Editorial: Trigger Involvement by Respecting Rural Pragmatism

One of the better initiatives of the recent years has been the revitalisation of panchayati raj institutions in the country. One says revitalisation because village level bodies were always effective and progressive in India until the British centralised administration and decision-making and Independent India continued with the practise. These institutions lost important centuries which has compromised their relevance and effectiveness and which perhaps explains the slower than expected pace at which PRIs are gaining significance in the country. If one takes up Sikkim’s case, the situation gets slightly more complicated because although even India had a feudal setup until the British arrived, Sikkim was much smaller and the village level institutions had that much lesser room for independent thinking during the monarchy. That being said, conversations with the older generation will bear out that the villagers acquired significant influence in getting things done through collaborative efforts and at times, even lobbied strongly and had unpopular mandals replaced. But these must have been only on rare occasions and by and large, in Sikkim’s case, much damage was caused by the regressive tendencies which did not allow the village-level organisations to evolve and keep pace with time. All is visibly on the mend now. At the policy level, significant powers and responsibilities have been devolved to panchayati raj institutions and Sikkim has outperformed many other states with longer histories of village level autonomy and some panchayats in Sikkim have delivered exceptionally well. However, when it comes to institutional level competence across the board, much obviously needs to be still be done. But the whole PRI rejuvenation effort is still young, which is perhaps why even though the policy has changed and the political will expressed, the executive’s superiority complex continues to dictate activities on the ground. This attitude does not necessarily manifest from any ulterior motives and is probably a carryover of the mistaken, but widely held, urban conviction of knowing better. This approach needs to be corrected. It is offensive to think that mindsets trained in urban settings can teach anything to folks groomed on rural pragmatism. But the hand-holding instinct continues and this has atrophied the people’s ability to collaborate and devise solutions by themselves or plan with commitment because they have come to expect the government to do everything for them. This lethargy is now hurting Sikkim because although infrastructure is being created and opportunities opened up, the masses, by and large, have not extended the enterprise required to make these investments worthwhile. That requires involvement and a good place to spark such engagements would be for the powers-that-be and the powers-that-execute to convince the villages that they are free to agree, dissent, criticise and refuse not only what has been decided for them, but also what they have commissioned themselves. Once the people at the grassroots know that they are required for more than just meeting the quorum for workshops and meetings, they will take deeper interest in their own affairs and with that rediscover the strength of collaboration and deliver more instinctively on their responsibilities. Everything else – proper planning, proper gram sabhas, transparency and exact book keeping – will automatically fall into place and from that involvement could be born the civil society that Sikkim so desperately needs.