. |
. |
EDITORIAL It augurs well for the State and the country that rate of elimination of the ultras has shown marked acceleration during the last couple of months in particular. As per available figures more than 1000 ultras mostly foreigners have been killed by our valiant jawans from all wings engaged in counter-insurgency operations and/or guarding borders. This is good going by any reckoning. Another notable feature is that like Poonch/Rajouri sector many remarkable successes have been logged in Doda and valley also. Of particular mention is the large number of infiltrators successfully engaged by the forces on the border itself. Most of them either got killed or had to beat hasty retreat to the other side of LoC. Yet......more Winning a medal at Olympics is no kid-play. It weighs much more in as much as it does the country proud. It shows even light-weights can become heavy weights and vice versa. After all competition is acute and severe. The usual players for the maximum medals leave nothing to chance. For them largest medal tally ...more |
|
MEN AND MATTERS From B L Kak Yes, Prime Minister. By M J Akbar A View Point By Omkar Dattatray Role of gram sabha By Dr N C Joshi |
 |
||
EDITORIAL It augurs well for the State and the country that rate of elimination of the ultras has shown marked acceleration during the last couple of months in particular. As per available figures more than 1000 ultras mostly foreigners have been killed by our valiant jawans from all wings engaged in counter-insurgency operations and/or guarding borders. This is good going by any reckoning. Another notable feature is that like Poonch/Rajouri sector many remarkable successes have been logged in Doda and valley also. Of particular mention is the large number of infiltrators successfully engaged by the forces on the border itself. Most of them either got killed or had to beat hasty retreat to the other side of LoC. Yet another feature is that many of those killed are Pak regular army soldiers. Besides, large quantity of arms and ammunition has been seized which also includes more than a quintal of deadly RDX. This indicates that security personnel of all hues which faced many inhibitions and constraints have been given the signal to go for the kill. It is equally relevant to mention that Pak firing all along the border has escalated during the same period causing immense hardships to the border people many of whom have left their hearths and homes. There have been several attacks by the fidayeens on security personnel, landmine blasts and other acts which have resulted in large casualties of the security forces as also civilian population. Although authentic figures are not available for drawing comparison but figure is heavy as per army norms but fairly less than that of the enemy camp. Belatedly, security forces have been asked to follow the guidelines laid down to counter/thwart fidayeen attacks as also take extra care not to fall in landmine death traps. Normally, the ratio of engaging the enemy in terms of casualty should be 1 to 10. But it has been admitted by Chief of Army Staff that the enemy is war ruggadised, heavily indoctrinated and equipped with latest weapons. Suicide squads have added to the problem. Given all these oddities, the nation is ready to accept and reward all sacrifices of our valiant jawans. At this stage it would be quite appropriate to mention that military operations (this includes para-military and SOG) need to be not only sustained at current level but also accelerated in sectors where the enemy is least prepared. The only rider is not to cross LoC/international border. All other strategies are good enough to neutralise the enemy to a significant level. The level of success has to be such that the enemy goes on the defensive, start thinking to say goodbye to terrorism or flee back to the other side. That exactly is the point when meaningful talks with local militants as also bilateral dialogue with Pakistan to address to all the contentious issues can be pursued to its logical culmination. It essentially implies that whenever our side talks it must talk from position of strength. This obviously entails rate of elimination to be at least double the rate of infiltration. While every infiltration attempt cannot be thwarted given the typical topography, it has to be prevented to a very lage extent. It is to be coupled with taking on those who are right inside. It is welcome news that increasing use of Choppers has yielded good dividends. A notable area of concern is the near total neglect of propaganda war. It has to go side by side with actual operations. It is regrettable that Doordarshan and All India Radio has proved unequal to the task despite various upgradation exercises. One does'nt have to tell either to the security bosses or the political clan asto what is meant by 'propaganda warfare' and what impact it can have on scoring clear edge over the adversary. Massive propaganda on the mass audio-visual media besides the print media can make all the difference between defeat/stalemate and victory. It is certain that the orders are for victory i.e. last of the Pak exported/sponsored terrorist must be killed, nabbed or made to leave our sacred land. Equally crucial to success is the overall hostile environs in other parts of country. Source of mayhem and anarchy being the same, their elimination/neutralisation is indispensable. They should at least be