Role of Panchayati Raj in strengthening local governance
(The Indian Express has launched a new series of articles for UPSC aspirants written by seasoned writers and scholars on issues and concepts spanning History, Polity, International Relations, Art, Culture and Heritage, Environment, Geography, Science and Technology, and so on. Read and reflect with subject experts and boost your chance of cracking the much-coveted UPSC CSE. In the following article, Dr. Akhil Kumar explores the evolution of the Panchayati Raj Institutions.)
Recognising the significant role of panchayats in local governance, the government on April 9 launched the Panchayat Advancement Index (PAI) – 'a key metric for assessing progress at the grassroots level and aiding in the formulation of localised strategies and targets for inclusive rural development'.
Additionally, the 2024 index published by the Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj and the effort towards addressing the practice of 'Pradhan Pati' or 'Mukhiya Pati' speaks volumes about the significance attached to the Panchayat Raj Institutions in strengthening an inclusive grassroots governance. But how has this institution evolved from traditional panchayats to constitutional local bodies over time ? Let's explore.
Evolution of Panchayati Raj Institutions
The Panchayati Raj Institutions play a very important role in the rural hinterland of India in the decentralisation of power and governance to the grassroots level. While these local self-governing bodies were formally institutionalised and strengthened through the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments in 1992 – conferring the constitutional status upon rural local bodies (panchayats) and urban local bodies (municipalities) – their origins dates back to times immemorial. Traces of early forms of the panchayat raj system can be found in Vedas, Kautilya's Arthashastra, the Mauryan empire and other historical sources.
Over the decades, the institutions of the panchayat raj system have undergone significant changes in the pre and post-independence years. During British colonial rule, Lord Mayo's resolution of 1870 ushered in the decentralisation of power and advocated the devolution of finances to develop the villages and towns.
Lord Ripon's reforms in 1882 are considered a 'pioneering' framework for local governance in British India, as they recommended that the smallest administrative units must be placed under the auspices of local boards. Later, in 1909, the Royal Commission on Decentralisation, led by Sir Henry William, examined the functioning of these local boards and identified the lack of representation and inadequate powers as major constraints in their effective functioning. The commission made a few recommendations which were later incorporated in the the Government of India Act, 1919.
After attaining independence in 1947, India laid greater emphasis on decentralisation of administration to promote local self-governance in its villages. On November 25, 1948, K Santhanam, a Gandhian and a member of the Constituent Assembly, insisted upon the Chairman of the Drafting Committee to insert/include an amendment in support of this vision.
As a result, during the framing of the Constitution, a special provision on decentralisation was embedded in the Directive Principles of State Policy under Part IV in Article 40. The article states: 'The State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government.'
Community development programme, precursor to panchayats
As a precursor to the Panchayati Raj Institutions, the community development programme was initiated by the government during the First Five-Year Plan (1951-55). After independence, India grappled with several challenges, including food scarcity, poverty, and unemployment. The community development programme was introduced as a remedial measure aimed at involving all communities in rural areas in the process of development.
Prior to the inception of this programme, India had undertaken certain community development projects. Some notable initiatives were the Sriniketan Institute of Rural Reconstruction by Rabindranath Tagore in 1921/1922; the Marthandam Experiment by Dr. Spencer Hatch through the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) in Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu; and the Firka Development Scheme by T. Prakasam in 1946 in the Madras presidency, to name a few.
Although major activities such as agricultural development (including land development, supply of fertilisers and pesticides), irrigation (such as digging wells), laying roads, prevention of epidemics were taken up under the community development programme, it did not yield the desired results. The programme faced challenges like lack of people's participation, bureaucratic red-tapism, and corruption. A study conducted by the Planning Commission found that artisans were neglected, and that only areas with existing irrigation facilities and large landholdings benefitted.
