Except Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa, and Chhattisgarh and to an extent Madhya Pradesh, a majority of the states has been reluctant to delegate responsibilities to Panchayats as mandated by 73rd amendment of the constitution. A report by Team Inclusion
Her drawing room cabinet brims over with awards, trophies, mementoes and citations she has received over the years from central ministries, departments and non-governmental organisations. Moreover her popularity can be gauged from the fact that she has headed her village Panchayat for over a decade. Yet Radha Devi, Pradhan in Meethi Beri, a tiny hamlet on the periphery of Dehradun, is far from being happy and content. On the contrary, she sounds quite helpless and hassled.
No ‘Honorarium’
For one, she cannot even issue a BPL (Below Poverty Line) card to a widow who deserves it most in her village. She has already used up quota of 37 BPL cards, the state fixed for her over nine years back. Devi has not been paid since March last year Rs 600, the meagre honorarium Uttarakhand government is supposed to pay its Gram Panchayat heads every month. Worse, despite having inquired from several top functionaries including District Collector (DC) Dehradun and her District Rural Development Officer (DRDO), she is not any wiser about why the payment has not been credited to her account. The Gram Panchayat has Rs 33,000 in its account out of which Rs 15,000 is meant for street lighting and the rest can be spent only on supply of drinking water. “There is not much I can do simply because there are no funds,” she mumbles looking resigned to the situation.
For record, the State government issued executive orders in January 2005 delegating 14 departments and supervision of employees of these departments to the Gram Panchayats. But in practice Radha Devi and the other 7,540 gram panchayat heads in the State are still stuck up with construction of streets, issuance of limited number of APL (Above Poverty Line), BPL & Antodaya cards, installation of hand pumps, fixing streetlights and making job cards under MNREGS (Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme), the subjects they have handled for several years. They also have been entrusted with minor irrigation and watershed department. Besides, they can levy property and panchayat tax and recommend names for pension for widows, old and handicapped. In case of government schemes like Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY), Sarv Siksha Abhiyan (SSA), National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and Mid-Day Meal scheme etc, the fund is transferred either directly to the beneficiary or in joint accounts of Gram Pradhan and Panchayat Secretary and Gram Pradhan and Headmaster of the primary school.
Her drawing room cabinet brims over with awards, trophies, mementoes and citations she has received over the years from central ministries, departments and non-governmental organisations. Moreover her popularity can be gauged from the fact that she has headed her village Panchayat for over a decade. Yet Radha Devi, Pradhan in Meethi Beri, a tiny hamlet on the periphery of Dehradun, is far from being happy and content. On the contrary, she sounds quite helpless and hassled.
No ‘Honorarium’
For one, she cannot even issue a BPL (Below Poverty Line) card to a widow who deserves it most in her village. She has already used up quota of 37 BPL cards, the state fixed for her over nine years back. Devi has not been paid since March last year Rs 600, the meagre honorarium Uttarakhand government is supposed to pay its Gram Panchayat heads every month. Worse, despite having inquired from several top functionaries including District Collector (DC) Dehradun and her District Rural Development Officer (DRDO), she is not any wiser about why the payment has not been credited to her account. The Gram Panchayat has Rs 33,000 in its account out of which Rs 15,000 is meant for street lighting and the rest can be spent only on supply of drinking water. “There is not much I can do simply because there are no funds,” she mumbles looking resigned to the situation.
For record, the State government issued executive orders in January 2005 delegating 14 departments and supervision of employees of these departments to the Gram Panchayats. But in practice Radha Devi and the other 7,540 gram panchayat heads in the State are still stuck up with construction of streets, issuance of limited number of APL (Above Poverty Line), BPL & Antodaya cards, installation of hand pumps, fixing streetlights and making job cards under MNREGS (Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme), the subjects they have handled for several years. They also have been entrusted with minor irrigation and watershed department. Besides, they can levy property and panchayat tax and recommend names for pension for widows, old and handicapped. In case of government schemes like Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY), Sarv Siksha Abhiyan (SSA), National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and Mid-Day Meal scheme etc, the fund is transferred either directly to the beneficiary or in joint accounts of Gram Pradhan and Panchayat Secretary and Gram Pradhan and Headmaster of the primary school.