rendered immobile so that they do not reach J&K State from other porous borders in the country namely Rajasthan/Gujarat border which is partly fenced, from Nepal which has open borders with this country, from Bangladesh where ISI is known to have launching pads for infiltration of terrorists/subversives in India. Definite action is also called for in destroying ISI modules established in various parts of the country. Such harbourers, facilitators, motivators, sympathisers of the ISI have to be dealt with without any political inhibitions. As long as these crucial areas of warfare are not adequately addressed, infiltration of Pak trained ultras will sustain insurgency in Jammu & Kashmir over an indefinite period. Lastly, nothing should be done or said that would slow down the present pressure on the terrorists in J&K. Backing to the hilt by the jaundiced politicians looking with squint eye both in the State and the Centre for the security forces operations/offensive is indispensable to marginalise the enemy. Any dilution in sustained pressure provides breathers to the enemy for regrouping and striking back with a spirit of vengeance. Winning a medal at Olympics is no kid-play. It weighs much more in as much as it does the country proud. It shows even light-weights can become heavy weights and vice versa. After all competition is acute and severe. The usual players for the maximum medals leave nothing to chance. For them largest medal tally also has political connotations and ramifications. For instance for USA to win maximum medals reflects not only military super power status besides being the economic giant but also right on top in the sport arena. Americans simply won't like China or Russia or France or Australia or Japan to earn this top slot. So they go for the kill right from the word 'go'. That is the indomitable spirit with which other participating countries go. They go the whole hog in preparing world class players. Unfortunately, things are quite different in India. Not because there is no talent. It is precisely attributed to politicising even sports. One has to take the words of Super Cop KPS Gill when he says that he is preparing the hockey players for the 2008 Olympics because it takes minimum of 8 to 10 years to produce world class player. One really does not know if his pursuit for achieving excellence will fructify or cut half way by the destiny. It is pertinent to note that first Olympics started in 1896 and it is the 27th Olympic game going on in Sydney. The medal tally for India is miserly 3 in 104 years of toil! And that too it is least attributed to coaches, officials or the political bosses. It has been an individual achievement. It is also to be noted that in the first Olympic there was no women competitor. Today 42 percent of the participants belong to the so-called weaker sex. And mind you they do proud to their respective countries with a feast of medals. Karnam Malleshwari belongs to the category which was condemned as over-weight, beer-gusher and over-age at 26 and never considered as the medal stuff. It is entirely her individual effort, guts, will to achieve what was considered impossible that earns her distinct niche with awards and praises galore. Unless some Indian participant gets another bronze or silver, she remains the 24 carrot amongst 14 carrot Indian contingent. |
||
|
||
MEN AND
MATTERS From B L Kak Prime Minister’s Man Friday and Ministerial colleague, Mr Pramod Mahajan, is not unaware of the cold war between Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee and Home Minister, Mr LK Advani. As Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, Mr Mahajan, is already mandated to interact with media persons in New Delhi and elsewhere. He has, of late, been found making use of interesting, if not mind-boggling, expressions to prove his point: Prime Minister and Home Minister are "twins". They are "two sides of the same coin". That the cold war between Mr Vajpayee and Mr Advani has assumed a new, if not serious, complexion has been borne out by certain events starting from the reported "unanimous" election of Mr Bangaru Laxman as new president of the BJP in August. Mr Advani, insiders insisted, was not for Mr Laxman’s candidature; the BJP stalwart and Home Minister of India wanted Mr Venkaiah Naidu to replace Mr Kishabhau Thakre as the party chief. And when Mr Laxman’s candidature was announced at the instance of Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee, Mr Advani, for obvious reasons, surprised even his close associates with his observations in support of Mr Laxman. And when Mr Laxman was declared elected as the party’s new president, he simply acted in a manner as to clearly suggest his loyalty to Mr Vajpayee alone. According to insiders, Mr Bangaru Laxman consulted Mr Vajpayee-not Mr Advani-on the question of constituting his (Mr Laxman’s) new team. No wonder, Mr Laxman’s list had many surprises. Mr Laxman, who wanted to elevate BJP secretary and former Union Minister, Mr Muqtat Abbas, as one of the general secretaries, chose to oblige the Shiv Sena supremo, Mr Bal Thackeray. Mr Thackeray had, indeed, vehemently objected to Mr Laxman’s courtship of Muslims. This apart, the Shiv Sena chief had warned that should Mr Naqvi be made a general secretary, the Shiv Sena would be compelled to review its ties with the BJP. The warning worked, although Mr Naqvi was retained by Mr Laxman as one of the seven