INTRODUCTION:

The decentralised planning in India was first found expression as early as in the First Five Year Plan (1951-56). It made a suggestion that planning process be undertaken at the state and district levels. Following this, District Development Council (DDC) was constituted in each district to prepare plans based on village level participatory process. The first Administrative Reforms Commission of 1967 stressed the need for meaningful planning at the district level and as a follow-up, the Planning Commission issued its first guidelines for district planning in 1969 which led to formulation of district plans by several states.

But these initiatives in due course vanished as these local planning exercises were not linked to the annual planning process in most states. Measures for district planning recommended during the sixties ignored the role of local bodies in the planning process (https://spb.kerala.gov.in/sites/default/files/inline-files/Tandem18.pdf,p.20).

The progress of decentralisation-chronology of events in India as follows such as 1) First Plan (1951-56), Community Development Blocks. To break up the planning exercises into National, State, District and local community levels, 2) Second Plan (1956-61), District Development Councils. Drawing up of Village Plans and popular participation in Planning through the process of democratic decentralisation, 3) 1957, Belwant Rai Mehta Committee. Village, Block and District, Panchayat institutions established,4) 1967, Administrative Reforms Commission. Resources to be given/local variations accommodated, purposeful Plan of the area, 5) 1969, Planning Commission. Formulated guidelines, detailed the concept of the District Plan and methodology of drawing up such a Plan in the frame work of annual Plans, medium term Plans and perspective Plans,6)1978, Prof. M.L. Dantwala. Block level Planning to form link between Village and District level Planning, 7)1983-84, CSS/ Reserve Bank of India. Strengthen District Plan/District Credit Plan, 8)1984, Hanumantha Rao Committee. Decentralisation of functions, powers and finances, setting up of District Planning bodies and District Planning cells,9)1985, GVK Rao Committee. Administrative arrangements for rural development, DP to manage all development programmes and 10)1992, 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments. Following 73rd and 74th Constitutional amendments PRIs became mandatory and all States passed PRI Act and Nagarapalika Act and elections were held (https://spb.kerala.gov.in/sites/default/files/inline-files/Tandem18.pdf,p.20).

However, following the recommendations of the Belwant Rai Mehta Committee Report, though panchayats were constituted in several states, they were not considered as a permanent feature of multi-tiered government. The grama panchayats were not able to exercise their role as independent planning units enjoying autonomy within their functional sphere owing to lack of resources at their command. From the late 1960s to mid 1980s, the trend was towards greater centralization of administration. Panchayats had, by late 1960s, been superseded in most states owing to lack of political and administrative support (https://spb.kerala.gov.in/sites/default/files/inline-files/Tandem18.pdf, p.21).

The process of formulation and implementation of centrally sponsored schemes as well as operationalisation by the line departments has not been decentralised to the local bodies, as envisaged. Though some efforts were made in the light of the recommendations of the Dantwala Committee and GVK Rao Committee, they were all unsuccessful. The 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution of India making it mandatory the establishment of a three-tier panchayat set-up at the district, block and village levels and three types of urban municipal governments envisaged a reversal of the hitherto centralized approach to district planning (https://spb.kerala.gov.in/sites/ default/files/inline-files/Tandem18.pdf,p.21).

After the replacement of the planning commission with the NITI Aayog in 2015, NITI Aayog works closely with the respective line Ministries and various development partners to fast-track progress at the district level. The districts are also encouraged to develop and replicate best practices that drive improvement across the socio-economic themes. The Aspirational Districts Programme (ADP) launched by the Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi in January 2018, aims to quickly and effectively transform 112 most under-developed districts across the country. The broad contours of the programme are Convergence (of Central & State Schemes), Collaboration (of Central, State level Nodal Officers & District Collectors), and Competition among districts through monthly delta ranking; all driven by a mass movement. With States as the main drivers, this program focuses on the strength of each district, identifying low-hanging fruits for immediate improvement and measuring progress by ranking districts on a monthly basis. The ranking is based on the incremental progress made across 49 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) under 5 broad socio-economic themes - Health & Nutrition, Education, Agriculture & Water Resources, Financial Inclusion and skill Development and Infrastructure. The delta-ranking of Aspirational Districts and the performance of all districts is available on the Champions of Change Dashboard (https://www.niti.gov.in/aspirational-districts-programme).

The Government of India is committed to raising the living standards of its citizens and ensuring inclusive growth for all – “Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas aur Sabka Vishwas”. To enable utilization of their potential, this program closely focuses on improving people’s ability to participate fully in the burgeoning economy. Districts are prodded and encouraged to first catch up with the best district within their state, and subsequently aspire to become one of the best in the country, by competing with, and learning from others in the spirit of competitive and cooperative federalism (https://www.niti.gov.in/aspirational-districts-programme).

Historical Evolution of District Administration in India:

The present system of district administration in India was the creation of British rule. The District officers appointed by the East India Company were designated as District Magistrates. In their place District Collectors were appointed in 1772 to supervise the functions of the Mohammedan District officers. The underlying reason for creating this office was that people accustomed to despotic authority should look to one master. Subsequently, the regulations of 1831 gave rise to the modern office of the Magistrate and Collector. The District Collector in the Bombay, Madras and North Western Provinces, during the period between 1818 and 1858 was the most effective and powerful ruler of the area in his charge and exercised vast discretionary powers. He was practically a local governor, exercising wide-ranging authority over his district (Akhileshwar Prasad Singh (1994), p.166).