Three-tier system
Hence, the government constituted a committee in 1957 under the chairmanship of Balwant Rai Mehta to suggest improvements. In its report, the committee suggested the decentralisation of governance from the village to the district level. It proposed a three-tier structure – at the lowest level, the Village Panchayats, at the intermediary (taluk or block) level, Panchayat Samitis, and at the highest level, the Zilla Parishads. Rajasthan emerged as the first state to implement the proposed model on October 2, 1959, followed by Andhra Pradesh in November 1959.
To address the ineffective implementation of the proposed three-tier structure and to identify the lacunae in the functioning of these Panchayati Raj Institutions, a new committee was constituted under the chairmanship of Ashok Mehta in 1977 during the tenure of the first non-Congress government led by the Janata party. The committee recommended replacing the three-tier structure with a two-tier system, with Mandal Panchayats at the bottom and the Zilla Parishads at the top.
It also advocated for the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes based on their population to safeguard their interests. Most importantly, it endorsed the participation of political parties in panchayat raj affairs. However, the implementation of these recommendations remained limited due to factors such as maintaining uniformity in a diverse nation and finances and other constraints.
Subsequently, several committees were formed over the years to review the functioning of the Panchayati Raj Institutions from time to time such as Hanumantha Rao Committee (1983), GVK Rao Committee (1985), L M Singhvi Committee (1986), P K Thungan Committee (1989) and Harlal Singh Kharra Committee (1990).
Evaluating the Functioning of panchayats
From the late 1980s onwards, the government made several attempts to empower Panchayati Raj Institutions by granting them constitutional status, with various amendments introduced in 1989, 1990, and 1991. It was during the tenure of the P V Narasimha Rao government when the goal was finally achieved in December 1992, with both Houses of Parliament passing the amendment which was ratified by 17 state assemblies.
Thereafter, two new parts were added to the Constitution: Part IX for 'The Panchayats,' and Part IX A for 'The Municipalities'. According to the Ministry of Panchayati Raj's Annual Report 2024-25, there are 2,55,397 gram panchayats, 6,742 intermediary panchayats, and 665 district panchayats in India.
To evaluate the functioning of the Panchayati Raj Institutions, the government devised the Panchayat Devolution Index to assess every state's performance of its local bodies across various dimensions such as finances, accountability, capacity building and others. This index was based on the concept paper presented by V N Alok and Laveesh Bhandari in 2004, which outlined three dimensions: Functions, Finances, and Functionaries (3Fs). Later, three other parameters – Capacity Building, Accountability, and Framework – were added to the index.
In the recently released Panchayat Devolution Index, Karnataka secured the top position followed by states such as Kerala, Tamil Nadu and others. The Ministry of Panchayati Raj released this index based on a study conducted by the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA). The index also identified several challenges in the functioning of these institutions such as the lack of financial autonomy, financial constraints, transparency, inadequate human resources, holding elections and updating electoral rolls.
The Ministry also introduced the e-Gram Swaraj application to enhance the functioning of Panchayat activities. However, the lack of digital literacy came out as a major constraint, limiting its ability to strengthen the institutions. Such factors hinder the Panchayati Raj Institutions from functioning effectively and executing various socio-economic welfare programmes introduced by the governments to strengthen grassroots governance.
Post Read Questions
What were the earliest references to local self-governance? How did colonial administrative reforms, such as Lord Mayo's resolution of 1870, shape the early structure of village governance?
The 73rd amendment to the Constitution is seen as one of the landmark developments in India's journey as a constitutional republic, establishing the panchayati raj system. Comment.
How does the Ministry of Panchayati Raj assess the performance of these institutions across different states? What are the core dimensions of the Panchayat Devolution Index, and how has it evolved since its inception in 2004?
How does the e-Gram Swaraj application aim to improve Panchayat functioning?