Panchayat Secretary at a Premium
Since many of the Gram Panchayat functionaries are either semi literate or illiterate, they are left at the mercy of Panchayat Secretary or the School Headmaster. Though the Panchayat Secretary is supposed to report to the Gram Panchayat, in practice it is on the contrary. In Sawra, an extremely backward village in the interiors of Chakrata (Dehradun), Panchayat Secretary Kedar Singh Tomar is assigned to over a dozen Gram Panchayats and hardly has time for Sawra Gram Pradhan Rekha Kaul. Therefore, every time Kaul needs to discuss a developmental work with him, she either travels all the way to Chakrata block or arranges a lavish non-vegetarian dinner for him at her residence. “I’ve to serve him chicken every time I need his services,” Kaul regrets. The school headmistress too expected Kaul to sign on blank cheques. When Kaul attended Gram Panchayat functionaries’ dharna at Vidhan Sabha in October 2009, her first and foremost demand was for allocation of an exclusive Secretary for Sawra. The PRI representatives of the 13 districts sat on dharna for over 22 days and submitted a 9-point charter of demands to State Chief Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal ‘Nishank’ and Panchayati Raj Minister Rajendra Bhandari. The charter included demand for transfer of functions, funds and functionaries to the Panchayats, formulation of state Panchayati Raj Act, increase in Gram Pradhans’ honorarium, payment of honorarium to other Panchayat members and replacement of Gram Panchayat pradhan with DRDO as nodal officer under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
But even a year after the agitation, there is no further addition either to their functions, funds or functionaries. The state does not even have its panchayat act 18 years after the central government constitutionalised PRIs through 73rd amendment and advised the states to form their own acts and transfer subjects listed in 11th schedule to the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs). Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj act is in force in Uttarakhand. A report with Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj on Uttarakhand notes that ‘orders were issued by the State in regard to 14 subjects, giving certain powers of seeking information and supervision to Panchayats over officials but Panchayats exercise ‘limited control over officials.’ The report also adds that funds are available to PRIs (Block/Intermediate Panchayats and Zila Panchayats included) ‘for activities for only three functions’ – poverty alleviation, rural housing and women and child development.
&sanitation, agriculture, women & child development, education, social welfare, development, horticulture, youth welfare and information technology (IT) are yet to entrust any funds or officials to the Gram Panchayats. Forget about creation of software, hardware and connectivity – the essentials of ICT infrastructure - many Gram Panchayats in the state do not even have a proper building. The Panchayat bhawan in Meethi Beri for instance leaks during rains, is always waterlogged and crying for maintenance. Radha Devi sent repair estimates to DRDO two years back but is yet to hear from him. A status report of Union Panchyati Raj Ministry puts zero under ‘Gram Panchayats where some sort of computing facility is available’ against 7,541 Gram Panchayats in the State. The state government distributes central and state allocations on 20:30:50 ratio to the ZP, BP and the GP respectively.
The story so far or Timeline
73rd amendment comes into effect in April 1993 according a constitutional status to local governance. The amendment into article 243 envisages states to establish a three-tier system of strong, viable and responsive Panchayats at the village, intermediate (block) and district levels and conduct their elections after every five years. The 29 matters listed in the 11th schedule including agriculture, water management, rural housing, drinking water, roads, education, poverty alleviation programmes, health and sanitation, women and child development and public distribution system are to be transferred to the PRIs. The amendment leaves it to the discretion of the states to allow Panchayats to impose taxes, duties, tolls and fees.
May 2004:
Manmohan Singh government decides to create a separate ministry for Panchayati Raj tasked with formulation and implementation of an Action Plan for seeing PRIs to emerge as ‘institutions of local self-government’ securing economic development and social justice in their respective area. There is great hope when within first 150 days of its formation the ministry convenes a series of Seven Round Table Conferences of State Panchayati Raj Ministers to identify 18 dimensions ranging from devolutions of the functions, finances and functionaries, to District Planning, Training, Capacity Building and IT-enabled e-governance for implementation on priority.
December 2004:
The Seventh Round Table Conference, organized in Jaipur, proposes to utilise IT as i) a decision making support system for Panchayats; ii) a tool for transparency, disclosure of information to citizens social audit; iii) a means for better and convergent delivery of services to citizens; iv) a means for improving internal management and efficiency of Panchayats; v) a means for capacity building of representatives and officials of the Panchayats; and, vi) an e-Procurement medium. The Conference recommends a systematic approach for training of staff and Panchayat representatives through IT. It decides to develop common software application packages with provision for appropriate customisation by states through National Informatics Centre (NIC). It expects National Panchayat Portal (NPP), a collaborative, content management and website generation framework developed by the NIC for Ministry of Panchayati Raj that allows seamless exchange of content among all participating sites, to be the information hub for linking up Gram Panchayats (GPs) with Intermediate and District Panchayats, state governments and the central government.
