities regarding the abortive implementation of the RD programmes in both and Arunachal Pradesh. The analysis of the table reveals that the issues like apathy of the state officials, lack of knowledge about different development programmes and low quality works are responsible for unsuccessful implementation of RD programmes in both the states. The respondents from also added that the RD Schemes did not pay heed to the local needs and in addition there is low level of coordination among the Panchayat representatives at various levels. Party affiliations as well as indifferent attitude of the officials also act behind this problem. Again, the respondents from have further added two important issues like lack of fund and infrastructure behind the abortive implementation of the RD programmes. In course of investigation it is observed that the GPs in do not have their own office premises and the ERs are facing problem in conducting day to day functioning as well as maintaining office records. Conversely, the GPs in do not have such problem and the meetings of the GPs are held at their respective office premises. The following table highlights the grants received by the PRIs in both and with regard to the building up of infrastructure. Table D21: Infrastructure Development Component (Rupees in Lakh) State Component Grant Released Status of UC Grant Released Status of UC Grant Released Status of Exp. Grant Released Stat us of Exp. Panchayat Ghar Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Ghar UC : Utilization Certificate, Exp.: Expenditure Source: Annual Report 29-1, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India 191

29 The above table outlines the status of grants in both the states for building up the infrastructure such as construction of Panchayat Ghar. The figure shows that as regard the building of Panchayat Ghar the PRIs of received more grants in comparison to. While interacting with the elected representatives of both the states it is observed that PRIs of is facing more infrastructural problem than that of. Hence, the respondents from urged for more funds for developing the infrastructure including the construction of Panchayat Ghar to carry out the day to day functioning of the Panchayats smoothly. To understand the involvement of the political parties and leaders in various RD programmes the respondents were asked a few questions and the responses are presented below in table D22. Table D22: Involvement of Political parties in RD Programmes Opinion Political parties have upper hand in RD programmes MP s and MLA s of the district are controlling the PRIs ERs ERs Yes Don t know Yes Don t know (7.) (22.5) (7.5) (1) (62.3) (31.2) (6.5) (1) (73.3) (18.3) (8.3) (1) (57.1) (33.8) (9.1) (1) Source: Field work The above table clearly depicts the command of the political parties over the local self-government at the grassroots level. The respondents from both the states are of the view that the functioning of the PRIs are at the discretion of the political parties particularly ruling MPs and MLAs. In 7 per cent respondents stated that political parties have upper hand in RD programmes, while 62.3 per cent respondents from Arunachal Pradesh also confirmed it. Likewise, in responding to the question of 192

30 controlling the PRIs by the MPs and MLAs, 73.3 per cent respondents from and 57.1 per cent from confirmed the statement. During interaction the respondents from both the states viewed that the direction of the political leaders and their close followers always come at the time of selection of beneficiaries for various RD schemes. However, it is observed that in the influence of the political personnel in RD schemes as well as dominating PRIs is little less than that of. The reason is that the entire system of Panchayati Raj is still at the infant stage and the influence of the age old village council still exists in some form at. In addition, being the part of PRIs, ERs are also associated with various committees responsible for supervision and implementation of schemes for the local area development. In the following table we present the name of the Committees, their functions and the involvement of the ERs (Table D23). Table D23: Extent of Involvement of PRIs in Committees PRI Level Committee Name GP Village Water & Sanitation Committee (VWSC) GP School Management Committee (SMC) GP Social Audit Committee (SAC) GP Gaon Panchayat Agriculture Planning Unit (PAPU) GP Mid Day Meal Committee (MDMC) GP AP Function Anganwadi Committee (AC) Hospital Management Committee (Primary Health Centre, State Dispensary) (HMC) Responsible for the grassroot level planning & monitoring of the TSC Responsible for implementing the MID Day Meal Scheme and for providing data for updating the DISE database maintained by the SSA mission Responsible for performing on the spot checks to verify the work being carried out under MGNREGA Involved in the planning for the RKVY Scheme owned by the Ministry of Agriculture Rsponsible for monitoring the implementation of Mid Day Meal Scheme Responsible for monitoring the work of Anganwadi workers under the ICDS Scheme Responsible for the management of hospitals and dispensaries in the block Designation of PRI Member President of the elected body of GP is the Chairperson of the VWSC President of the elected body of GP is a member of SMC It is composed of Five people, who are selected in GS President of the elected body of GP is the Chairperson of PAPU President of the elected body of GP is a member of MDMC Members of the GP are the Chairperson of the ACs in their respective Groups/ Wards President of the elected body of AP is a Member of HMC 193