Why do Bangalore roads suck? More importantly, why are all the local bodies in Indian cities so weak compared to the similar institutions that we see in other countries. Everyone has an opinion, and so do I. Karnataka government is the favorite punching bag but everyone agrees that there is a larger systemic issue, even if they can't point fingers at the root cause. My belief is simple, it is because we do not have the necessary amount of democracy in our system. Today, an Indian going to vote is in a dilemma where he has to sacrifice himself for the larger good. Central elections with the issues of national importance are prioritised and then the State, where the issues of the region and identity take precedence. But what about the broken road, garbage and dust in front of my house? The Local bodies which should deal with these issues are merely a string of few extremely understaffed and underfunded departments.

Is the third layer of democracy something that has gotten weak or is by design weak? I came across a book called “Panchayat Raj as the basis of Indian polity” by Dharampal where he shares snippets of the proceedings of the constituent assembly particularly dealing on the topic. It opened my eyes towards remarks made by the members of the constituent assembly, that still stand strong today. Such as over centralisation, rather than decentralisation and the provinces having grabbed power from the local bodies.

Gandhiji said in ‘A week with Gandhi’ by Louis Fischer that: The centre of power now is New Delhi, or in Calcutta and Bombay, in the big cities. I would have it distributed among the 700,000 villages of India. By dispersing the ownership and management of industry and by developing the village into a democratic Republic, we break this triangle hold to a very large extent and attenuate the danger of totalitarianism. Thus my picture of a socialist India is the picture of an economic and political democracy. In this democracy, men will neither be slaves to capitalism, nor to a party or state. Man will be free.

The model Gandhiji wanted was simple: There are 700,000 villages in India each of which would be organised according to the will of the citizens, all of them voting. Then there would be seven hundred thousand votes. Each village, in other words, would have one vote. The villagers would elect the district administration; the district administrations would elect the provincial administration and these in turn would elect the President who is the head of the executive.

This was the guiding light behind the constituent assembly and their thought process of setting up the nation. It is interesting to see how things have turned out since. The initial version of the Constitution which is now known as the draft Constitution did not contain any references to the village Panchayat and the administration at the lowest levels. I do not wish to make any opinions on the fact, rather only show what actually happened, so here's a few words that were said during the second reading of draft Constitution during November 4-9, 1948:

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The love of the intellectual Indian for the village community is of course infinite if not pathetic. I hold that these villages have been the ruination of India. What is the village, but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism? I am glad that the draft Constitution has discarded the village and adopted the individual as its unit.

Dr. Ambedkar clearly did underestimated the love the other members had for these villages. It eventually turned into a series of heated debates, where the honourable law minister was called out. It is humorous to read the debates and see we have really moved back. Though the debates were very long, I am putting a few snippets that I feel convey the sentiment.

H. V. Kamath: His (Dr. Ambedkar) attitude yesterday was typical of the urban, highbrow. Perhaps the fault lies with the composition of the drafting committee, among the members of which no one, with the sole exception of Sriyut Munshi, has taken any active part in the struggle for the country's freedom. I believe the day is not far distant when merely not India but the whole world, if it wants peace and security and prosperity and happiness will have to decentralise and establish village republics in town republics. And on the basis of this, they will have to build their state otherwise, the world is in for hard times. The utility of the state has to be judged from its effect on the common man's welfare. I hope that we in India will go forward and try to make the state exist for individual rather than the individual for the state. This is what we must aim at and this is what we must bring about in our country.

Aurobindo (quoted by Kamath): At the height of its evolution and in the great days of Indian civilisation, we find an admirable political system efficient in the highest degree and very perfectly combining village and urban self-government with stability and order. The state carried on its work - administrative, judicial, financial, and protective - without destroying or encroaching on the rights and activities of the people and its constituent bodies in the same department. The Royal courts in capital of country were the supreme judicial Authority coordinating the administration of justice throughout the kingdom.

