On the face of it, Panchyati Raj has become the most important butt of criticism of the state government. Recently, Kamal Nath, in an ostentatious move to distance himself from Digvijay Singh, picked on faults in Panchayati Raj as the focus of his complaint. At every level of governance, from panches and zila parishad adhyakshas to municipal councillors and metropolitan authorities, there are complaints about the system not working. There is little consistency to the critique: sarpanches say they have nothing; MLAs complain they have too much. The significance of the criticism lies less in the specifics of what is said than that Panchayati Raj has become such an overwhelming fact of political life in the state that it provides the ready issue on which to mobilise public opinion, pro or con.
This, I submit, is a measure of success, not failure. In a state which had yawned over even Bhopal, the capital city, not having held nagarpalika elections in 18 years as of 1989 (the example Rajiv Gandhi chose to cite in his intervention in Parliament on the Nagarpalika Bill), it is little short of a revolution that the most controversial domestic issue should be the state of the panchayats and nagarpalikas.
The fact is that however well or little state- and national-level politicians might like or not like Panchayati Raj, they no longer have the option of ridding themselves of these institutions. It is the very irreversibility of Panchayati Raj that is causing the controversy. They can improve the panchayats or diminish them, but they cannot dissolve them.
The next lesson they are still to learn. Which is that when the next state assembly or Lok Sabha elections take place, the elected local body representative are going to be critical in determining the fate of the candidates. Politicians who have been unsympathetic or insensitive to the panches, sarpanches and adhyakashas will soon discover that there is a stern reckoning to be had at their hands. More positively, it is the candidates who best sings the siren song of more power to the panchayats, more authority to them, and, above all, more finances to the panchayats, who is likely to receive the strongest backing. The supplicants of yesteryear are becoming the arbiters of tomorrow.
To destablise the incumbent Chief Minister, MLAs are, of course, the forum to be persuaded. And there is, of course, some mileage to be gained among MLAs by denigrating the upstart panch or adhyaksha. It is, therefore, good politics (albeit bad morality!) to tap the discontent about local government that is swelling in the ranks of the hitherto all-powerful MLAs. Indeed, that discontent is the reflection of the extent of empowerment of the panchayats. To not put too fine a point on it, to the extent of empowerment of the panchayats. To not put too fine a point on it, to the extent that MLAs are indifferent to, or even supportive of, Panchayati Raj, to that extent one might conclude that Panchayati Raj has not taken root. It is the discontent of MLAs that is the litmus test of Panchayati Raj being implemented on the ground.
To feed such discontent is not as politically counter-productive as one might initially imagine (as even the besieged CM might imagine!). For when it comes to the next assembly elections, it is not fellow-MLAs but elected representatives at the grassroots who are going to tilt the balance. It is not the collective will of the MLAs but the collective will of the grassroots representatives that will be decisive. Because, after all, those grassroots representatives have their own elections to win: they will be judged on what they have delivered. The more alert of the MLAs have already discovered this for themselves, but it might take another assembly election or two for assembly candidates in general to discover just how important is the support of activists at the grassroots.
In the absence of sustained Panchayati Raj, both party and government office at the grassroots have thus far been a matter of patronage from above. Power, real power, has resided in the Vidhan Sabha. Therefore, power has flown from the state capital to the grassroots through a channel known as the MLA. If that channel is now not properly irrigated, the beneficiaries (that is the elected grassroots representatives) are going to themselves dredge the channel and the uncooperative MLA will find himself carted off as so much unwanted muck. It is, thus, that the ruthless logic of the political marketplace is going to work itself out. Those who understand how the market is skewed will prevail; the others will move into history.
What, therefore, the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh needs to do is stand firm. He should welcome suggestions that would make for a better Panchayati Raj. And reject the suggestions that better Panchayati Raj will come from less Panchayati Raj. He should tell recalcitrant MLAs that if they push him too hard on Panchayati Raj, he will take the issue to the grassroots. And as, by definition, there are more blades of grass at the base than leaves on the branches, the grassroots will give him the strength that the leaves are trying to deny him. And if the shove comes to push, he will be able to prove himself right. That is the paradox of Madhya Pradesh which the CM and the dissidents both need to fathom.
