The dust has settled on Assam’s two-phased Panchayat elections, concluding on May 7th, leaving the fate of thousands of candidates locked away in strong rooms. Conducted across 21 districts by the State Election Commission on May 2nd and 7th, the polls witnessed a significant turnout, with over 70% of voters in the first phase (across 14 districts) exercising their franchise, and an even more enthusiastic 71% in the remaining 7 districts during the second phase on April 7th.
However, beneath the surface of this seemingly vibrant democratic exercise, questions linger about the true essence of local self-governance. The very idea, championed by Mahatma Gandhi as the bedrock of participatory democracy, appears to be facing a subtle yet significant dilution in the northeastern state.
The election results themselves have raised eyebrows. A striking 348 candidates emerged victorious without contest, a staggering 325 of them affiliated with the ruling BJP and AGP coalition. This unusual statistic has fueled allegations from the opposition. Congress President Bhupen Bora publicly accused the ruling parties of employing intimidation tactics to coerce opposition candidates into withdrawing their nominations. While these claims remain to be substantiated, the sheer number of uncontested wins casts a shadow on the inclusivity and competitive spirit typically associated with grassroots democracy.
Assam boasts a rich history of local self-governance, with village councils existing in various forms long before India’s independence. The state was a pioneer in formalizing this structure, enacting the Assam Rural Panchayat Act in 1948. This was followed by a series of legislative evolutions, culminating in the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, which integrated the landmark provisions of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment of 1992. This amendment was designed to empower Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and ensure genuine participatory development at the grassroots level.
The current three-tier PRI system in Assam comprises Gaon Panchayats (GPs) at the village level, Anchalik Panchayats (APs) at the block level, and Zilla Parishads (ZPs) at the district level. While the system is designed to channel development funds and facilitate integrated district planning, its effectiveness in embodying true local self-governance is increasingly being questioned.
The 73rd Amendment envisioned a bottom-up approach to development, making participatory planning a constitutional imperative. However, recent trends, particularly the emphasis on ‘transaction-driven development’ through Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) schemes, are perceived by many as eroding the space for genuine local participation. The direct transfer of funds, while aiming for efficiency, can inadvertently sideline the crucial role of local bodies in identifying needs, formulating plans, and overseeing implementation.
Mahatma Gandhi’s vision in ‘Hind Swaraj’ underscored the critical importance of grassroots involvement in shaping governance. The current emphasis on centrally driven schemes and the allegations of stifled opposition in local elections suggest a deviation from this foundational principle. The voices from the ground further amplify these concerns.
Amlan Das, a former Panchayat representative from Nalbari district, speaking anonymously to The Borderlens, lamented the limited autonomy of elected representatives. “The decisions regarding public expenditure are often dictated by political and bureaucratic hierarchies,” he stated, questioning the very purpose of representing the common people in such a scenario. Disillusioned, Das chose not to contest the recent elections, reflecting a growing sense of powerlessness among some former and potential local leaders.
Echoing this sentiment, Malifa Begum (name changed), a former Anchalik Panchayat member from the Sontali area of Kamrup district, also opted out of this election cycle. Her past tenure left her feeling that she had no real say in decision-making processes, rendering her representative role largely symbolic.
The crux of the issue appears to lie in the shifting dynamics of grassroots politics. Critics argue that the ruling parties’ focus on delivering welfare schemes through DBTs has inadvertently diluted the mandate for participatory planning. While these schemes provide direct benefits to citizens, they can also create a dependence that overshadows the importance of local bodies in identifying and addressing broader developmental needs. The Gram Panchayat Development Planning process, once envisioned as a cornerstone of decentralized development, seems to have lost momentum.
Furthermore, there’s a growing trend of the state government leasing out natural resources, such as water bodies and tourism potential, directly to corporations. Previously, local Panchayats often had the authority to lease these resources and generate revenue. This shift towards centralized decision-making in resource allocation further diminishes the autonomy and financial capacity of local self-governing bodies.
As the newly elected Panchayat representatives prepare to assume their responsibilities, concerned citizens are keenly observing whether they will be empowered to truly represent the needs and aspirations of their local communities, or if they will largely function within a system where the spirit of local self-governance remains a distant echo of Mahatma Gandhi’s profound vision. The operational procedures and the degree of genuine autonomy granted to these representatives will be crucial indicators of the future trajectory of grassroots democracy in Assam.