Despite constitutional backing and digital interventions, why do Panchayati Raj Institutions still struggle with financial autonomy and transparency? Suggest the way forward.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
10 hours ago
- Indian Express
Knowledge Nugget: Why Global Peace Index 2025 is important for your UPSC exam
Take a look at the essential concepts, terms, quotes, or phenomena every day and brush up your knowledge. Here's your knowledge nugget for today. (Relevance: UPSC frequently asks questions on reports and indices. The key takeaways from these reports are also essential fodder for your Mains examination for intricate points. In 2023, UPSC has asked questions on the World Water Development Report; in 2019, the question was on the Global Competitiveness Report. Therefore, it is important for you to get a comprehensive understanding of these indices.) Currently, there are 59 active state-based conflicts, the most since the end of WWII, and 1000 conflict-related deaths recorded in 17 countries in the last year, according to the 10th edition of the Global Peace Index (GPI) 2025 released by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP). The report covers 163 countries, comprising 99.7 per cent of the world's population. The report states, there is a deterioration of global peacefulness by 0.36 per cent, marking the 13th deterioration in peacefulness in the last 17 years, with 74 countries improving and 87 deteriorating in peacefulness. 1. Since 2007, the report has been published annually and provides a comprehensive data-driven analysis of trends in peace, its economic value, and ways to develop peaceful societies. There are 23 qualitative and quantitative indicators used to measure the state of peace across three domains: the level of Societal Safety and Security; the extent of Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict; and the degree of Militarisation. 2. The internationalisation of conflicts is becoming more common, leading to difficulty in reaching solutions. The geopolitical fragmentation, increasing major power competition, and the rise in influence of middle-level powers are the reasons noted by the report for increased internationalisation. 3. The report finds that only nine per cent of conflicts today result in a decisive military victory, and just four per cent end with negotiated settlements. Reflecting the broader shift toward 'forever wars, ' pointing to the failure of traditional resolution strategies. To de-escalate these conflicts, the report suggested the need for sustained investment in positive peace, which is correlated with higher GDP growth, lower interest rates, societal wellbeing, and more resilience to shocks. 4. With the average country score deteriorating by 5.4 per cent, the report noted that the world has become less peaceful over the past 17 years since its inception in 2008. 94 countries out of 163 recorded deterioration, while 66 recorded improvements and one recorded no change. Between 2008 and 2023, seventeen of the 23 GPI indicators have deteriorated. 5. The report points to the major shift in international affairs in the past years. According to the report, 'Every nuclear-armed state has held or expanded its arsenal since 2022, and great-power rivalry is fuelling an arms race in advanced technologies, from AI-enabled drones to counter-space systems'. Recently, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) report, 2025, also highlighted that the nuclear arms race has once again intensifed, especially in Asia. 6. Iceland continues to lead and set global standards in maintaining its position as the world's most peaceful country, a position it has held since 2008. Iceland is followed by Austria, New Zealand and Switzerland. Western and Central Asia are the most peaceful regions in the world. 7. India ranks 115th globally with a GPI score of 2.229, a 0.58 per cent improvement in its level of peacefulness over the past year. This marks a gradual upward trajectory from its rankings of 116 in 2024, 126 in 2023, 139 in 2020, and 141 in 2019. 8. According to the report, 'South Asia recorded the largest average deterioration of all the regions, with significant falls in peacefulness in both Bangladesh and Pakistan'. It is the second least peaceful region in the world. The least peaceful country in the region is Afghanistan. (Eurasia) Source: GPI, 2025 1. The Institute for Economics Peace, established in 2007 by Steve Killelea AM, publishes global reports that influence the 'global narratives on matters of security, defence, terrorism and development.' These reports include the Global Peace Index, Global Terrorism Index, and Ecological Threat Report. 2. According to the Global Terrorism Index 2025, terrorism remains a persistent global threat. 'The number of countries experiencing at least one terrorist incident increased from 58 to 66, the most countries affected since 2018.' Pakistan is among the countries where terrorist activities have increased since 2007. (Source: Global Terrorism Index, 2025) Consider the following indices: 1. Human Development Index 2. Global Peace Index 3. Global Gender Gap Index 4. Global Terrorism Index How many of the following indices are published by the Institute for Economics and Peace? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) Only three (d) All four (Source: Top 10 most peaceful countries in the world 2025: Where does India rank in comparison to Pakistan?, How India's defence spending is aligned with its regional ambition, Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X. 🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for June 2025. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at Khushboo Kumari is a Deputy Copy Editor with The Indian Express. She has done her graduation and post-graduation in History from the University of Delhi. At The Indian Express, she writes for the UPSC section. She holds experience in UPSC-related content development. You can contact her via email: ... Read More
