Local government evolution in India: the influence of the past on the present
Seeing Indian local government through the lens of its colonial period helps to put into context how post-Independence India has developed. It further explains why despite several efforts to evolve the system in the post-Independence era and the many contributing studies and reports, the distance traveled has not been as far compared to systemic modernization in other countries. The lurking shadow of British India can still be seen in the structure of urban and rural governance and in both cases its continued influence is problematic in different ways. Hence, the influence of the colonial era is relevant to present day India as time is not its friend. India needs to modernize its systems expeditiously to prevent further systemic deterioration and this requires embracing change that breaks from the past.
This subject of the long term affects of colonial rule has been the focus of study and debate in other contexts as well.1 In the context of governance, a paper by Lakshmi Iyer (who has been studying colonial influence on post-colonial India while at MIT and later at the Harvard Business School) has illustrated that in India there was a demonstrable difference in the post-colonial period in the economic development of areas depending on whether they were under direct or indirect rule. The paper’s finding attributed this to the fact that the British did not invest in areas under their direct rule as much as native ruled states invested in physical and human capital in areas under their jurisdiction. This under-investment proved costly for development in the long term as the areas under direct rule now have higher levels of poverty and infant mortality in the post-colonial period (Iyer 2009). The difference has been attributed to the different incentives of local administrators under the different systems (p 32). The paper’s other finding was that over the long term, this deleterious influence can be redressed by “explicit post-colonial policies designed to equalize access” to basic needs; and thus, the “effects of historical circumstances” can be undone with deliberate effort although “this process can take several decades” (p 33). The example of the Kerala exception supports both findings as an illustration of what can be delivered when benefits experienced during indirect rule are followed by subsequent explicit equalization policies implemented in the post-colonial era.2Another paper by Lakshmi Iyer (with Abhijit Banerjee) has revealed that states where land revenue was collected by landlords have had less productive farmers in the post-colonial era.3 The experience of other developing countries that have suffered major cataclysmic events and have shown marked productive changes thereafter (for example in the cases of China and Vietnam), has illustrated also how consistent explicit policies have proven to be the key determining factor.
British influence in India has been both positive and negative in this respect. Changes in the Indian colony were a product of evolving local conditions, developments within the United Kingdom and influential developments in major British settler colonies. Both British actions and omissions have had their affect on India. For instance, while there was an update in municipal forms, yet there was failure to have any system along the lines of the decentralized London model established in 1900 (depriving India of experience in what has become a rising urban government form outside India since the 1980s). There was also failure to establish a rural system in India that reflected British changes by 1894 (and this has influenced the problematic reforms of the rural system in the post-colonial period).4 Certainly, the establishment of federal governments in Britain’s indirectly ruled settler colonies of Canada (1867) and Australia (1901) clearly influenced the establishment of a federal structure in India by 1935. Yet, there was a distinct difference in the formula given to India, as it was still under direct rule. And, subsequently, these features unique to the Indian context, influenced the framing of the post-Independence era Indian constitution to have long term effect.5
The stamp of British influence over present day local governance in India dates backs to the 19th century, although the first municipal system was established two centuries earlier. This era started with changes prior to the arrival of Lord Ripon as Viceroy of India, continued with the changes instituted by him and subsequent changes following his departure. Examples of local governance implemented by the British in the earlier period have been obscured by the overriding influence of the later developments. Hence, you will not find positions in urban local government held by alderman and burgesses today; as reflected in the first urban system of the Madras municipal corporation introduced in 1688 (even though you will still find these positions in some parts of the early settlement areas of the United States (e.g . Maryland) as a result of its earlier independence from British colonial rule).