secretaries. Mr Bangaru Laxman also set Mr Advani and his company thinking anew with his calculated move, culminating in the retention of only two of Mr Kushabhau Thakre’s five general secretaries. These two general secretaries are: Mr Venkaiah Naidu and Mr Narendra Modi. Both Mr Laxman and Mr Venkaiah Naidu are from Andhra Pradesh. In fact, Mr Naidu was said to be uncomfortable with Mr Laxman taking over as BJP president. By the time Mr Laxman’s candidature was announced for the post of BJP president, he was found to be an admirer of the party’s senior leader and former Union Minister, Ms Sushma Swaraj. However, the entire scenario changed immediately after Ms Sushma Swaraj spoke out against the Vajpayee Government on the handling of the Kashmir crisis. Expression of dissent is not unusual in BJP forums. But Mr Vajpayee did not take kindly to her outbursts. Hence, Mr Laxman did not make her one of the general secretaries. If Mr Advani could not resist criticising Ms Sushma Swaraj, without naming her, for crossing the ‘Lakshman rekha’, the Vajpayee camp was behind reports that she was unlikely to make it to the Union Cabinet because of her "indiscretion" at the National Council meeting held in Nagpur. According to insiders, Mr Advani, who is quite close to Ms Sushma Swaraj, was forced to act differently. After Mr Advani sensed Mr Vajpayee’s unease over Ms Sushma’s remarks, he (Mr Advani) chose to distance himself from her. And these insiders say that had Mr Advani not done that, it could have driven a wedge between him and Mr Vajpayee. Mr Laxman had yet another quiet meeting with Mr Vajpayee after Ms Sushma Swaraj declined his (Mr Laxman’s) offer to her to be the party’s spokesperson. Mr Laxman’s next move: He retained her as a member of the National Executive. Had he not done so, it would have led to the conclusion that Mr Vajpayee wanted to keep her out of the party’s power structure as well. Mr KN Govindacharya is another loyalist of Mr LK Advani who invited Mr Vajpayee’s wrath. Mr Govindacharya’s exit from Mr Laxman’s team has, significantly, established the continuance of the Vajpayee-Advani cold war. During Mr Thakre’s tenure as the BJP president, Mr Advani’s grip over the party affairs was firm. With Mr Laxman becoming the party chief, Mr Vajpayee’s position has considerably improved. Mr Govindacharya’s decision to keep out of Mr Laxman’s team followed his consultations with the RSS chief, Mr KS Sudarshan, at Nagpur and a long meeting with Mr Advani. Mr Vajpayee has succeeded in enabling Mr Madan Lal Khurana to get back as a vice-president in Mr Laxman’s team. Obviously, as part of his strategy to keep the party’s two major factions in Delhi in good humour, Mr Laxman has made Sahib Singh Verma, former Chief Minister of Delhi, general secretary. That Mr Vajpayee’s clout is greater than Mr Advani’s has also been borne out by the addition of Mr Sunil Shastri as a general secretary. Mr Sunil Shastri,son of former Prime Minister, Mr Lalal Bahadur Shastri, is a known loyalist of Mr Vajpayee. In recent days, some press reports have made a pointed reference to the "conflict" between the two old associates, Mr Vajpayee and Mr Advani. According to one report, Mr Ram Jethmalani was removed from the Union Cabinet, despite Mr Advani’s "expressed preference" to retain him in the Ministry in an alternative post. Other reports have referred to Mr Kalyan Singh of Uttar Pradesh and said that despite all his proximity to Mr Advani, he was ruthlessly cut out of the reckoning by a "coterie" acting with Mr Vajpayee’s "explicit blessings". Reports have also highlighted certain other areas of conflict in policy, particularly on Kashmir. |
||
|
|
A View Point By Omkar Dattatray The founding fathers of the constitution had not envisaged the necessity of incorporating fundamental duties of citizens in the constitution of democratic India. All rights and no fundamental duties made our constitutional provisions topsided, partial and absurd. Just as all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, excessive emphasis on fundamental rights of citizens and no mention of fundamental duties in the original unamended constitution made it unbalanced and prejudicial. With the result there is undue clamour for fundamental rights and their violation everywhere. Agreed that a true democracy is a meaningless proposition without individual freedom, liberties and rights. But equally true is the fact that these should go side by side. Without this, there will be chaos and confusion and exploitation will rule the roost. It is because of this over-emphasis on fundamental rights and the casual mention of fundamental duties that we only demand, seek and get but never give, offer, contribute and perform what is expected of us as good citizens of a democratic republic. Thus we have become seekers and not contributors in the national development and reconstruction. Our constitution is based on a wrong notion that man is essentially good and thus it is taken for granted that citizens will pay due respect, regards and reference to the nation, its culture, heritage and civilization. So it is wrongly presumed that citizens world work and contribute their mite for the welfare of the State in the ultimate analysis. But the truth is otherwise, because man by nature is selfish and cunning. Even Mahatma Gandhi pointed out, "The true source of right is duty. If we all discharge our duties, rights will not