March 2006:
An expert group, set up in 2005, finds it feasible to transfer funds from State consolidated funds to the PRI through ICT and Planning Commission issues guidelines mandating centralised planning from 11th Five Year Plan onwards.
May 2006:
Another milestone is reached when UPA approves the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) comprising 27 Mission Mode Projects (MMPs) and 10 components, with the centrality of citizen service delivery. One of the MMPs pertains to Panchayati Raj Institutions as one of the key projects under the NeGP.
June 2007:
The UPA government constitutes an Expert Group to a) assess the IT programmes which are either in operation or which could be taken up for implementation in future; b) advise on the most cost effective technology for reaching IT to the Gram Panchayat levels; c) effectively implement distance learning for capacity building through IT; and, d) workout the requirements of budget for implementation of the IT programmes.
The group, chaired by Dr B K Gairola, then Director General of National Informatics Centre and comprising Sameer Kochar, Chief Editor and CEO of Skoch Consultancy Services, Professor Ashok Jhunjhunwala of IIT Madras, H S Ashokanand, Director SIRD, Karnataka and Professor M Aslam, Director of Distance Education in IGNOU, holds several meetings, visits many Gram Panchayats and conducts video conferences with the States to understand the working and effectiveness of satellite based training facilities there.
January 2008:
The expert group submits an exhaustive report to the ministry covering almost all aspects of utilisation of ICT in the Panchayati Raj Institutions. The report elaborates on how the integration of the Panchayats through technology can lead to building of capacity of the PRIs in terms of knowledge as well as resources, usher transparency and accountability through social auditing and suo-moto disclosures, permeate ICT culture in villages and create jobs. It identifies key application areas, which can be taken up with priority as planning, financial accounting, progress monitoring, delivery of birth and death certificates and house tax. The report proposes extension of Planplus, an application that integrates plans of the PRIs, district planning committee and PRIASOFT, an accounting software that facilitates book keeping of accounts.
The expert group recommends use of NICENET and SWAN for providing connectivity to the PRIs at the village and block level. To ensure interoperability and avoid vendor locking, the group recommends open standards, open source technology and open source operating system.
The report underscores the need for building core applications centrally and second category of applications locally. It seeks development of Indian language UNICODE fonts for convenience of Panchayat functionaries and representatives. The group even spells out the number of computers and manpower needed for different Panchayats.
Accentuating the need for innovative thinking and approaches, the group calls for multi-mode training intervention and interactive satellite-based intervention to train the panchayat officials and members in ICT use. It suggests utilisation of institutes of rural development, Extension Training Centres, distance education centres of IGNOU for the purpose.
April 2009:
The MoPR issues guidelines to States on devolution of institutions and functionaries to the PRIs detailing who needs to be transferred to which tier of the panchayat.
September 2010:
The MoPR calls meeting of State Panchayati Raj Ministers and Secretaries to discuss creation of dedicated Gram Panchayat Services for implementation of the MNREGS. The meet agrees to create posts of Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) and Junior Engineer (JE) for the purpose.
November 2010:
The ministry proposes to fund 90% of the expenses incurred on appointment and salary of the PDO, the JE and training of Gram Rozgar Sahayak (GRS) in computers in the first year.
February 2011:
The Ministry of Panchayati Raj asks the States to enhance the Capacity Building & Training (CB&T) in Panchayats across the rural areas of the country. In a letter the Ministry directs that every Panchayat representative should get at least one training in a year.
Since many of the Gram Panchayat functionaries are either semi literate or illiterate, they are left at the mercy of Panchayat Secretary or the School Headmaster. Though the Panchayat Secretary is supposed to report to the Gram Panchayat, in practice it is on the contrary. In Sawra, an extremely backward village in the interiors of Chakrata (Dehradun), Panchayat Secretary Kedar Singh Tomar is assigned to over a dozen Gram Panchayats and hardly has time for Sawra Gram Pradhan Rekha Kaul. Therefore, every time Kaul needs to discuss a developmental work with him, she either travels all the way to Chakrata block or arranges a lavish non-vegetarian dinner for him at her residence. “I’ve to serve him chicken every time I need his services,” Kaul regrets. The school headmistress too expected Kaul to sign on blank cheques. When Kaul attended Gram Panchayat functionaries’ dharna at Vidhan Sabha in October 2009, her first and foremost demand was for allocation of an exclusive Secretary for Sawra. The PRI representatives of the 13 districts sat on dharna for over 22 days and submitted a 9-point charter of demands to State Chief Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal ‘Nishank’ and Panchayati Raj Minister Rajendra Bhandari. The charter included demand for transfer of functions, funds and functionaries to the Panchayats, formulation of state Panchayati Raj Act, increase in Gram Pradhans’ honorarium, payment of honorarium to other Panchayat members and replacement of Gram Panchayat pradhan with DRDO as nodal officer under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
But even a year after the agitation, there is no further addition either to their functions, funds or functionaries. The state does not even have its panchayat act 18 years after the central government constitutionalised PRIs through 73rd amendment and advised the states to form their own acts and transfer subjects listed in 11th schedule to the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs). Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj act is in force in Uttarakhand. A report with Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj on Uttarakhand notes that ‘orders were issued by the State in regard to 14 subjects, giving certain powers of seeking information and supervision to Panchayats over officials but Panchayats exercise ‘limited control over officials.’ The report also adds that funds are available to PRIs (Block/Intermediate Panchayats and Zila Panchayats included) ‘for activities for only three functions’ – poverty alleviation, rural housing and women and child development.