The British rule in India (whether direct or indirect) and subsequent Indian actions (both colonial and post-colonial) have led to the current situation where neither the urban nor rural local governance systems as a norm are productive enough to remedy a deteriorating situation exacerbated by demographic pressures and resource management shortfalls in post-colonial India. The shortfall is more widely covered in the media in the urban setting as the engines of India’s modern economic growth are located in urban areas and this has led to more domestic and foreign media coverage of the urban malaise. This malaise can be seen in the deterioration of infrastructure, the deterioration in service delivery and administration along with demographic changes that have produced growing slum settlements, homelessness and moves by some cities to already try to bar migrants from working locally. However, what is transpiring in the rural areas is due to affect the country more catastrophically, if what is lacking in the rural systems is not remedied. This is because rural failure will place intolerable pressure on urban areas whose 19th century structure is not designed for massive migration, owing to the weaknesses of the governance structure and its financial constraints.6 To change the dynamic, what is needed are systems that match the ground conditions and are conducive to the management of the challenges facing the country in both settings. This requires shedding the grip of the past on the present.
The colonial past, where present seeds were sown.
The early period.
The local governing units of the early period were established by the East India Company (the “EIC”) in the three Presidency Town settlements (of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta) which the EIC had acquired in India during the 17th and 18th century. The Madras Municipal Corporation was the first and most elaborate formalized system. It was established by King James II granting to the EIC delegated power to establish a municipal government by charter with a Mayor’s Court to handle legal cases. This form followed contemporary British municipal structure of the period.7 What is most notable about it today is the reason for its implementation. This development was believed by Josiah Child, the then serving head of the EIC, to be the only solution to manage the growing conservancy problem in Madras. He understood that governance structure needs to change to match changing ground conditions. This is an understanding lacking in Indian officials today, who do not seem to appreciate what this gentlemen did in the 17th century. As the EIC head office was located in the City of London, a municipal government from the period of Edward the Confessor (1042-1062), it was no stranger to the benefits of municipal governance. 8 In 1726, a Mayor’s Court with Alderman without Burgesses was established by royal charter in the other two Presidency towns for judicial purposes only. Subsequently, the role of judicial officials was expanded to include limited municipal services under the Charter Act of 1793, whereby justices of the peace for the Presidency towns were authorized to perform judicial activities and certain other municipal administrative functions financed from real property assessments.
Aversion to direct taxes imposed for municipal governance
A common feature of state tax collections today is the dominant place of sales taxes.
Subsequent forms of municipal governance were extended generally to the greater areas that had come under British control during the 19th century. These reflected some of the new features of local government evolution in Britain with one notable exception -French-inspired British systemic framework was first introduced in India (Bengal Local Self-Government Act, 1885) nine years before it was introduced in England (Local Government Act 1894).
As revealed by David Eastwood’s book Governing Rural England, a developing crisis caused by internal changes had led to its resolution with the establishment of a new local government system in the latter part of the 19th century in the United Kingdom.8 Reforms in India were made in response to the changing dynamics of the Indian conditions and not as an effort to have India reflect what the British had on their home soil. Hence, India subsequently witnessed some of the improvements in its urban municipal systems; but, limited benefit was witnessed in rural governance where the new British system was not fully realized at any time during British rule of India.
The establishment of modern local government in India can be traced to the changes called for by the local government laws passed under the brief period of Viceroy Ripon’s tenure as Governor General. These reforms built on earlier 19th century improvements. Regulation XVI of 1814, the First Municipal Act in 1842, the Act of 1850 were amongst the steps that progressed municipal governance in this era. The financial costs incurred after the Mutiny of 1857 led to further moves for fiscal decentralization as the railways also led to the building of new commercial centers and the Acts subsequent to the 1863 Report Army Sanitary Commission Report extended municipal government.