be far to seek. If leaving duties unpreformed we run after rights, they will escape us like will-o-the wisp". Thus recognising the significance of the fundamental duties, it was as late as 1976 that fundamental duties were incorporated into the constitution through a far reaching amendment. The inclusion of basic and primary duties towards the nation in the constitution of the biggest democracy of the world was a belated good step. However, such duties were made optional, on the free choice of citizens and not mandatory and compulsory. Thus the people are in a way at liberty to observe these. These duties are left to the free conscience of citizens. Thus consequently, the fundamental duties are not enforceable in a court of law. With the result, the fundamental duties in our country are often disregarded and violated. Our constitutional provision did not make them compulsory though these are named 'fundamental' - one wonders if for violation. While on the one hand there is all round clamour for human rights and fundamental rights violation but none cares for gross violation and non-observance of basic and fundamental duties. Everywhere duties of citizens towards their country, national language, national anthem, national song, national emblem, national monuments, national flag and the like are grossly violated. But there is hardly any cry for such violations of basic duties. As citizens are free to obey or disregard fundamental duties towards the nation, so their inclusion after a lapse of a quarter century from the enforcement of the constitution hardly matters. There is thus pressing need to make fundamental duties enforceable and justiceable to arrest the tendency of their violation. This will help inculcate in the citizens minds respect and love for the motherland and its national monuments. But before their violations are made punishable and cognisable offences, it is necessary that fundamental duties should be well defined, demarcated, short listed and made brief and exact. There should be no room for any ambiguity and confusion about the basic duties of citizens. These duties should be recast in such a way as to make them free from any mis-representation and mis-interpretation in future. This will go a long way in the observance of fundamental duties. So primary task is to rid them of from abstraction as at present and make them somewhat concrete, brief, and concise. Moreover, just as there are protection against the violation of fundamental rights there should be protections against the violations of fundamental duties. Similarly, as there are human rights organisations and human rightists, in the same manner there should be human duties awareness and enforcement organisations which will help in the discharging of fundamental duties. Otherwise, people will flout all norms and continue to disregard and disobey their fundamental duties. Utmost importance to fundamental rights and casual approach to basic duties is the primary reason of subversion of constitutional provisions to meet selfish ends. The situation is very grim. It makes the constitutional amendment of 1976 relating to the inclusion of fundamental duties a laughing stock and a subject of criticism. Leaving duties to the conscience of citizens does hardly serve any purpose. It only makes our constitutional provisions the slave of the animal in man. So rights and duties should go together as there can be no rights without duties. Fundamental duties should not be for the sake of record and memorization but for strict observance alongwith fundamental rights. Excessive and undue stress and importance to fundamental rights should be stopped and equal significance to fundamental duties should be ensured. Fifty years of constitutional experience and democratic Governance has shown that lop-sided constitutional provisions only complicate matters. To keep fundamenal duties as mere guide lines and directions as they have kept directive principles of State policy, will do no good either to the people or to the State. We have failed to realise the dreams of the propounders of our constitution even after 53 years of self rule. In a true democracy people should be for the State and State should be for the people. The nation should hurry up and waste no further time and incorporate a provision through amendment of part IV A of our constitution to make fundamental duties enforceable. Will constitutional experts and parliamentarians give a heed to it? |
|
Role of gram sabha in rural development By Dr N C Joshi Having declared 1999-2000 as the Year of Gram Sabha, the Government intends to give full powers to gram sabhas for projects, planning and budget and their prior approval should be mandatory for taking up any programme in the village. The gram sabhas should have the power to evolve their own procedure for conducting business, including decision-making, following the principles of natural justice. The rules and regulations issued by Government from time to time in this regard have to be taken as guidelines. In short, the gram sabhas should be empowered to set their priorities and approve the budget. As is well-known, the panchayati raj institutions in this country were created with a view to strengthening at the grassroots and for providing an effective machinery for socio-economic transformation in the countryside. Hence, under the dispensation of democratic decentralisation, both authority and autonomy