Need to Strengthen Panchayati Raj: Insights from Kerala’s Mass Contact Programme

The Kerala CM’s Mass Contact Programme for redressing grievances and rooting out corruption has won international recognition. In this context, the article seeks to evaluate present-day popular models of grievance redressal and explore the role of Panchayati Raj in addressing people’s concerns.


It is only a few months since the Chief Minister of Kerala, Oommen Chandy, won the United Nations’ Public Service Award for ‘Preventing and Combating Corruption in the Public Service’ for his 2011-12 Mass Contact Programme. According to records of the Kerala Government, the CM visited all districts of the state, imbibed lessons by listening to people’s grievances, collected 5.45 lakh petitions and managed to resolve 2.97 lakh of these within a short duration. A similar exercise was carried out in 2013 as well. The UNDP appreciated the initiative, hailing it as exemplary in strengthening democracy. At the same time, one needs to evaluate whether the initiative, while it brings the politicians closer to the voters, is the best way to approach grievance redressal.


 



Mass Contact Programme 2012: A Broad Picture

Source: Boundless Access: Kerala’s Tryst with Governance, Department of Information & Public Relations, Government of Kerala, March 2012, p.32

 

Inadequacy of Mass Contact Programme as a Grievance Redressal Mechanism

The table above shows that during the 2011-12 Mass Contact Programme almost 20 per cent of total households - that is one in every five households- in Idukki, Kottayam, Pathanamthitta and Wayanad districts presented their cases before the Chief Minister. If so many people have to depend on certain high-ranking individuals to address their grievances, it makes one ponder upon the extent of progress of democracy in this country. With the ‘Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011’ still pending in the Parliament, people have no choice but to depend on a few individuals to address their problems. The situation thus throws light on the incapacity of institutions of local self government to address people’s problems.

Need to Strengthen Panchayati Raj Institutions

In the year that lakhs of people participated in the Mass Contact Programme to seek redressal of their grievances, Kerala ranked first in Panchayat Devolution Index (2011-12). In this context, it seems ironic that Rajiv Gandhi envisioned Panchyati Raj as a systemic solution for ‘responsive administration’, replacing managerial solutions like grievance redressal mechanisms. At the beginning of his tenure as the Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi was actually in favour of such managerial solutions like the one that the then District Collector of Ahmednagar in Maharashtra had introduced. The Collector had brought in a system, similar to that of the Kerala CM’s, wherein he used to meet the general public in the open under a tree and attempt to provide immediate disposal of their problems. Despite his earlier support to such initiatives, Rajiv Gandhi later accepted in the Parliament that, “At that time...we were looking to a simplification of procedure, grievance- redressal machinery, single-window clearances, computerisation and courtesy as the answers to the problems. As we went along, we discovered that a managerial solution would not do. What was needed was a systemic solution.” Despite it being two decades after  Panchyati Raj was introduced as a systemic solution, it is grievance redressal programmes like the  Oommen Chandy’s that have managed to more effectively address people’s concerns, than institutions of local self government . 

Referring to a case that was brought before him which could actually have been settled at the panchayat level, the Kerala CM said, “How is it that a complaint that could have been tackled by a local governing body reached the chief minister’s hand? ...

Alas, an issue that could have easily been solved didn’t go the way it should have.” If this is the situation in the state with one of the strongest Panchayati Raj systems in the country, it is hard to imagine how deplorable the condition in other states would be. We would not have needed Mass Contact Programmes if there were empowered Panchayati Raj Institutions in place, with adequate powers devolved to them. Therefore, it is high time we ponder over the effectiveness of Panchayati Raj Institutions and take initiatives to empower them so as to facilitate effective delivery of services to the common man.

 

*This is a revised version of the paper published by the author in eSocial Sciences on 12 July, 2013.

Amrutha Jose Pampackal

 

Functioning of Gram Sabhas in India

Photo Credit: Anand District Panchayat

As the foundation of the Panchayati Raj system in India, the Gram Sabhas were envisaged as important institution for deliberation and participation in the decision-making process by the people of rural India. To popularise its role in planning local development initiatives, the central government had declared 1999-2000 and 2009-2010 as Gram Sabha years. However, over the years it has become clear that the Gram Sabhas have failed to include local community voices in their functioning or to even represent them effectively in their decision making. No doubt, if Gram Sabhas functioned in the true spirit of the Constitution, rural India would have a vibrant, transparent and accountable local government to address its immediate needs. Therefore, it is essential to reflect on how effective is the functioning of Gram Sabhas and account for the waning public faith and participation in them.