&sanitation, agriculture, women & child development, education, social welfare, development, horticulture, youth welfare and information technology (IT) are yet to entrust any funds or officials to the Gram Panchayats. Forget about creation of software, hardware and connectivity – the essentials of ICT infrastructure - many Gram Panchayats in the state do not even have a proper building. The Panchayat bhawan in Meethi Beri for instance leaks during rains, is always waterlogged and crying for maintenance. Radha Devi sent repair estimates to DRDO two years back but is yet to hear from him. A status report of Union Panchyati Raj Ministry puts zero under ‘Gram Panchayats where some sort of computing facility is available’ against 7,541 Gram Panchayats in the State. The state government distributes central and state allocations on 20:30:50 ratio to the ZP, BP and the GP respectively.
The story so far or Timeline
73rd amendment comes into effect in April 1993 according a constitutional status to local governance. The amendment into article 243 envisages states to establish a three-tier system of strong, viable and responsive Panchayats at the village, intermediate (block) and district levels and conduct their elections after every five years. The 29 matters listed in the 11th schedule including agriculture, water management, rural housing, drinking water, roads, education, poverty alleviation programmes, health and sanitation, women and child development and public distribution system are to be transferred to the PRIs. The amendment leaves it to the discretion of the states to allow Panchayats to impose taxes, duties, tolls and fees.
May 2004:
Manmohan Singh government decides to create a separate ministry for Panchayati Raj tasked with formulation and implementation of an Action Plan for seeing PRIs to emerge as ‘institutions of local self-government’ securing economic development and social justice in their respective area. There is great hope when within first 150 days of its formation the ministry convenes a series of Seven Round Table Conferences of State Panchayati Raj Ministers to identify 18 dimensions ranging from devolutions of the functions, finances and functionaries, to District Planning, Training, Capacity Building and IT-enabled e-governance for implementation on priority.
December 2004:
The Seventh Round Table Conference, organized in Jaipur, proposes to utilise IT as i) a decision making support system for Panchayats; ii) a tool for transparency, disclosure of information to citizens social audit; iii) a means for better and convergent delivery of services to citizens; iv) a means for improving internal management and efficiency of Panchayats; v) a means for capacity building of representatives and officials of the Panchayats; and, vi) an e-Procurement medium. The Conference recommends a systematic approach for training of staff and Panchayat representatives through IT. It decides to develop common software application packages with provision for appropriate customisation by states through National Informatics Centre (NIC). It expects National Panchayat Portal (NPP), a collaborative, content management and website generation framework developed by the NIC for Ministry of Panchayati Raj that allows seamless exchange of content among all participating sites, to be the information hub for linking up Gram Panchayats (GPs) with Intermediate and District Panchayats, state governments and the central government.
March 2006:
An expert group, set up in 2005, finds it feasible to transfer funds from State consolidated funds to the PRI through ICT and Planning Commission issues guidelines mandating centralised planning from 11th Five Year Plan onwards.
May 2006:
Another milestone is reached when UPA approves the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) comprising 27 Mission Mode Projects (MMPs) and 10 components, with the centrality of citizen service delivery. One of the MMPs pertains to Panchayati Raj Institutions as one of the key projects under the NeGP.
June 2007:
The UPA government constitutes an Expert Group to a) assess the IT programmes which are either in operation or which could be taken up for implementation in future; b) advise on the most cost effective technology for reaching IT to the Gram Panchayat levels; c) effectively implement distance learning for capacity building through IT; and, d) workout the requirements of budget for implementation of the IT programmes.
