|
"Political power flows from the barrel of the gun". The
slogans could be heard in the streets drenched with the blood of the martyrs.
The slogans could be heard in the remotest corner of India. The people who were
mute spectators of history demanded their due. The struggle of Naxalbari put
forward the agenda for the seizure of state power in the Indian revolution.
Hence, the response from the state was quite inevitable. On the one hand the
state came down with all its might on the movement. It made a mockery of its own
laws. On the other hand it tried to legitimise the pillars of exploitation by
the stick and carrot policy The State rightly thought to deceive the people
through the jargon 'power.' Hence the implementation of the Panchayati Raj
became an urgent necessity. But to make a success of this state-sponsored
programme a reliable partner was needed. A partner who could be hand in glove
with the ruling class and pretend to be friendly with the rulers.
The CPI(M) proved itself to be a successful protagonist in this regard. The
CPI(M) upheld and implemented the Panchayati Raj as centres of 'power
decentralisation', where the landless and poor peasants would have a say in the
'power' hierarchy. But whose power is established? Where is the real fulcrum of
power? Let us trace the history to see the reality.
History of the Panchayeti Raj
A PRELUDE
The architects of the Indian constitution were too servile to leave space for
the Panchayat. The Panchayats were left to the Directive Principles of state
policy. They were not a compulsion or mandatory for the elected governments. In
para 40 of the Directive Principles of state policy of the Indian constitution
it is stated that "The state will take initiative to form village panchayats.
The state should devolve power and authority to develop Panchayats as meaningful
centres of self-governance."
But the state was keen enough to establish the Panchayat as a meaningless
institution from the very beginning. It did not follow from an effort to develop
panchayats as centres of self-governance. It was a necessity of the state.
NECESSITY OF THE STATE
India did not attain independence from the clutches of imperialism on 15th
August. Through transfer of power India became the hunting ground of all brands
of imperialist forces. India was transformed into a semi-feudal, semi-colonial
society. The stooges of imperialism - the big comprador bourgeoisie and feudal
lords - shared state power. The big comprador bourgeoisie needed an
infrastructure to develop their business. The State as their representative
responded in a positive way. In the first five-year plan agricultural
development was the main thrust. Hence the rural sector became the area of
operation of the ruling class. In the rural sector backwardness was
all-embracing. A minimum infrastructure was needed to facilitate the
exploitative machinery. Hence imperialist-sponsored community development
projects were of great importance. It was very cost effective and free labour
was one of the preconditions of the project. The peasantry was pushed into a
make-believe world of undertaking development for its own interests. But it did
not succeed. Free labour became scarce. The supervision at the grass root level
became necessary for the state. Consequently the planning commission appointed a
study team in 1956 under the chairpersonship of Balwant Mehta to review the
community development project. The committee concluded that there was a
necessity for a Panchayati Raj type institution at the village level to
facilitate the speedy implementation of the centrally planned programmes. The
committee recommended three important aspects. These were -
a) setting up of elected bodies at the village, block and district level,
b) all developmental projects be implemented through these elected bodies,
c) required funds be released for the successful implementation of the projects
Close scrutiny of the recommendations reveals the true nature of the state.
There is no scope of people to assert decision-making. People are to abide by
the plans envisaged by the bureaucracy. It is in line with the colonial legacy.
The State, with high-sounding phrases, tried to hide its true colour, but in
vain!
COLONIAL LEGACY
Lord Cornwallis had Institutionalised the feudal system in order to consolidate
colonial interests. The Permanent Settlement introduced by Cornwallis was the
required institution in this regard. The Permanent Settlement not only preserved
and maintained the feudal system but also was a tax collection mechanism of the
British government. But the greatest vacuum that was created through this system
was the absence of a ground-level government. Within the state apparatus, the
administration was structured by a bureaucratic network to the concerned police
station linked to the district and sub-division level and administrative bodies.
The question that propped up was that, below the police station level, how was
the administration to reach the people living in the remotest corner of the
villages? The answer came in the form of Bengal Chowkidar Act 1870 followed by
the Bengal village self-government act 1919. It allowed the formation of a union
board with regulated franchise.
Despite all the recommendations from Lord Ripon, the union board was in response
to a bureaucrat: C necessity of the state. The state was to collect tax, it had
to undertake bureaucratic management of the village folk, in particular tile
poor and landless peasants.
GENESIS OF PANCHAYATI RAJ
Since the advent of feudalism in India the strata of poor and landless peasants
has faced inhuman poverty. Feudal lords have inflicted barbaric torture on them.