My field experiences from across Indian villages show that Gram Sabhas are not functioning in accordance with the spirit of the 73rd Amendment Act, 1992. More often than not, their functioning is controlled by the Sarpanch and Secretary and the vested interests they represent rather than the concerns of the common people. Under the law, it is mandatory to give prior notice to members to attend the Gram Sabha meetings. But this procedure is not followed by many Gram Panchayats. In fact, this is a tool in the hands of the dominant who directly or indirectly control the Panchayats and use it to deliberately exclude the common people from participatory political processes and in the process augment their political, economic and social power. It is observed that the meeting dates are fixed by the Central/State governments either to prepare a beneficiary list for various schemes or to disseminate information on new schemes. Those whose names are not in the list do not attend these meetings. In several instances meetings  are fixed during the peak  agricultural  season and as peasant and agricultural labour households cannot afford to lose out on the agricultural wage employment, they tend to forgo Gram Sabha meetings instead.  Meetings are fixed on a popular festival day, making it inconvenient for many to attend.  In Rajasthan, one secretary is generally incharge of three to four Gram Panchayats and it may well be the case that the meetings of all the Panchayats are scheduled for the same day which would make it very difficult for the secretary to be present in all meetings. When this has happened, Gram Sabha meetings have had to be cancelled and rescheduled. But it has been seen that even then the Secretary was not present. Disillusioned, people lose interest in these meetings. It is a common practice that the Sarpanch takes the signature of the people on a blank paper on proceeding details even before the Gram Sabha meeting has been held.  In many Gram Sabhas, candidates who lost the Panchayat election or those from the opposing camp, actively disrupt the meetings. They are often drunk when they come to the meetings and use unpleasant language to abuse the Sarpanch. It is difficult for women to attend these meetings. A common experience of people is that the Sarpanch, once elected, becomes distant from the very people who elected him and moves closer to the Gram Panchayat Secretary and block level officials. He   never makes public the details of the panchayat operations, funds received from the block office etc. 

The traditional land-owning dominant castes are still strong in many villages. These rural elites dominate the discussion on Gram Sabha meetings. The marginalied and landless agricultural labourers who are dependent on dominant castes for wage employment do not oppose them in Gram Sabha meetings. Moreover, low public participation in Gram Sabhas is also due to lack of popular awareness, lack of publicity, interference of local leaders, corruption, conflict among members and the uncooperative attitude of bureaucrats.

The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) states that, “the Gram Sabhas have been, by and large, given a peripheral role in the Panchayat Acts. Consequently, common people do not find interest in attending its meetings” (B P C Bose and M V S Koteswar: 2004:154). To make Gram Sabha meetings successful, the venue and time may  be so decided that it is to the convenience of the majority.

The emphasis has to be not so much on the number of participants as on the quality of participation. Public faith can be restored only if the Gram Sabha decisions are substantively and efficiently implemented by the higher tier of Panchayats and respective State Governments. The report by Mani Shankar Aiyar also recommended “Genuine PR should be based on participative democracy by not concentrating power on a few representatives and putting in place the ultimate accountability to the people through the Gram Sabha”(Towards Holistic Panchayati Raj: 2013:551).

The decisions of the Gram Sabhas are not binding on higher tiers of Panchayats. Gram Sabhas are spending most of their time in disposing and discussing the agendas of Central/State governments. There is a need to strengthening functions of Gram Sabhas so that they may discuss local issues affecting their day to day life and make local governance more participatory, transparent and people friendly. Gram Sabhas may be given approving and sanctioning powers as well as monitoring functions to allow Panchayats to become vibrant and dynamic institutions. There is need to amend State Acts and make Gram Sabha recommendations binding on Panchayats at higher level.

 

Ramesh Nayak

Kudumbashree: Pride of Kerala

Photo Source: Hindu Business Line

Kudumbashree, an innovative mission for poverty eradication through women’s empowerment, is one of the most successful programmes being implemented by the state of Kerala.  Kerala, a tiny state lying in the south-west part of India, has been home to many development experiments. Kudumbashree is one such experiment. Its mission is empowerment of women through collectivisation i.e. organising them into self-help groups and encouraging their entrepreneurial and other activities. The purpose of the mission is to ensure the transformation of women from being passive recipients of public assistance to being active leaders in development initiatives.

Kudumbashree was the outcome of the collective experience gained from the many anti-poverty programs of the past. Most of the well intentioned but centrally planned, rigid and individual-oriented anti-poverty programs of the central and state government had failed to bring about the desired results, mainly because they did not have any scope for the involvement of the poor. They viewed the poor as "resourceless" recipients of benefits. Launched by the Government of Kerala in 1998 with a view to  wipe out absolute poverty from the state through concerted community action under the leadership of local self governments, Kudumbashree today  is one of the largest women-empowering projects in the country. The programme has 37 lakh members and covers more than 50% of the households in Kerala. The Kudumbashree initiative has succeeded in addressing the basic needs of the less privileged women and in providing them a more dignified life and a better future. The literal meaning of Kudumbashree is prosperity (shree) of family (Kudumbam). Kudumbashree differs from conventional programmes in that it perceives poverty not just as the lack of money, but also as the deprivation of basic rights. The poor need to find a collective voice to claim these rights. There are two distinguishing characteristics to Kudumbashree which set it apart from the usual SHG model of empowerment. The first one is its universality of reach. From its very inception Kudumbashree has attempted to bring every poor woman in the state within its fold, as a consequence of which today Kudumbashree is present in every village panchayat and municipality, and in nearly every ward, colony and hamlet. The sheer spread is spectacular, and it is only because the local community of women drive the system that it has managed to persevere. The second characteristic is the scope of community interface in local governance. The functioning of Kudumbashree is tied up to the development initiatives of the local government be it for social infrastructure, welfare or right based interventions or for employment generation. From food security to health insurance, from housing to enterprise development, every development experience depends on Kudumbashree to provide the community interface.