The group, chaired by Dr B K Gairola, then Director General of National Informatics Centre and comprising Sameer Kochar, Chief Editor and CEO of Skoch Consultancy Services, Professor Ashok Jhunjhunwala of IIT Madras, H S Ashokanand, Director SIRD, Karnataka and Professor M Aslam, Director of Distance Education in IGNOU, holds several meetings, visits many Gram Panchayats and conducts video conferences with the States to understand the working and effectiveness of satellite based training facilities there.
January 2008:
The expert group submits an exhaustive report to the ministry covering almost all aspects of utilisation of ICT in the Panchayati Raj Institutions. The report elaborates on how the integration of the Panchayats through technology can lead to building of capacity of the PRIs in terms of knowledge as well as resources, usher transparency and accountability through social auditing and suo-moto disclosures, permeate ICT culture in villages and create jobs. It identifies key application areas, which can be taken up with priority as planning, financial accounting, progress monitoring, delivery of birth and death certificates and house tax. The report proposes extension of Planplus, an application that integrates plans of the PRIs, district planning committee and PRIASOFT, an accounting software that facilitates book keeping of accounts.
The expert group recommends use of NICENET and SWAN for providing connectivity to the PRIs at the village and block level. To ensure interoperability and avoid vendor locking, the group recommends open standards, open source technology and open source operating system.
The report underscores the need for building core applications centrally and second category of applications locally. It seeks development of Indian language UNICODE fonts for convenience of Panchayat functionaries and representatives. The group even spells out the number of computers and manpower needed for different Panchayats.
Accentuating the need for innovative thinking and approaches, the group calls for multi-mode training intervention and interactive satellite-based intervention to train the panchayat officials and members in ICT use. It suggests utilisation of institutes of rural development, Extension Training Centres, distance education centres of IGNOU for the purpose.
April 2009:
The MoPR issues guidelines to States on devolution of institutions and functionaries to the PRIs detailing who needs to be transferred to which tier of the panchayat.
September 2010:
The MoPR calls meeting of State Panchayati Raj Ministers and Secretaries to discuss creation of dedicated Gram Panchayat Services for implementation of the MNREGS. The meet agrees to create posts of Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) and Junior Engineer (JE) for the purpose.
November 2010:
The ministry proposes to fund 90% of the expenses incurred on appointment and salary of the PDO, the JE and training of Gram Rozgar Sahayak (GRS) in computers in the first year.
February 2011:
The Ministry of Panchayati Raj asks the States to enhance the Capacity Building & Training (CB&T) in Panchayats across the rural areas of the country. In a letter the Ministry directs that every Panchayat representative should get at least one training in a year.
Urban Local Bodies: Toothless Tigers
Sunil Kumar (name changed), former Sarpanch of a village in Gurgaon, who plans to be in the fray for the forthcoming elections of Municipal Corporation of Gurgaon (MCG), is a man grounded in reality. He knows his election to the Corporation would mean nothing to him or the electorate in his ward as the Corporation has no powers of its own and is at the beck and call of state administration in Chandigarh. At the most, entry into the first elected corporation would facilitate his access to the district administration and help him save the cash he otherwise would have been forced to donate for admission of his wards in elite schools.
Forget about being self-governed, the MCG, upgraded from a Council two and a half years back, does not even have control over water and sewerage, the most basic of the amenities which generally figure in the jurisdiction of most urban local bodies in the country. Even eight years after central government legislated 74th amendment advising the States to devolve 18 subjects to Nagar Panchayats, Municipal Councils and Municipal Corporations, in Gurgaon, State Public Health Department, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) together administer the two subjects. Haryana State government, says R S Rathi, President Gurgaon Citizen Council, has not devolved many functions to the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs). “The corporations can only sanction projects costing up to Rs 5 million. For the rest, a Principal Secretary in Chandigarh issues orders. Even cleaning contracts for Gurgaon are cleared in Chandigarh,” Rathi, whose wife Rama Rani is set to contest from one of the 35 wards in the MCG polls, claims.
The scene in neighbouring Faridabad, where the Corporation has existed since 1994, is not encouraging either. The Municipal Corporation of Faridabad (MCF), in fact, despite being the only municipality in the State to have been chosen under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), the Rs 6.6 billion-strong initiative of central government for a planned development of our cities, is far from being self-sustained. The State is yet to reform the property tax coverage and collection regime, a prerequisite for availing benefits under the JNNURM. Though on paper, Haryana has devolved 12 out of the 18 functions, which, according to 74th amendment, were to be transferred to the ULBs, in reality it amounts to nothing.
