Receive Daily Updates
Women have had a long history of being discriminated against and exploited in Indian society. The 73rd Constitutional Amendment introduced measures to reverse these indignities. Yet, there remains strong resistance against their participation in the public sphere.
Democratic decentralisation expands the space for political participation of the subordinated and the excluded. Scholars have cited it as a process of empowerment of the depressed classes to reach the mainstream of social, economic and political life.
As Abdul Aziz, in his 1996 publication, ‘Decentralised governance in Asian countries’ and Mathew George in his 1995 work ‘Status of panchayati raj in the states of India’, have pointed out, it becomes even more significant and critical for women who are politically excluded. In fact, the one notion that is gaining universal acceptance, even in the context of neo-liberalism, is that governance needs to be increasingly gendered through state intervention. Such a policy process must ensure political and statutory mandate to elected women representatives (EWRs) and empower them to stamp their collective political identity in society.
A silent revolution
The last two decades (1993 to 2014) witnessed a silent revolution towards decentralised governance in the country, especially after the 73rd and the 74th Amendments to the Constitution of India. One of the more radical and liberal aspects of these amendments is the provision of reservation to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (in proportion to their population) and reserving one-third of the seats and positions of authority in all tiers of the panchayati raj institutions (PRIs).
Incidentally, many states—Bihar, Uttarkhand, Himachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Kerala, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Tripura, are providing 50 per cent reservation.
This highly progressive measure brought more than one million women as elected representatives, including many from socially disadvantaged groups, into the political decision-making process of the panchayat.
Situation analysis
Available literature on the participation and performance of women in rural governance presents both positive and negative aspects.
On the positive side, several micro-level studies, one such done by Bidyut Mohanty in her 2001 work, ‘The daughters of the 73rd Amendment’ point out that about 80-90 per cent of women now attend panchayat meetings. Given their sheer numbers, one might conclude that democracy has become more participatory, at least at the grassroots level.
In fact, a 2001 study by Jos Chathuculam and M S John, on ‘Empowerment of women panchayat members: Learning from Kerala (India)’, notes that despite numerous problems, the performance of women as per qualitative and quantitative indicators is in no way inferior to that of men. A sizable segment of society, too, has come to accept that women are, perhaps, better at running the village panchayat than men.
As Dharam Singh Pal has pointed out in his 2005 paper, ‘Women in grass-roots democracy in India: Experiences from selected states’, presented in the 3rd International Conference on Women and Politics in Asia in Islamabad, Pakistan; and Kot Lokendra Singh indicated in his published 2007 work, ‘Women in rural democracy: A changing scenario’,, women elected to the panchayat have shown startling results, particularly in the sectors of health, education, and basic services and ensured a significant change in the living conditions of their respective communities. Even in strong patriarchal cultures, reservation has encouraged women to demonstrate their leadership skills.
Notwithstanding these positive aspects, patriarchy and social strictures inhibit women’s participation in local governance through the panchayat. These include restrictions on freedom of movement, hegemonic inequalities like caste and patriarchal norms, all of which render them inaudible and invisible in the public sphere. Ample instances have been recorded by empirical studies of women being removed often from legitimate positions of power by deploying the ‘no-confidence’ motion.
B S Baviskar, in a 2003 study, ‘Impact of women’s participation in local governance in rural India’, indicates that the targeted women had challenged power centres; hence, the politics of conspiracy and co-option were used for petty political manipulations to bypass them. Thus, what is given by law and the Constitution is taken away by intrigue and chicanery. The experiences of elected women panchayat members since 1993 reveal a large number of problems in the course of their work, as pointed out by Mohanty in her 2001 study, cited above.
Thus, despite increased participation in decision-making bodies, women remain ineffective since their participation remains negligible in implementation mechanisms. Though people have now accepted women in politics, differences in power relations between men and women prevail with respect to ownership rights mainly since women’s intervention in political activities are perceived to be a threat to the male power centre.
However, many women are challenging the traditional/ patriarchal power centres. Some have confronted the systemic variables by entering the political domain and openly challenged the moralistic gaze women are subject to. Others have resorted to using male family members to enter the public domain giving rise to the notion of proxy governance. Unfortunately, a few have altogether shunned public domain and retreated to their private domains. These moves have also created myths about women’s passivity toward politics and about how female relatives of influential politicians from affluent sections merely occupy these seats, allowing men to carry out their tasks. Research, though, has disproved these myths. The work of younger, first time women entrants from economically weaker sections indicates a high level of participation and performance. Public patriarchy, of course, is hindering their progress, with women being included but not allowed to participate, hence undervaluing their work.
Obstacles to women’s participation
The rotation of reservations and especially, the mandatory rotation of the chairwoman’s post, is another obstacle in the effective delivery of services by EWRs. This hampers long-term interaction with the electorate and affects the confidence of EWRs. For effective and sustained women’s leadership at the grassroots level the concept of rotations needs to be revisited, as has been opined in the 2009 article of Nirmala Buch, ‘Reservations for women in panchayats: A sop in disguise?’ . The Tamil Nadu government has opted for two terms per EWR to combat this issue, notwithstanding the continuation of this practice elsewhere in the country.
Women, one finds, are also unable to lobby with other members and officials, owing to lower levels of articulation and, perhaps, lack of sufficient and timely information. This could be overcome by organising training programmes that provide them with relevant information and impart skills in articulation and lobbying. Thus, for making the most of the Amendments to the Constitution that has brought women into the panchayat, it is important to diagnose the intricacies that prevent the real empowerment of women and plan likewise.
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance
The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.
Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.
The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.
The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)