Yes and no: On the erosion of India’s grassroots democracy

A new report , based on Rural Development Ministry surveys, opens a rare data-backed window into the erosion of India’s grassroots democracy. But where the state has framed the issue as one of “vibrancy”, the report highlights a paradox. It acknowledges that “participation fatigue” has kept citizens from engaging in gram sabhas whereas its solutions, such as more meetings and oversight, are a recipe to further alienate the rural working class. The 73rd Amendment empowers gram sabhas, but governments have reduced them to clearinghouses for central and State schemes. This fundamental aspect must change. However, in response to 18%-28% of respondents citing a lack of outcomes as the reason for low interest, the report pushes for greater use of the NIRNAY app and to upload meeting minutes in real-time. In the real world, panchayat secretaries thus have less time facilitating discussion even as lacklustre oversight has allowed officials to tell workers that their MGNREGA demands were ‘not entered in the system’ due to server errors. Similarly, that more than half of the barriers to participation are related to livelihoods could point as much to visibly systemic issues — such as the precarious nature of rural labour today — as to deliberate economic exclusion by the state, as scholars have highlighted. But the report does not acknowledge such divergent possibilities. Due to the state failing to institutionalise attendance as a paid component of social protection, gram sabhas have remained a playground for the leisured elite such as landlords and contractors. According to the report, gram sabhas spend 13% of the time identifying local issues but only 4% discussing revenue generation. But gram panchayats have been systematically constrained from raising their taxes, leaving them dependent on grants. The 14th and 15th Finance Commissions grants tied panchayat spending to central priorities such as drinking water and sanitation, limiting local priorities to ‘flagship’ programmes such as the Jal Jeevan Mission and Swachh Bharat. There is thus no incentive for citizens to attend a meeting if the funds are being earmarked by Delhi bureaucrats. The report also states that Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) (PESA) Act areas have “reasonably strong physical infrastructure”. Under the PESA Act 1996 and related forest rights laws, gram sabhas have the right to provide prior informed consent for land acquisition and mining. However, the state routinely bypasses them or uses the excuse of low participation to manufacture consent. The Hasdeo Arand protests were rooted in this issue. There is a right to say ‘no’ and the state simply needs to acknowledge it. If ‘yes’ must be the only answer, the report’s grouses are a farce.