Non-Performers All the Way
Haryana does not even figure in the list of performer states, Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) drew up in October last year on the basis of status of devolution to the ULBs. The State has withheld crucial functions like urban planning, urban forestry, safeguarding the interests of weaker sections and handicapped and urban poverty among others from the local bodies. A brief of the MoUD on devolution says that ‘only eleven states - namely Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Kerala, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Tripura and West Bengal - have devolved some or most of the functions to the ULBs’.
Gujarat, MP, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh are the only states, which have transferred all 18 subjects. While Mizoram, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Goa have not devolved a single function to the ULBs, Nagaland and Uttarakhand have handed over four and nine subjects only. Except Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan and five other states, no State has devolved fire services to the urban bodies. Their argument is that the fire services would increase financial burden on the municipalities. The Northeastern states attribute non-transfer of functions to non-formation of ULBs, opposition from traditional institutions and capacity constraints of the ULBs. In Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and Jharkhand, the elections for the ULBs are yet to take place.
JNNURM, a Slow Starter
The introduction of JNNURM, a programme that incentivises the reforms by linking release of funds to devolution to the ULBs, has not brought the desired outcome as a majority of the states has stonewalled the process. The Mission, launched for 2005-2012 in 63 cities, requires the state, cities and urban local bodies to undertake certain reforms to be eligible for grants under the scheme. While the States are supposed to rationalise stamp duty, enact public disclosure acts, ensure community participation in planning at local level, modify property taxes and computerise the process of registration, repeal of urban land, the ULBs are to adopt double entry system of accounting and e-governance. The States are also required to amend rent control and transfer planning for the cities to local bodies. Though only about 14 months remain for completion of the Mission, over half of the work is still to be done. According to M Ramachandran, former Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD), only 18 States have legislated for community participation in local governance (formation of area sabha and ward committee in Municipal Corporation), 15 States have amended rent control and only 14 have transferred city planning to the ULBs.
Cocking a snook at JNNURM, Haryana along with Punjab introduced major exemptions under the property tax after the introduction of the Mission. The two states, in a way, defeated the very motive (of making ULBs financially self-sustainable) behind the tax reforms linked to allocations under the Mission. Most of the state governments have vacillated on formation of Metropolitan Planning Committees (MPCs) as not only will this mean devolution of power to the municipalities but also convert the city development agencies into technical arms of the latter. The states have exhibited similar lackadaisical approach towards recommendations of State Finance Commissions (SFCs).
More recently Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati gave a body blow to the statutory bodies in Uttar Pradesh when she decided to replace the direct election to indirect for ULB heads in the State.
SFC Advices Find No Takers
Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan and Punjab have provided for constitution of the MPCs but not done it. Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana on the other hand have not provided for the constitution of the MPCs in their acts. “Firstly the State administration does not allow formation of the committee. Somehow if it is formed, it does not hold meetings and is not allowed to plan. There are also states that proposed State Chief Minister’s name as president of the committee!” say sources in the MoUD. The SFCs on the other hand have remained only advisory bodies, which churn out advices but are not empowered to enforce them. For instance, almost all the SFCs have asked for devolution of tax sources like stamp duty, motor vehicles, electricity, entertainment, profession etc, but these continue to be with the state governments. A consequence of this is that the ULBs have huge imbalance of revenue and expenditure and look up to state governments for support. According to one estimate, municipalities get only 0.6% of the National Gross Domestic Product (NGDP) in spite of the fact that cities contribute 90% of the government revenue and 60% of the NGDP.
The formation of Area Sabha and Ward Committees under the JNNURM was looked upon as the first step for citizen participation in planning for development at the local level. It has remained a non-starter. While the Sabha is mandated to generate proposals for all capital and maintenance works, determine the priority of developmental works and forwards the same to the Ward Committee, the latter in turn reviews the proposals and recommends them to Zonal Commissioner for administrative sanction. Ironically, the ULBs have proved to be a major stumbling block in the formation of area sabhas and ward committees clearly showing how elected representatives conspire to deny self-rule to people! Hyderabad is probably the only city where community participation has really taken wings as Andhra Pradesh amended municipal laws last year to incorporate provisions of community participation law in functioning of the ULBs. 17 other states have legislated on community participation but only on paper. What further exposes the States’ mal-intention is that out of 527 infrastructure projects sanctioned under the JNNURM, only 81 have been completed.