Although, the establishment of the British rural system took place after the departure of Lord Ripon; in the 3-tier system he implemented for India there could be seen glimmers of what was to evolve a decade later under the leadership of his party (the Liberal Party) in England. However, the British neither shared this development fully, nor did they implement a decentralized system for a major Indian city on the London model that was established by 1900. Post-colonial India had the opportunity to realize what was not supplied by the British; and to even go beyond the degree to which British government had evolved, as the British lost their footing in the process of local government evolution (and their lag has only widened in due course of time with the greater innovations undertaken in other countries). However, this opportunity remains an unrealized potential even in our present. 8
The new 19th century rural reforms in the United Kingdom produced an integrated 3-tier local government system that was established under two laws: The Local Government Act of 1888 (which established a new form of county government) and the Local Government Act of 1894 (which established district and parish level governments). In effect, this system exemplified the French approach to rural government with English characteristics. The main difference between the two was in the weighting of the 3 tiers. In the British version it was hierarchical in dimension (as is also the weighting in the panchayat raj system); whereas the French system’s power dynamics were hourglass in shape with the middle level having the least powers and role within the system. The difference affected subsequent local government evolution in both countries in different ways. In Britain, it has produced increased consolidation in metropolitan areas; but the role of the lower tier has evolved to become more robust (although still no match for its French counterpart).9 The problematic structure and aspirations of the panchayat system as it currently exists can be resolved in part by studying the evolution of both more closely. This is also because at the moment in India, the number of gram panchayats relative to the Taluka and Zilla Panchayats are as out of balance as the numerical imbalance in the French system that produced its 2d major evolution by 1890 with the establishment of interlocal cooperative bodies. This French innovation has inspired versions in many western countries from the middle of the 20th century onwards when suburban growth revealed the weaknesses of fragmentation in the absence of integrated metropolitan governance and exposed associated systemic inefficiencies. In France, this development saw the implementation of new forms over time (with the different examples in other countries reflecting different stages of French evolution).10 In fact, in formulating the further evolution of both the rural and urban systems, India can benefit from learning about the evolution and affects of the many integrated local systems in the world today (both in western countries and other Asian countries, of which the vast majority are urban in our urbanizing world).
India was impacted by political changes in Britain which meant that generally the extension of self-governance was introduced by the Liberals and the execution took place under the Tories. Typically, the Liberals were more generous in spirit and the Tories the more selfish. 11This is also reflected in the extreme difference between the Liberal Lord Ripon and the Tory Lord Lytton (with the latter being succeeded by the former). Whereas, elective government was introduced by the Local Government Act of 1835. Extension of Franchise was encouraged by Lord Mayo’s Resolution in 1870, however “but the provision was little applied in practice as the district officers in those days were not sympathetic to the idea of extension of the elective principle.” 12The civil service established by Warren Hastings in 1772 naturally was not willing to cede power. In the present time, the control of the bureaucracy over local government has a long lineage dating back to this time.
In India, piecemeal efforts at the national level have been followed by partial efforts at the provincial/state level. Few states have demonstrated the willingness to be proactive that West Bengal demonstrated in the era after the Communist Party of India (Marxist) gained control at the state level. The states in India have also played their part in accepting prescribed changes or resisting them. This tendency has continued even more strongly in the post Independence era. Hence, we find CIVIC in Bangalore proclaiming the difficulties in getting ward committees implemented in Karnataka almost two decades after their prescription under 74th Constitutional Amendment Act. On its website CIVIC explains:
In 1999 and 2003, CIVIC was instrumental in the formation of 30 ward committees. However, ward committees are yet to be formed in the other five municipal corporation of Karnataka, and those that exist do not function effectively. Therefore, CIVIC will focus on getting wards committees to become fully functional as effective forums for local self-governance as envisaged in the 74th CAA. Civic Bangalore (2010)
The problem of inadequate local evolution that remains in India today has an earlier genesis during the British era. The same trend continues today. And, what is not helpful is that the last comprehensive effort to implement a modernized local system was reflected in the 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts (that are still not fully implemented across the states); and, this was too conservative an effort to meet the needs of the present changing ground conditions. This is because the ongoing pace of aquifer degradation and declining rural incomes means that rural to urban migration will lead to mass movement, which has also ready commenced. Yet, the framework of local government structure permitted under the 74th Amendment does not provide for the type of system needed to absorb this massive influx.