The grassroots of Kudumbashree are neighbourhood groups (NHG) that send representatives to the ward level area development societies (ADS). In turn, the ADS sends its representatives to the community development societies (CDS) which completes the unique three tier structure of Kudumbashree. Today, there are 1.94 lakhs NHGs, over 17,000 ADSs and 1061 CDSs in Kudumbashree. In contrast with the previous poverty eradication programmes, there are no specific financial and physical targets set for Kudumbashree. Kudumbashree practices a process approach and not a project approach.

As the mission reaches its 16^th year, Kudumbashree has successfully made deep inroads into various sections of Kerala’s society and today stands as a role model for other states in the country for women empowerment. Through its efforts to engage women in civil society and in development issues and opportunities, Kudumbashree, in association with the local self government units of Kerala, is charting out new meaning and possibilities for local economic development and people centric governance

Anjana John

 

Communitisation of Health Institutions and its Impact

Photo Credit: HIFA 15

National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) is a unique programme that has recognised capacity, knowledge and skill of the communities to plan, implement health policies and monitor public health institutions. Various institutionalised community processes of NRHM such as Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs), Village Health Sanitation and Nutrition Committee (VHSNCs), Rogi Kalyan Samiti (RKS) and Community Monitoring provides ownership and responsibility directly to community to actively contribute in the overall aim to seek universal access to equitable, affordable and quality health care which is accountable and at the same time responsive to the needs of the people. A radical policy change in the form of NRHM has actually pushed the idea of people centered planning and decision making or communitisation in health system. How this idea has been actually implemented at ground level in the first phase of NRHM that ended in 2012, is a matter of great concern. Government of India has extended NRHM with same principles, so it is now necessary to understand the implementation of community processes and their impact.

Various evaluations of NRHM in the last couple of years shows mixed results about implementation and impact of various community processes. ASHA program remain the back bone of the community process and works as the primary link between community and public health system. Country has recorded a substantial increase in utilisation of services such as institutional deliveries, immunisation, ANC checkups and family planning but recorded less impact on health seeking behaviour of people. However, an evaluation by Planning Commission reveals that because of inadequate emphasis on skills, training and supportive monitoring, ASHAs are less functional and effective in tasks related to community level counseling, care provisions and community mobilisation work.

As a policy, NRHM has institutionalised roles, responsibilities and power of the community in deciding community level health needs, making health system friendly to the local people and contributing in delivery of quality care by health institutions. RKS constituted in each public health institution involves active participation of community, patient and civil society in assessing need of institutions and making them responsive and accountable to public. Review of RKS reveals that members of RKS are unclear about their role, rights and overall objective. Mostly RKS discuss fund utilisation issue in their meeting. There are very few evidences where RKS are found discussing non-budgetary issues such as improving IPD/OPD cases, outreach work, absence of health personal etc. On the other hand, VHSNC ensure micro health planning, implementation and monitoring at village level. Fifth Common Review Mission (CRM) of NRHM reveals that though VHSNCs are active in spending fund allocated to them, but the village health plan is not yet institutionalised anywhere and there is no clear model or clarity in its role and utility. There is an increase in utilisation of untied funds for VHSNCs but had limited involvement of PRI in health planning process and in the function of VHSNC.

Community monitoring is another institutional mechanism introduced by NRHM to communitise function and accountability of health institutions. The community as well as the Patient Welfare Committees is expected to monitor the performance of the health facilities on various parameters using techniques such as jansunwai.   But this process has given least priority during entire phase of NRHM. The idea was successfully implemented in nine states on pilot basis that resulted in increased utilisation of services and accountability. But unfortunately, no state government except Karnataka took it forward as integral part of health system.

Level of health institution communitisation varies from state to state and hence health care utilisation also differs across states. Fifth CRM conducted in 15 states found that more than 50% of expected in-patients are seen in public sector health institutions of Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Goa, Rajasthan, Odisha and Karnataka. It is interesting to observe that in these states communitisation process such as VHSNCs, RKS, PRI participation and institutionalisation of community monitoring are in place and functioning remarkably better. On the contrary, states like Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Chhattisgarh have given less priority to communitisation process and resulted into less turn out in public health institutions. According to 5^th CRM in these state less than 30% of expected in-patients are seeking public sector hospitalisation.

Various evaluations of NRHM reveal that it has not achieved its target and is still much behind from its targets of first phase. However, NRHM has recorded a faster improvement in health service utilisation, quality care and availability of health institutions in its first phase of implementation. Communitisation process involved in it has great role in this improvement as it is revealed through various evaluations. It raises a need of strengthen and mainstreaming such process for future success. Traditional mindset of functioning in public health institutions needs facilitation to accept and imbibe the spirit of community driven system.
 

-Jeet Singh