13th CFC Links Grants to Performance
The MoUD now hopes that 13th Central Finance Commission will achieve on devolution what the JNNURM has failed to achieve. The Commission proposing to grant over Rs 231 billion during 2010-15 has around Rs 80 billion linked to states’ performance on devolution of powers to ULBs.
The Commission links introduction of i) audit system for all local bodies; ii) independent local body ombudsman; iii) electronic transfer of grants to local bodies within 5 days of receipt from the Central Government; iv) prescription of qualification for appointment in the State Finance Commission; v) enabling ULBs to levy property tax; vi) establishment of a property tax board; vii) disclosure of service standards in respect of water and sanitation etc; viii) fire hazard mitigation plan for million plus cities; and, ix) supplement for local bodies in the budget document - to the grants worth Rs 80 billion to be given under the Commission. In case a State fails to fulfill any of the 9 conditions, its grant will be withheld and distributed among the performing states.
The states are expected to submit their first report to the MoUD for the performance-linked grants under the 13th Central Finance Commission in March this year.
Besides the JNNURM and the 13th CFC, the MoUD has initiated a number of schemes to strengthen service delivery and governance in the ULBs. These include introduction of ‘Service Level Benchmarking’, ‘National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP)’, ‘Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Satellite Towns around Mega Cities’, support to ‘Pooled Finance Bonds’, ‘Centres of Excellence on Urban Development’ and ‘Public Private Partnership (PPP)’ in urban infrastructure sector.
Sunil Kumar (name changed), former Sarpanch of a village in Gurgaon, who plans to be in the fray for the forthcoming elections of Municipal Corporation of Gurgaon (MCG), is a man grounded in reality. He knows his election to the Corporation would mean nothing to him or the electorate in his ward as the Corporation has no powers of its own and is at the beck and call of state administration in Chandigarh. At the most, entry into the first elected corporation would facilitate his access to the district administration and help him save the cash he otherwise would have been forced to donate for admission of his wards in elite schools.
Forget about being self-governed, the MCG, upgraded from a Council two and a half years back, does not even have control over water and sewerage, the most basic of the amenities which generally figure in the jurisdiction of most urban local bodies in the country. Even eight years after central government legislated 74th amendment advising the States to devolve 18 subjects to Nagar Panchayats, Municipal Councils and Municipal Corporations, in Gurgaon, State Public Health Department, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) together administer the two subjects. Haryana State government, says R S Rathi, President Gurgaon Citizen Council, has not devolved many functions to the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs). “The corporations can only sanction projects costing up to Rs 5 million. For the rest, a Principal Secretary in Chandigarh issues orders. Even cleaning contracts for Gurgaon are cleared in Chandigarh,” Rathi, whose wife Rama Rani is set to contest from one of the 35 wards in the MCG polls, claims.
The scene in neighbouring Faridabad, where the Corporation has existed since 1994, is not encouraging either. The Municipal Corporation of Faridabad (MCF), in fact, despite being the only municipality in the State to have been chosen under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), the Rs 6.6 billion-strong initiative of central government for a planned development of our cities, is far from being self-sustained. The State is yet to reform the property tax coverage and collection regime, a prerequisite for availing benefits under the JNNURM. Though on paper, Haryana has devolved 12 out of the 18 functions, which, according to 74th amendment, were to be transferred to the ULBs, in reality it amounts to nothing.
Non-Performers All the Way
Haryana does not even figure in the list of performer states, Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) drew up in October last year on the basis of status of devolution to the ULBs. The State has withheld crucial functions like urban planning, urban forestry, safeguarding the interests of weaker sections and handicapped and urban poverty among others from the local bodies. A brief of the MoUD on devolution says that ‘only eleven states - namely Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Kerala, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Tripura and West Bengal - have devolved some or most of the functions to the ULBs’.
Gujarat, MP, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh are the only states, which have transferred all 18 subjects. While Mizoram, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Goa have not devolved a single function to the ULBs, Nagaland and Uttarakhand have handed over four and nine subjects only. Except Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan and five other states, no State has devolved fire services to the urban bodies. Their argument is that the fire services would increase financial burden on the municipalities. The Northeastern states attribute non-transfer of functions to non-formation of ULBs, opposition from traditional institutions and capacity constraints of the ULBs. In Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and Jharkhand, the elections for the ULBs are yet to take place.