were given to the people at the lower levels. The structural frame of panchyati raj is a three-tier organisation consisting of the gram panchayat at the base, panchayat samiti at the intermediate level and zila parishad at the district level. Besides these three tiers, there is one more body called the gram sabha which is the general body of all the residents of a village. The gram sabha is virtually the 'house of the villagers'. All villagers above the age of 18 years are members of the gram sabha and have an inherent right to determine their own destiny. Thus, gram sabha is the forum where the oppressed and the poorest of the poor can influence decision-making. Quite appropriately, in a vast country like India where almost 80 per cent of the people lived in villages, panchayats have always been an integral part of rural India. India's struggle for independence saw our leaders promising to the people a vibrant, effective system of rural local self-government. Gandhiji urged and argued that Indian independence must begin at the bottom so that every village will be a republic or a panchayat having full powers, he pleaded for decentralisation as an essential pre-condition for the realisation of the ideal democracy to enable each individual to participate in the decision-making and implementation process. Thus, the seeds for an institution like the 'gram sabha' were sown by Gandhiji much earlier than the framing of the Constitution. The Constitution provides for village self-government in the Chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy which are non-justiciable. There is also a mention of the village level government in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution where the constitutent units of India's federation have been authorised to constitute democratic government at the local level. Another mention has been made in Article 171 dealing with the composition of the second chamber of a State legislature. It is laid down that at least one-third of the members of this chamber will be elected by the self-governing bodies at the local level. The 1950s saw coming into being the three-tier bodies not in implementation of Article 40 of the Constitution but as a sequel to the recommendations of the Balwantray Mehta Committee, which was constituted by the Planning Commission to examine and report, inter alia, on the community development projects and national extension service so as to suggest on reorganisation of district administration. The Committee laid down a scheme of democratic decentralisation as a means for evoking people's initiative and mobilising their spontaneous and voluntary participation. Somehow, ever since the three-tier village administration was created in 1957, the panchayati raj institutions (PRIs) mostly remained moribund except in a few states like Gujarat, Maharashtra, West Bengal and Karnataka. The inertness and inertia afflicting them became so pervasive that the grassroots institutions came to be known as 'grass without a root'. Moreover, the bureaucracy, imbued with colonial tradition and values, had its own reservation for sharing power with the people. In a subtle way they did help in the process of bureaucratisation of village administration. Target-oriented development programmes were bypassed. Ultimately, over the years it was realised that instead of democratic decentralisation, it was 'democratic demoralisation' that had set in the entire village community. Nonetheless, our villagers became aware of their rights and responsibilities in the overall development of rural life. It was felt that under the new dispensation funds should first come to the gram sabha on per capita basis. Then it would be the responsibility of gram sabha to decide its needs according to its priorities, how much to keep for itself, how much to contribute to the intermediate level and how much to the district level panchayat. For instance, a paricular gram sabha may like to have flood relief on its priority list rather than an embankment but another, vice-versa. Hence, it was felt that gram sabhas should be left to themselves to decide according to their discretion and sense of judgement. But then, such a thinking could be translated into action only in a very few villages. For long, our villagers have been allured by phrases such as 'Gram Sabha to Lok Sabha' but the ground reality was absolutely different as the institution of gram sabha mostly remained in cold storage. The pradhan of panchayat samiti generally held hush-hush meetings in his house with his coterie and took the decisions. The gram sabha also did not exercise any effective control over the village panchayat. It, therefore, failed to contribute to the success of developmental plans for villages. The focus of gram sabha shifted from deliberation to participation with the executive, namely the gram panchayat, in planning and implementing the various programmes. A noted Gandhian, R R Diwakar, observed that, ''The gram sabha could alone help to create a climate which would secure the essentials of democracy and endow the total Government structure of the village community with a social base.'' It was felt that our Gram Sabhas should be made statutory bodies with adequate powers. When panchayati raj was introduced in the country in 1959, the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru said that it was the greatest revolution in the country and the system worked well