The Wire
a day ago
- The Wire
A President and a Field Marshal
No one knows if the goat cheese gateau and burnt cipollini soubise the White House chef served at the famous Donald Trump-Asim Munir lunch were to the Pakistani field marshal's liking, but it is more than evident that this breaking of bread in Washington has set the cat among some very nervous strategic pigeons in New Delhi. The knee-jerk reaction is to pooh-pooh a very consequential event. The Pakistani newspaper Dawn reports that 'the meeting was not arranged through routine diplomatic channels, and was the outcome of 'unorthodox efforts' by a group of advisers, businessmen and other influential figures.' The same assessment is then passed on by 'sources' to the Indian Express, presumably as an expression of Indian foreign office disdain for an event that is an embarrassment for the ' vishwaguru ' coming so soon after Operation Sindoor. Sadly, no one in South Block remembers Deng Xiaoping's working axiom: it does not matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches the mice. But, then, who can deny us our right to wallow in self-righteousness. Our current bewilderment at a democratically elected president hosting a self-promoted field marshal can easily be traced back to a misreading of American historical traditions. American society has always held the military man in high esteem; the very first president of the United States was the victorious general George Washington. After World War II, when the United States arrogated to itself the role of policeman of the new global order, the use of the military force and armed intervention became the most legitimate instrument at the disposal of the American presidents. In the famous spat between President Harry Truman and General Douglas MacArthur (called 'America's most talented general of this – the 20th – century' by Henry Kissinger), American public opinion was not entirely behind the White House. And, the election of a victorious general, Dwight Eisenhower, in the 1952 presidential election was a reaffirmation of a tradition of awe and reverence for the man in fatigues. Indeed, generals and admirals have always found their way to key decision-making slots as the US got busy quelling (or starting) fires around the world. It came naturally for American diplomacy not to regard the generals in Asia, Africa or Latin America as un-touchable. Influential intellectual voices like Samuel Huntington theorised about the stabilising role of the military in the Third World as newly liberated countries experimented with freedom and chaos. This notion of the military's institutional usefulness has been a constant consideration in the US approach towards Pakistan. We have always thought we were Washington's preferred partner because we are a 'democracy', and self-servingly felt disappointed that its affection was equally shared between 'a democratic India' and a 'dictatorial Pakistan'. In his memoir Nice Guys Finish Second, B.K. Nehru, then our man in Washington, talks of having been invited to an exclusive, 'coming out of mourning' party held by Jackie Kennedy. The date was September 22, 1965. India and Pakistan were at war; the Indian army was getting the better of (yes, the first) Field Marshal Ayub Khan's fauj. At Jackie's party, B.K. Nehru collared US secretary of defense, Bob McNamara, who obviously was keeping track of the fighting and knew that Pakistan was getting a bloody nose. Nehru writes: 'He [McNamara] went on to say that something had to be done to restore the morale of the Pakistani Army. I said, 'Surely, Bob, you aren't going to arm them again, are you?' He hummed and hawed and said, 'Well, I don't know. Perhaps we shall have to.' The date of this conversation is worth noting; it was three days before the cease-fire.' The American establishment had long concluded that the Pakistani army was the only organised and competent institution that could provide stability in that country. After all, unlike in India, the Pakistani political class had very little experience of democratic temper and, more importantly, Pakistan did not have a Jawaharlal Nehru – a leader with the mettle and disposition to marshal the energy and imagination of a new nation. The Americans were not choosy; they would work with anyone who could produce a semblance of order in Pakistan and would not be averse to joining military pacts like SEATO and CENTO. In recent decades, US policymakers – both Democratic and Republican – have greatly valued the Pakistani army as a highly useful tool for providing security and protection