Subsequently India has experienced several peasant revolts. Some of them have
shaken the system to its roots. It was the Naxalbari struggle which became a
turning point in Indian history. It was not a simple peasant struggle; it was a
struggle for the seizure of state power led by the vanguard of the proletariat,
the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist). The party, for the first time,
put forward a detailed strategy and tactics of the revolution before the teeming
multitudes of India. The state took this struggle as a real threat to them.
Hence the paddy fields of the remotest corner of India, and street lanes and by
lanes of metropolises, especially Calcutta, became red with the blood of the
martyrs. The State showed how far it was democratic. The great sons and
daughters of India sacrificed their lives to usher in a new era of Indian
history. Though the movement suffered a setback due to some sectarian mistakes,
it will remain a matter of glory for the exploited people of India for years to
come. The revolutionaries learnt from the mistakes and are rising like the
phoenix from the ashes. On the other hand, the state too learnt a 'lesson'. It
became a necessity for it to suppress resurgence of revolt from the very
beginning. And as such state not only wielded the stick, but also dangled the
carrot to woo the peasantry. But who was to be the main actor in the hotbed of
revolution, the Naxalbari struggle? The CPI (M) became the natural choice to
show India and the world what the 'left' implies. The Panchayati Raj was an
important tool in this regard. It was because it has two important components,
people' and 'power'. The Panchayati bill passed by most tyrannical anti-people,
blood-thirsty and power-hungry Siddartha Shankar Roy government in 1973, was
loyally implemented by the CPI(M).
PANCHAVATI RAJ - CPI(M)'S TALE OF HYPOCRISY
The CPI(M) stepped into the shoes left by Roy. The main task was to uphold the
implementation of decentralisation of power through the panchayats. To blur the
vision of the people, the CPI(M) proclaimed that their alternative class outlook
would help them to establish a ‘different type of panchayat'. They now boast of
the success of the panchayati raj in left front-ruled states. These Panchayats,
they claim, have helped the people to raise the revolutionary consciousness.
They want to make the revolutionary consciousness a vague matter at par with the
tradition of the revisionists world wide. Hence in para 5 of the directives of
CPI(M) on the Panchayat it said "Our real tusk is to make people aware of the
true nature of the present system. If we can empower tile people with power as
permitted by the cabinet through the panchayats then people will fight for what
they don't have. If we can make clear to the people what we can and cannot do
and what are our limitations, through our day to day activities, then there will
evolve a revolutionary consciousness of the people, i.e. people will understand
why revolution is necessary and how it should be accomplished." Oh what
fantastic faith on the people! Under the guise of trailing behind the masses,
the CPI(M) wants to hide its true nature! On the one hand through the above
statement it liquidates the vanguard role of the party and on the other their
leader Jyoti Basu makes clear their true colour by stating that "we have
formed left front governments in West Bengal and Tripura. But without forming a
government at the centre no fundamental change is possible. If we could have
attained power at the centre, we could have made fundamental change in the
country possible"! (after the 1983 Panchayat election in West Bengal). The
proposition of peaceful transition to socialism is complete!
In order to wean the masses away from the revolution they uphold an anti-people
structure of the Panchayat in utter desperation!
STRUCTURE OF THE PANCHAYATS
The structure of the Panchayats is totally bureaucratic. There is a subcommittee
comprising of the chief minister and some other related ministers to look after
the activities of the panchayats. Besides, there is one subcommittee comprising
of additional chief secretaries and divisional chief secretaries, divisional
secretaries at the state level. This sub committee in real terms looks after the
required administration and fund to be released for implementation of any
project. This is followed by an experienced IAS officer. This officer, two
additional directors, three assistant directors, the officer related to
panchayat elections, a special officer to train regarding Panchayat, a lady
panchayat officer, three regional assistant directors of the three
administrative divisions. At the district level there is a district Panchayat
officer. The Panchayats have to abide by the suggestions, dictums, directives of
the state and district level bureaucracy. The story does not end here. The
bureaucracy does not spare even the 3-tier bodies of the Panchayat.
A. At the district parishad level there is the district magistrate as
additional executive officer, a high level government bureaucrat as secretary in
addition to the district engineer, a deputy assistant engineer and their
subordinate staff.