JNNURM, a Slow Starter
The introduction of JNNURM, a programme that incentivises the reforms by linking release of funds to devolution to the ULBs, has not brought the desired outcome as a majority of the states has stonewalled the process. The Mission, launched for 2005-2012 in 63 cities, requires the state, cities and urban local bodies to undertake certain reforms to be eligible for grants under the scheme. While the States are supposed to rationalise stamp duty, enact public disclosure acts, ensure community participation in planning at local level, modify property taxes and computerise the process of registration, repeal of urban land, the ULBs are to adopt double entry system of accounting and e-governance. The States are also required to amend rent control and transfer planning for the cities to local bodies. Though only about 14 months remain for completion of the Mission, over half of the work is still to be done. According to M Ramachandran, former Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD), only 18 States have legislated for community participation in local governance (formation of area sabha and ward committee in Municipal Corporation), 15 States have amended rent control and only 14 have transferred city planning to the ULBs.
Cocking a snook at JNNURM, Haryana along with Punjab introduced major exemptions under the property tax after the introduction of the Mission. The two states, in a way, defeated the very motive (of making ULBs financially self-sustainable) behind the tax reforms linked to allocations under the Mission. Most of the state governments have vacillated on formation of Metropolitan Planning Committees (MPCs) as not only will this mean devolution of power to the municipalities but also convert the city development agencies into technical arms of the latter. The states have exhibited similar lackadaisical approach towards recommendations of State Finance Commissions (SFCs).
More recently Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati gave a body blow to the statutory bodies in Uttar Pradesh when she decided to replace the direct election to indirect for ULB heads in the State.
SFC Advices Find No Takers
Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan and Punjab have provided for constitution of the MPCs but not done it. Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana on the other hand have not provided for the constitution of the MPCs in their acts. “Firstly the State administration does not allow formation of the committee. Somehow if it is formed, it does not hold meetings and is not allowed to plan. There are also states that proposed State Chief Minister’s name as president of the committee!” say sources in the MoUD. The SFCs on the other hand have remained only advisory bodies, which churn out advices but are not empowered to enforce them. For instance, almost all the SFCs have asked for devolution of tax sources like stamp duty, motor vehicles, electricity, entertainment, profession etc, but these continue to be with the state governments. A consequence of this is that the ULBs have huge imbalance of revenue and expenditure and look up to state governments for support. According to one estimate, municipalities get only 0.6% of the National Gross Domestic Product (NGDP) in spite of the fact that cities contribute 90% of the government revenue and 60% of the NGDP.
The formation of Area Sabha and Ward Committees under the JNNURM was looked upon as the first step for citizen participation in planning for development at the local level. It has remained a non-starter. While the Sabha is mandated to generate proposals for all capital and maintenance works, determine the priority of developmental works and forwards the same to the Ward Committee, the latter in turn reviews the proposals and recommends them to Zonal Commissioner for administrative sanction. Ironically, the ULBs have proved to be a major stumbling block in the formation of area sabhas and ward committees clearly showing how elected representatives conspire to deny self-rule to people! Hyderabad is probably the only city where community participation has really taken wings as Andhra Pradesh amended municipal laws last year to incorporate provisions of community participation law in functioning of the ULBs. 17 other states have legislated on community participation but only on paper. What further exposes the States’ mal-intention is that out of 527 infrastructure projects sanctioned under the JNNURM, only 81 have been completed.
13th CFC Links Grants to Performance
The MoUD now hopes that 13th Central Finance Commission will achieve on devolution what the JNNURM has failed to achieve. The Commission proposing to grant over Rs 231 billion during 2010-15 has around Rs 80 billion linked to states’ performance on devolution of powers to ULBs.
The Commission links introduction of i) audit system for all local bodies; ii) independent local body ombudsman; iii) electronic transfer of grants to local bodies within 5 days of receipt from the Central Government; iv) prescription of qualification for appointment in the State Finance Commission; v) enabling ULBs to levy property tax; vi) establishment of a property tax board; vii) disclosure of service standards in respect of water and sanitation etc; viii) fire hazard mitigation plan for million plus cities; and, ix) supplement for local bodies in the budget document - to the grants worth Rs 80 billion to be given under the Commission. In case a State fails to fulfill any of the 9 conditions, its grant will be withheld and distributed among the performing states.
The states are expected to submit their first report to the MoUD for the performance-linked grants under the 13th Central Finance Commission in March this year.
Besides the JNNURM and the 13th CFC, the MoUD has initiated a number of schemes to strengthen service delivery and governance in the ULBs. These include introduction of ‘Service Level Benchmarking’, ‘National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP)’, ‘Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Satellite Towns around Mega Cities’, support to ‘Pooled Finance Bonds’, ‘Centres of Excellence on Urban Development’ and ‘Public Private Partnership (PPP)’ in urban infrastructure sector.