to ruling families in volatile Arab nations. We in India are free to mock Rawalpindi's GHQ as a mercenary corps; but the Americans are not prone to sentimentality in matters of realpolitik. It is rather late in the day for New Delhi to pretend to be flummoxed that Field Marshal Munir should have been given by Trump the respect becoming of a head of government. Trump has given sufficient notice to one and all around the world that he does not abide by conventions or traditions and that certainly he is not enamoured of the humbuggery that comes so easily to our leadership. We, of course, are entitled to hold this or that Pakistani general responsible for patronising terror groups; but, the American establishment cannot be faulted for concluding that for better or for worse, Field Marshal Munir's army remains the only organised force capable of ensuring stability and cohesion. We, indeed, have resented the Americans' inability – or unwillingness – to see the Pakistan army's mischievous record. Many years ago, when he was still on top of his game, President Ayub Khan could note in his diary (August 10, 1967) that 'Hindus, of course, are too crafty for the Americans.' He was, in fact, grudging New Delhi's professional foreign service's calm and calculated dealings with the bullying Americans. Five decades later, the first field marshal would be surprised to find his successors to have learnt the difficult art of being deceitful and yet being trusted by the Americans. We, on the other hand, have become more 'Hindu' and less crafty.
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
'Foreign varsities establishing campuses in the country': Education Minister on India's growing might, ET Education
Advt Advt Jaipur, Union Minister for Education Dharmendra Pradhan was in Jaipur on Thursday to attend two key events -- the 9th Convocation Ceremony of the Central University of Rajasthan, and the inauguration of a lecture hall complex at Manipal University in as the Chief Guest at the 9th Convocation Ceremony of the Central University of Rajasthan, Pradhan emphasised the value of lifelong learning, stating: "Convocation is not an end, but a significant milestone in the continuous journey of education."Congratulating the 1,693 graduating students from Integrated and Diploma programmes, the minister reminded them that earning a degree is not only an academic milestone but also a call to action for nation-building and social responsibility. Highlighting the transformative vision of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, he noted that the policy advocates for multidisciplinary, skill-based, and employment-oriented further revealed that to foster global academic collaboration, several foreign universities are now setting up campuses in India, with eight institutions already praised Rajasthan's rich intellectual legacy and its consistent performance in competitive exams like JEE and NEET, calling the state a "timeless cradle of knowledge, science, art, literature, and thought."He urged students to preserve this legacy with a modern, innovative spirit. As India positions itself as the world's fourth-largest economy, the minister stressed the importance of leveraging the innovation, skills, and leadership potential of the youth to realize the vision of Viksit Bharat by concluded his address by invoking the ancient Indian ideal of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam -- "the world is one family" -- and reaffirmed India's commitment to becoming a global provider of solutions for convocation also saw the inauguration of several university infrastructure projects and the laying of foundation stones for future event was attended by Bhagirath Choudhary, Minister of State for Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Prof. Anand Bhalerao, Vice Chancellor of the Central University of Rajasthan, along with other dignitaries, faculty members, and another event on the same day, Pradhan inaugurated a state-of-the-art lecture hall complex at Manipal University praised the new facility, describing it as world-class and conducive to a modern learning environment, and congratulated the university's academic community on this minister commended Manipal University for effectively blending India's timeless cultural heritage with modern educational again to NEP 2020, he emphasised that India's ancient knowledge systems are now being meaningfully integrated into the contemporary academic framework, fostering a sense of rooted-ness and national pride among Rajasthan a symbol of India's glorious past, Minister Pradhan said it must now become a beacon of a future-ready and developed envisioned institutions like Manipal University evolving into centers of research, innovation, and entrepreneurship, transforming students into job creators rather than job confidence in the university's potential, the minister said Manipal University Jaipur is well-positioned to address both local and global challenges, and can make significant contributions to the Viksit Bharat 2047 vision Encouraging the university's leadership, Minister Pradhan recommended the establishment of a dedicated research park to further boost its culture of innovation and entrepreneurship, reinforcing its ambition to become a premier research-driven institution.