Structural Incoherence and the failure of the panchayats
The pace and manner of local government reforms has also produced structural incoherence that denies India the benefits that accrue from structure that does not get in the way of productive operations. In other countries, most notably China, that have embraced integrated local governance, there are economic benefits denied India; even though in the panchayat raj system it has had a form of integrated local governance soon after independence (although its roots can be traced to Ripon era changes and their follow-up in the pre-Independence era).
Since the 1980s, the period that has seen an explosion of such systems around the world, India has had the opportunity to learn from foreign examples that could have aided upgrading of the local government system in rural and urban India. This opportunity India has denied itself. The influence of the past on the present has denied Indians the fruits enjoyed by other countries where integrated local governance was embraced.
Conclusion
The continuing weaknesses of Indian local governance systems are damaging India. There are solutions outside India that can help resolve the present situation; but, to utilize them effectively for India’s benefit, India needs to first appreciate the nature of systemic flaws in own system. Only then can they can be remedied by learning from foreign examples by tailoring systemic improvements that fit the needs of the states of India.
This remains a continuing subject of scholarly research. Beyond the influence on governance, there are many studies that cover this rich subject whose depths still have to be fully plumbed. These include works such Nicholas Dirks’ 2001 book Castes of Mind which reveals even the castes of today were influenced by the colonial encounter. Dirks’ book demonstrates how changing imperial concerns affected understandings of caste and why postcolonial India struggles with this legacy of colonial constructs. See: Dirks, Nicholas B. (2000) Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Other studies include the one on educational development such Chaudhary,Latika (2008.) Taxation and Educational Development: Evidence from British India. Retrieved from http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/echist/eh08/chaudhary-081013.pdf
Desai, Manali (2005). Indirect British Rule, State Formation, and Welfarism in Kerala, India, 1860-1957. Social Science History 2005 29(3):457-488. Duke University Press.
Banerjee, Abhijit and Lakshmi Iyer (2002). History, Institutions and Economic Performance: The Legacy of Colonial Land Tenure Systems in India. Retrieved from http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/seminars/banerjee.pdf. To elaborate on the points made in this paper, .it has been found in another study that even though major land redistribution did not take place in India, the land reforms that did take place still produced productive results. See: Besley, Timothy and Robin Burgess. (2000). Land reform, Poverty Reduction and Growth: Evidence from India. 2: 115. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May. 389-430. This article’s 1998 draft can be retrieved from https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2018/1/Land_Reform%252C_Poverty_Reduction_and_Growth_Evidence_from_India.pdf
Jenkin ,Austin Fleeming (1894). The law relating to parish councils: being the Local Government Act, 1894. London, Knight & Co. In the case of United Kingdom, it is because there is unitary form of government and local government have a more circumscribed autonomy. In the case of India, it is because the post-independence constitution adopted some features of the unitary system. More than half of the features are identical or similar to those contained in the Government of India Act, 1935. Yet, the Constitution has incorporated features from several foreign constitutions. Amongst these is,the feature that allows the central government to draft laws that states also have jurisdiction over (those within the concurrent list) is an incorporated feature from the Australian Constitution. See: Government of India Act, 1935 retrieved from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1935/pdf/ukpga_19350002_en.pdf; Singh, Nirvikar and Srinivasan, T.N. (2006): Federalism and economic development in India: An assessment. Unpublished. MPRA Paper No. 12452, posted 31. December 2008 / 21:38. Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/12452/; Sharma, Brij Kishore (2007). Introduction to the Constitution of India. 33. 4th Ed. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2007. To date, the constitutional framing period appears to be the an example not followed thereafter, as later laws did not cast as wide a net in incorporating foreign features institutionally in India. Like most federal structures the Australian structure has shifted the weight in favor of increasing centralization. See discussion in Grewal, Bhajan and Peter Sheehan (2003). The Evolution of Constitutional Federalism in Australia: An Incomplete Contracts Approach. CSES Working Paper No. 22. Centre for Strategic Economic Studies Victoria University of Technology. November 2003. Retrieved from http://www.cfses.com/documents/wp22.pdf. The recalcitrant behavior of state governments in hampering local government evolution indicates there will be more central government encroachment on this subject and that will limit the autonomy of the states.