B. The BDO as executive officer at the panchayat samiti level, the local
panchayat extension officer as secretary, the block development inspector, a
deputy assistant engineer and a group of government staff
C. One secretary at the village panchayat level, and one job assistant.
I am sorry if the reader finds it boring to follow this long bureaucratic
structure! This is the magic wand of setting up of a self-reliant 'people's
power' at the grass root level as claimed by the ruling classes and their ally
the CPI(M). The question that naturally comes to one's mind is where does this
magic wand lead? Democratisation of society, or bureaucratisation of the
'democratic' centres of power! Where does it lead?
THE PATH THE PANCHAYAT LEADS
The operation of the Panchayat is evident from its structure! In real terms it
has no power or authority to boast of. The planning of the projects viz. digging
up of tubewells, culverts, schools etc are finalised at the central level. The
central government shares 70% of the expenditure and the state government shares
30% of the same. The concerned village panchayats have the democracy to decide
where the said project will be implemented and how. But it cannot alter the
project, e.g. if central grant is meant for a tubewell it has to dig a tubewell
whether it is necessary or not. The fund is refunded if the project is not
implemented. The Panchayat has very meager resources to develop on its own. The
bureaucracy can veto any plan of the panchayat i.e., limited democracy is also
at a stake! The SDO or the state government can dissolve the panchayat. Recently
Rs. 15 lakhs per year has been sanctioned per village panchayat. Owing to its
centralised decision-making structure lakhs of rupees of money will be refunded.
The people can collect a handful of pesticides or ration goods on some centrally
sponsored projects through panchayats. The projects reach the people through
trickling down effect. Rajiv Gandhi once said that out of every rupee spent on a
panchayat only 15 paise reaches the people. Actually a huge bureaucracy
supplemented by elected panchayat bodies has become a stumbling block for the
development of society. Hence among the have-nots; mostly school masters, middle
peasants etc. share power with the bureaucracy. They in course of time have
developed into small bureaucrats. A corrupt system centering on tenders of
construction or supply of pesticides has developed in the countryside. Even the
elected panchayat representatives cannot forcefully implement acquisition of
excess land through operation Barga. They can only complain against a landlord.
During the Congress regime 10 lakhs acres of land was occupied, whereas after
coming to power the CPI(M)-led government. has acquired only 2 lakh 7 thousand
acres in the first seventeen years. After '85-86 the pace of operation barga has
lessened. Further, the Panchayat does not have a say in the fixing of minimum
wage. That is fixed by the bureaucrats. Nowhere in the left ruled panchayats has
any single panchayat ever built up a movement to implement minimum wage. On the
contrary, the CPI(M), with its goondas and lumpens, attack any movement which
centres on the demand for minimum wage.
THE PANCHAYAT IS DEAD!
LONG LIVE THE PANCHAYAT!
If the democratic veil is withdrawn it is clear that the panchayat is not only
an undemocratic institution, it acts as a safety valve against the anger of the
peasantry. Still the peasantry cannot be bluffed for long. They are organised to
revolt under the leadership of revolutionary organisations, thereby proving the
fact that "revolution is the main trend of the era". Now the panchayats are to
accomplish the real tasks. They are to police the movement. In the last twenty
two years in West Bengal, panchayats have done this job successfully. Former CPI
(ML)(PU) comrades Jhantu Biswas, Achai Sekh, Balaram Bhowmick were killed in one
or other movement-related incidents. The 'go the village campaign' of students
and youth organisations RSF, NDYF was attacked by CPI(M)led village panchayats.
They did not even spare the protagonists of the left consolidation theory, CPI
(ML) Liberation. In a village of Burdwan in the first half of the '90s, some
supporters of the organisation were crucified; leave alone hundreds of acts of
sabotage by these 'elected Panchayat bodies' on the movement. In a recent
directive the DG of police has directed the village panchayat leaders to
scrutinise and monitor the movement of the terrorist organisations (read
revolutionaries).
Thus we can safely conclude that the Panchayati Raj has established itself as
the raj of the bureaucrats at the behest of the ruling classes. The recent 8th
Five Year Plan has stressed the role of NGOs and panchayats to implement central
planning. Thus, the minimum disguise is also taken off! Through the NGOs the
central government is monitoring rural activities. Recently, Mamata Banerjee,
the Trinamul Congress leader and coalition pantner of BJP, has pleaded for the
same process. The revolutionaries will have to expose the true character of the
panchayats. It is through armed struggle that the feudal power hierarchy will be
smashed and real centres of people's power will be developed in the countryside.
The communist revolutionaries will surely take up the challenge. Let the
conclusion be written by the teeming multitudes of the country. Let the
peasantry rise and demand their rights. The people have to strive not for
panchayats, but state power, to ensure their democratic rights.
|
