๐ฏJPSC MAINS NOTES -Indian Polity
Governance, Panchayati Raj, Federalism notes for JPSC
Jharkhand Public Service Commission
๐ SECTION A: EVOLUTION OF DECENTRALISATION
๐น Pre-Constitutional Phase (Before 1950)
- Village Panchayats existed in ancient India (self-sufficient villages)
- British Era: Panchayats weakened โ centralised revenue administration
- 1920s: Mahatma Gandhi advocated “Gram Swaraj” โ village republics
- 1935: Government of India Act โ provincial autonomy, but Panchayats ignored
๐น Constitutional Phase (1950-1992)
| Provision | What It Did |
|---|---|
| Article 40 (DPSP) | State to organise village panchayats as units of self-government |
| Article 243 (pre-1992) | Non-justiciable โ no mandatory provisions |
| Balwant Rai Mehta Committee (1957) | Recommended 3-tier Panchayati Raj |
| Ashok Mehta Committee (1977) | Suggested 2-tier system, more powers to Panchayats |
| G.V.K. Rao Committee (1985) | Recommended regular elections, financial autonomy |
| L.M. Singhvi Committee (1986) | Proposed constitutional status for Panchayats |
๐น Landmark Phase (1992 Onwards) โ 73rd & 74th CAA
| 73rd Amendment (1992) | 74th Amendment (1992) |
|---|---|
| Added Part IX to Constitution | Added Part IXA to Constitution |
| Added 11th Schedule (29 subjects) | Added 12th Schedule (18 subjects) |
| Mandatory Gram Sabha | Mandatory Ward Committees |
| 5-year fixed tenure | 5-year fixed tenure |
| Reservation for SC/ST/Women | Reservation for SC/ST/Women |
| State Election Commission | State Election Commission |
| State Finance Commission | State Finance Commission |
๐ SECTION B: KERALA’S PPC โ A CASE STUDY
๐น Background
- Context: 73rd/74th CAA enacted but states were slow to implement
- Kerala’s Advantage: High literacy (93.9%), social reform history, land reforms
- Political Will: LDF government (1996-2001) led by E.K. Nayanar
- Key Architect: T.K. Thomas Isaac (State Planning Board member)
๐น Features of PPC
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Launch Date | August 17, 1996 |
| Mode | “Campaign” โ mass mobilisation |
| Gram Sabhas | Organised across all villages โ participatory planning |
| Financial Devolution | 35-40% of Plan outlay to local bodies (highest in India) |
| Bottom-up Planning | Local bodies prepared plans โ aggregated at district โ state level |
| Institutionalised | Not a one-time event โ became annual process |
| Women’s Empowerment | Kudumbashree โ neighbourhood groups became financial intermediaries |
๐น Achievements
| Achievement | Impact |
|---|---|
| Deepened Democracy | Ordinary citizens participated in planning |
| Stronger Local Governments | PRIs became genuinely empowered |
| Kudumbashree | Became national model โ won UN awards |
| Gender Justice | Women’s participation increased dramatically |
| Social Audit | Citizens began monitoring government schemes |
| Village-Level Planning | Micro-level plans addressed local needs |
| Poverty Alleviation | Targeted interventions for poorest households |
๐น Criticisms & Limitations
| Criticism | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Urban Neglect | Focused heavily on rural Panchayats |
| Bureaucratic Hurdles | Officials resisted loss of control |
| Political Interference | Ruling party influenced planning decisions |
| Capacity Constraints | Local bodies lacked technical expertise |
| Fiscal Dependency | Still dependent on state grants |
| Elite Capture | Local elites dominated Gram Sabhas |
๐ SECTION C: MODERN CHALLENGES
๐น Waning Public Participation
| Trend | Data/Evidence |
|---|---|
| Gram Sabha Turnout | Declining from 70% in 1990s to <30% now |
| Youth Engagement | Young people see Gram Sabhas as “irrelevant” |
| Urban Participation | Ward committee meetings poorly attended |
| Causes | Lack of tangible outcomes, political rivalry, time constraints |
๐น Rapid Urbanisation
| Statistic | Implication |
|---|---|
| Kerala’s Urban Population (2011) | 47.7% |
| Projected Urban Population (2036) | 96.43% |
| Problem | Traditional village-based Panchayati Raj model may become obsolete |
| Need | Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) need stronger participatory mechanisms |
๐น New & Complex Problems
| Challenge | Description |
|---|---|
| Unemployment | Educated youth struggling to find jobs |
| Waste Disposal | Solid waste management crisis |
| Gender Justice | Persistent issues despite Kudumbashree success |
| Marginalised Sections | SC/ST communities often excluded from benefits |
| Climate Change | Floods, landslides threaten Kerala’s ecology |
| Ageing Population | Kerala has India’s highest elderly population |
| Fiscal Stress | State finances stretched โ less funds for local bodies |
๐น Centralisation Trends
| Factor | Impact |
|---|---|
| Centrally Sponsored Schemes | 90% of funds tied to central guidelines |
| Conditional Grants | Local bodies have limited flexibility |
| Bureaucratic Resistance | State officials reluctant to delegate powers |
| Political Interference | State governments undermine local autonomy |
๐ SECTION D: PEOPLE’S PLAN 2.0 โ WAY FORWARD
๐น Proposed Features
| Initiative | Details |
|---|---|
| Student Internships | Youth to work with local bodies โ bring fresh ideas |
| Tech-Driven Platform | Online portal for planning, monitoring, feedback |
| Urban Focus | Ward committees to become vibrant spaces |
| Reinvigorated Gram Sabhas | More responsive, issue-based meetings |
| Gender Mainstreaming | Ensure women’s participation beyond tokenism |
| Climate-Resilient Plans | Local bodies to lead climate adaptation |
| Citizen Charters | Local bodies to publish service delivery standards |
| Social Audit | Mandatory citizen-led audits of all projects |
๐น Key Success Factors
| Factor | Why Important |
|---|---|
| Political Will | All governments (LDF/UDF) must continue support |
| Fiscal Autonomy | Local bodies need own tax powers |
| Capacity Building | Training for elected representatives |
| Technology | Use digital platforms for transparency |
| Public Awareness | Citizens must understand their rights and duties |
| Constitutional Protection | State must not undermine local bodies |