R. K. Sidhwa: Local authorities today are in a very peculiarly miserable condition. The provinces which complain that the centre has been made too strong and that certain powers have been taken away from them have themselves in the intoxication of power taken away the powers of the local bodies. Here in this country, all these taxes are grabbed by the provinces. This has left the local bodies mere skeletons today. If this is the tendency, how can you expect the local bodies and villages to prosper?

Prof. N. G. Ranga: I wish to remind the house, sir, of the necessity for providing as many political institutions as possible in order to enable our villagers to gain as much experience in democratic institutions as possible in order to be able to discharge the responsibilities through adult suffrage in the new democracy that we are going to establish.

Suresh Chandra Majumdar: It is true that at times the village community stood still when the history passed by, but this happened invariably in periods of national depression when everything was in a state of stagnation and the political life itself was disintegrating and the village community was indifferent to the main course of history. But there were other times - times of healthy national life - when the village community did supply strength. I believe the village community, if it is properly revitalised and made power-conscious, can become not only a strong prop of the state, but even the main source of it.

T. Prakasam: Sir, the ballot box and the ballot papers were described in an inscription on the walls of temples in the village of Uttaramerur, 20 miles from Conjevaram. Every detail is given there. The ballot box was a pot with the mouth tied and placed on the ground with the hole made at the bottom. The ballot paper was the Kadjan leaf and the adult franchise was exercised. This was just 1000 years ago.

They literally mentioned 1000 years so casually, as if it is a matter of yesterday. At this point, the makers of the Constitution went back to the drawing board and started drafting something for the setting up of Panchayats. However, the results were disappointing and instead of setting a proper institutions rather directive principle was added to the Constitution as article 31-A on November 22, 1948. As proposed by K. Santhanam it reads as follows: “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”.

Here’s a few remarks from that day.

T. Prakasam: When you fill the whole country with these organisations, I may tell you, there will be no food famines; There will be no cloth famine, and we would not be spending 110 crores of rupees as we are doing today for the imports of food. Let me tell you about all that communism - menace the country is facing- We are seeing what is going on in China, we see what was done in Czechoslovakia, and we know what the position is in Burma. There would be no temptation for our own people to become communists and go about killing our own people as they have been doing.

Seth Govind Das: Ours is an ancient, a very ancient country and the villages have always had an important position here. This has not been so with every ancient country. In Greece, for instance, towns had greater importance than villages. The Republic of Athens and Sparta occupy a very important place in world history today. But no importance was attached by them to the villages. But in our country, the village occupied such an important position that even in the legends contained in the most ancient books - the Upanishads- If there are also descriptions of the forest retreats, of the sages, there are also descriptions of villages. Even in Kautilya’s Arthashastra there are to be found references to our ancient villages. Even today, 80% of our population lives in villages, and it would be a great pity if we make no mention of our villages in the Constitution.

L. Krishnaswami Bharati: Political independence, apart from economic independence, has no meaning.

Almost a year later no progress was made beyond the directive principle. During November 17-26, 1949, members had more critical thoughts about the whole state of the Constitution. Though repeated many times by many members, this is the essence of what was happening:

Arun Chandra Guha: It has been said, and I think it has been rightly said that this Constitution has no character of its own. This Constitution is a product of a revolutionary movement, and it must reflect the aspiration of the revolutionary masses. But I do not feel frustrated. I know history is a developing process. I think this Constitution of ours is only a stopgap arrangement.

Though Gandhiji proposed a system, It is interesting to see what other models could have taken place:

Damodar Swarup: The structure of the modern state is generally based on the division of powers between two compartments - Provinces and the centre. The system is already over centralised. If we wish to end corruption, bribery and nepotism. The system of two compartments does not seem to be appropriate. For this, we need a four compartment system. As I had once proposed, there should have been separate village Republics, separate city Republics, separate provincial Republics and they should have been federated into a central Republic. That would have given us a really democratic federal structure.

Coming back to the Panchayati Raj:

H. V. Kamath: A time will arrive when India is stabilised and strong, and I hope that we will go back to the old plan of Panchayat Raj or decentralised democracy.