till 1964. But after the demise of Nehru, the system nose-dived as it became more of a political institution. The basic feaures of the system, like non-party institution and consensus among the members of Gram Sabha were relegated to the background completely as politically motivated people took over the system lock, stock and barrel. Thus emerged the second generation of panchayats when the Indian political scenario witnessed a fundamental change in 1977. The new Janata Government installed at the Centre appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr Ashok Mehta to report on the status of panchayat institutions and to suggest measures for their revitalisation. It submitted its report in 1978 and unlike the three-tiered structure it stood for two-tiered panchayati raj to make these bodies effective and efficient instruments of rural development. Three States, viz, Karnataka, Kerala and West Bengal led the new movement for panchayati raj. West Bengal also emphasised a model of development where land reform received topmost priority. The Ashok Mehta team suggested strengthening of zila parishads by getting the gram sabha tier removed from the PRIs. Thus, started the phase when there was a proliferation of village panchayats and zila parishads usurping all powers of panchayat samities. Panchayats at village level became free from the regulatory powers of the Gram Sabha. This led to their becoming inactive and moribund in almost all States. During mid 1980s, when Rajiv Gandhi became Prime Minister, need was felt to revitalise the panchayati raj system once again. Elections to the panchayat bodies were not held for long. For such revitalisation, the Government appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of Dr L M Singhvi. The Committee recommended 'constitutionalisation of panchayats'. The Government, therefore, approached Parliament in 1989 for amending the Constitution in order to make panchayat bodies more powerful and broadbased. However, the Bill for this purpose was withdrawn amidst criticism of certain features which were alleged to tighten central control. Then came the VP Singh Government at the Centre and it made an attempt to push through the Bill after deleting the controversial provisions. However, the life of this government was too short to com plete this work. Later, the P V Narasimha Rao Government was able to enact the 73rd Amendment to the Constitution in 1992 giving, inter alia, a statutory status to the panchayati raj system. Surely, this marked a watershed in the history of the village self-government in post-colonial India. Panchayats were brought under the jurisdiction of the justiciable part of the Constitution. Very rightly, the gram sabha was accorded a statutory status for the first time and the State Governments were required to make suitable provisions in their own legislation for this purpose. Thus came into being the third generation panchayats. It may be noted that they newly added Article 243 (b) defines gram sabha as ''a body consisting of persons registered in the electoral rolls relating to a village comprised within the area of panchayat at the village level.'' Literally, Gram Sabha meant a meeting of villagers with the aim to discuss common problems of the village. Every registered voter in the village automatically becomes a member of the Gram Sabha which is open to every adult person irrespective of caste, religion, occupation, education, general social status or sex in a village. In short, the gram sabha became a forum of citizens' collective wisdom functioning as an autonomous unit. In many ways, the gram sabha relected a form of direct democracy as was found in the ancient Greek city-States. Obviously, the gram sabha assumed the ultimate source of power of village panchayats. The panchayat is accountable to gram sabha in unequivocal term. The members of panchayat should hold office only so long as they enjoyed the confidence of the gram sabha. Certification of expenditure and about propriety in financial dealings should be the mandatory responsibility of the gram sabha. Thus, the panchayat stands to gram sabha in about the same relationship as the Government stands to the legislature. The 73rd amendment identified twenty-nine areas of development in which the elected panchayats have a free hand in planning and disbursement of funds. These include land reforms, agriculture, small-scale industry, animal husbandry, education up to secondary level and health care. In sum, it can be said that rural progress depends entirely on the existence of an active organisation like Gram Sabha in the village as it alone can bring all the people, including the weaker sections into a common programme to be carried out with the assistance of the administration. Horizontally, panchayati
raj is a network of gram sabhas and village panchayats.
Vertically, it is an organic growth of the panchayati
rising upto the national level. No doubt, the institution
of gram sabha has had a chequered career. Nonethelsss, it
has sustained itself and has given an opportunity to all
villagers to gain a sense of participation in the process
of development. It has been able to establish an active
dialogue between the villagers and their elected leaders
regarding all developmental projects and programmes in
the villages. No wonder, without the gram sabha as the
base of democratic decentralisation, democracy itself
would remain fragile. |
|
|
|