See generally, McKinsey Global Institute (2010). India’s urban awakening: Building inclusive cities, sustaining economic growth ;Fahim, Mayraj 2009. Local government in India still carries characteristics of its colonial heritage. CityMayors. Retrieved from http://www.citymayors.com/government/india_government.html; Narender, Dr. A. (n.d.) Lessons in Effective Maintenance of Physical Infrastructure (Roads, Irrigation and Urban Infrastructure). Asian Development Bank. Retrieved from http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Consultant/TAR-IND-4066/GovtBudget/a-narender.pdf
Hunter, Sir William Wilson (1907). Imperial Gazetter of India. The Indian Empire. Vol.IV Administrative, 284. Oxford: Clarendon Press. The Madras Corporation reflects an early form of municipal government that preceded the great British era of local government reform of the 19th century. The earlier forms were granted by Royal Charter and incorporated with features similar to those reflected in this first British imprint on Indian soil. See generally: Webb, Sydney and Webb Beatrice (1906 -1929). English Local Government. Vol. I–X Longmans, Green and co. During this time, in Britain the landed elite still led local government. The basic structure of government encompassed county, borough and parish governments. The latter were mainly providers of welfare to the poor; whereas, the boroughs could be anything from a village to a city. Newman, Gerald and Leslie Ellen Brown (1997). Britain in the Hanoverian age, 1714-1837: an encyclopedia. 300-301. Taylor & Francis. Clark, Gregory and Marianne Page (2008). Welfare Reform, 1834. Retrieved from http://www.economics.uci.edu/docs/THD%20workshop/sp08/clark.pdf.
Here, Alderman still positions in the present form of the government that has not altered much from the days of the Muadra Muncipal Corporation.See: History of the Government of the City of London, website http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Leisure_and_culture/Local_history_and_heritage/Buildings_within_the_City/Mansion_house/History+of+the+Government+of+the+City+of+London.htm. Stevens, Andrew (2006). The City of London offers on one square mile history, feudal governance and global finance. CityMayors. Retrieved from http://www.citymayors.com/government/london_corp.html. Eastwood, David. (1994). Governing Rural England: Tradition and Transformation in Local Government, 1780–1840. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Since integrated local governance brings economic and organizational benefits not realized in the absence of integration and has been applied in our era as a solution to the problems experienced by metropolitan sprawl, it is in India’s interest to change its urban systems to capture these benefits. Of course, for this Indians will have to study all the examples presently operating since some are more productive than others.
See: Local Government Act 1888 (c.41) Retrieved from http://owain.vaughan.com/1888c41/ Local Government Act 1894 (c.73). Retrieved from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1894/cukpga_18940073_en_1; Descriptions from the Surrey County website Retrieved from http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/sccwspages.nsf/LookupWebPagesByTITLE_RTF/The+local+government+franchise+before+1918?opendocument History of Parish Councils Retrieved from http://www.whetstone.org.uk/page12.html; Horspath Parish Council website Retrieved from http://www.horspath.org.uk/localgov/.
See Communes of France Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communes_of_France; Departments of France Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Departments_of_France;The regions of France Retrieved from https://about-france.com/regions.htm; Local Governance in England and France By Alistair Cole, Peter John Retrieved from https://www.routledge.com/Local-Governance-in-England-and-France/Cole-John/p/book/9781138384156; State and Local Government Reforms in France and Germany Divergence and Convergence Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-531-90271-5
See at page 8. Cross, Cecil Merne Putnam (2009). The Development of Self-Government in India, 1858-1914. BibliLife Reproduction Services. Retrieved by Google Books.
See page 10.Aijaz, Rumi (2007). Challenges for Urban Local Governments in India. Asian Research Centre Working Paper 19. Retrieved from www2.lse.ac.uk/asiaResearchCentre/_files/ARCWP19-Aijaz.pdf