Shankarrao Deo: Sir Charles Metcalfe In his memorandum before the select committee of the House of Commons in 1832, as well brought out how these Panchayat's kept even the tenor of our life and culture when dynasties top down like nine pins and revolutions succeeded revolutions. In the progress of history and the affairs of man, there is no resting place. It has never happened in the history of Man that he has built in a hurry and changed in leisure without demolishing what he has built.

Alagu Rai Shastri: When we proceed further, sir, we find that the so called directive principles, wherein the ideal of our country and the rights of people are given, that though the language is quite attractive, fine and dignify, yet it is nowhere said that the state take the responsibility to feed, to cloth, and to provide the other basic needs of human life to its citizens. In our ancient policy, it was a precept that the raison d’ etre of the state was to provide the basic needs of life to everyone of its citizens.

Shyamanandan Sahaya: It is the countryside that provides all that we need in the towns. Whether you look at the military, the civil administration or the production of food, it is the village and the villager that supply the needs and it will not do to say that they are past redemption.

Lokanath Misra: But now, under this Constitution, there will be two classes, a new ruling class at the helm of affairs and at the bottom, there will be the common man exercising a vote once in five years.

Upendranath Barman: So long as you expect government servants to take charge of the masses, the masses will remain irresponsible and will go on complaining against the government. But once you interest them with certain responsibilities for local administration, they will be keen on taking charge of their affairs. Of course, criticisms have been made that the village Panchayat cannot work, because our villagers are ignorant and that there will be a scramble for power. But a glance at the daily papers will convince us that in most of the provinces, there is a scramble for power, even on the part of the provincial leaders. So it would be an absolutely silly argument to say that the masses are not yet fit to govern, even in the local administration and interests that concern them the most. My only submission is that as soon as possible, we should form these village Panchayat and transfer the bulk of powers that concern the villages to these village panchayats, so that many of the problems of governing of this country will be solved.

This over dependence on the government has today created citizens who are irresponsible towards the nation.

Balwant Sinha Mehta: Today we have only a very dim and incomplete picture of our ancient policy. The factors we cannot discern even its outlines. But even then we have included quite a number of elements of our historic institutions whereby our culture would be adequately protected.

T. J. M. Wilson: The essence of democracy is the effective participation of the individual in the actual government of the country. The greater and more effective, the participation of the individual in the government, the greater is the democracy, because democracy is still only an ideal which has yet to be reached by humanity. Decentralisation would have done something in that direction if we had provided for it in the Constitution. I repeat the democracy of conscious effective citizens is much stronger and more efficient, from any point of view, than any other form of government, and the usual talk of weakness of democracy is absolute nonsense.

Kamalapati Tripathi: Everyone knows that effective power in the hands of the centre can only be based on military strength and the concentration of the military power is the shore Road leading to our complete destruction of popular rights. This is and historic truth. Our Constitution obviously presents this danger. It was with this realisation that Gandhiji had taught us to oppose centralisation. He told us that the establishment of true democracy, the means of production should be decentralised in its form too should be of a decentralised nature.

Satis Chandra Samanta: I want to say a word about adult franchise. As one who is a villager and common man, I know the defects of the villagers. Unless we give them opportunities to know what they are, they will never rise.

Ram Chandra Gupta: I am not satisfied by the criticism that they should have been less of centralisation, and more of decentralisation. I may perhaps agree to this criticism only in a small measure and not more. A strong central government is the need of the hour; And I prophesy that the future will tell you that centralisation was a blessing. All along the ages, and our history bears ample testimony to this fact, the overmastering problem before India has been one of integration and consolidation and unification.

Conclusion

As the nation state of India, transforms itself into a Civilisational state it is important that we go back to history because we owe it to ourselves not to make live mistakes. Also as a computer scientist, understanding these systems is easy as they are just abstractions. We know that the system that we have today is merely a “made-up” human thing, but are there any better alternatives? I still stand by that more democracy by adding an effective empowered third (local) layer can solve most of the problems that we face in this transformation.

Support Rashtrotthana Sahitya