However, in the Bengal system of district administration, the District Collector was only a revenue functionary. However, this system underwent some change in 1859. With the introduction of the Morley-Minto Reforms in the year 1909, further changes were introduced in the district administration. The District Collector remained the general representative of government in his district. He was much more than a ' Primus Inter-pares ' (first among equals) and remained as the direct agent of the British Government and to whom complaints on every conceivable matter could be addressed and through whom the government could act. Under the Government of India Act of 1919, a fundamental change occurred in the position of the District Collector; this was as a result of the reform in respect of his relations with local bodies. Undoubtedly, this change was by far the greatest (Akhileshwar Prasad Singh (1994), p.166).

The popular provincial Governments of the Congress under the Act of 1935, which introduced major programmes of rural development. In 1939, the rural uplift-cooperative movements and village panchayats had become the prime concern of the respective provincial governments. For all of them the district officer was made responsible. Besides, he had to discharge his normal duties which increased his work load enormously. It included the maddening and infructuous business of answering questions, whether put down for formal answer in the House informally or direct, the host of subjects included under the head of rural development and the labour of persuading where he had been used to command. In the changed situation of the country following Independence, in 1947, the Collector's powers, responsibilities and functions had also changed to a great extent. The changes were not only because of changes in the political system, but also a result of the emphasis placed on modernisation in administration. With the emergence of democratic forces, feudalism and paternal authority have steadily given way to modern representative systems of government. The money-economy and forces of industrialization have gradually encroached on the old pattern of life and administration (Akhileshwar Prasad Singh (1994), p.167).

It is to be noted that even though the duties, functions and responsibilities of the District Collector in India have been a subject of change from time to time, he continues to be the head of the revenue administration and responsible for levy and collection of land revenue from the farmers. He supervises the collection of nearly all kinds of government dues which comprise government loans, cooperative loans, excise revenue, mining cess and royalties, water rates, etc. However, his jurisdiction was extended, to include several new functions and responsibilities covering a wide range of areas including regulatory, development, police, magisterial, protocol and so on. As a result, the Collector became the head of the district administration as well as the 'king-pin' in the affairs of the district, both in the normal and extraordinary situations. In the event of natural calamities (drought, floods, etc.) it is on his assessment of the situation that the state government takes its decisions regarding the quantum of relief and the manner and modalities of its distribution. Under the public distribution system, the Collector heads the civil supplies machinery at the district level and is made responsible for the proper distribution of controlled and essential commodities to the consumers in the district (Akhileshwar Prasad Singh (1994), p.167).

The role of the District Collector as a coordinator of different development departments has become important with the emergence of development administration during the post-Independence period. The performance of this crucial role depends on the support he receives from the government itself. His role as coordinator of most of the functionaries at the district level is equally important. The district officers are under the obligation to consult or receive directions from the District Collector in matters affecting the development of the district. However, the role of District Collector as a coordinator in the prevailing situation depends upon his or her personality (Akhileshwar Prasad Singh (1994), p.168).

However, the present day district administration in India is a legacy of British system, which has continued throughout the country with small changes here and there. In fact, the Britishers had not copied this administrative set up from England but adopted the native system with some modifications to suit to the changed circumstances. There were two main objectives before them. The first was collection of revenue and second was consolidation of its authority in an alien land. The Britishers, therefore adopted broadly prevalent system but prepared a detailed programme for ruling a vast country (N.C. Wadhwa, IAS (2009), p.43).

Nature and Functions of District Administration in Ancient India:

Before we take up the pattern of local government in Ancient India, it must be understood that it was not the same everywhere. Like today, in the ancient districts some were small and some were large. The reasons for this were varying population, differences in growth and political conditions. If a small feudal state was merged with an empire, it became a district. On the other hand, as new provinces were acquired, these became part of adjoining districts, thus increasing latter's size. In smaller states, like Pallava, Vakataka, etc., there were no provinces. Instead, these states were directly divided into districts. However, bigger states, like the Mauryan Empire were divided into provinces which were further divided into divisions which were sub-divided into districts or vishaya and vishaya into bhuktis or pathakas. The ancient vishaya, like today's districts had in them between one and ten thousand villages. In the earliest centuries of the BC, in Kathiwar, these were called aahrni and in Central Province, Andhra and Tamil Desh, these were called rashtras. In Mauyaran times, head of the ancient vishaya was known as vishayapati. In Smrities, he is called the shahastradhip. The nadu of Tamil Desh was little smaller than district but enjoyed the same powers as vishayapati (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.226).

Like today's District Collector, the duties of the vishayapati included maintenance of law and order, peace and collection of revenue and other taxes in the district. For the efficient performance of these responsibilities he had a large number of officers under him like uktya, auktya, niuktya, vyaprat. In Gupta period, some of these were designated as gope and thereafter dhruva. For maintenance of peace and order, the vishayapati had also at his disposal, a small unit of armed forces. The district also had police officials like dandapashik and chorodhyarnik. Whether vishyapati also had judicial power is not known, may be they were heads of district judiciary. It appears that, at least in the Gupta period, the people had a substantial role in managing the district. Pratham mahajan, prtham vayasai, pratham shilpkar and pratham kayasthaya or lekhak were the main members of that council of about 20 members which assisted the vishayapati in running the district administration (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.226).

One, however, does not know whether these members were either elected or appointed, but most probably they represented respective trades or were heads of respective departments or corporations. Some old age or respectable persons were also members of the council. These members were mainly from urban areas, although a few were taken from rural areas as well. There is hardly any reference to district panchayat in the pre-Gupta or post Gupta writings. However, the 6th century Vishnukundi article on Andhra Pradesh and 9th century Rashtrakut article on Gujarat do mention members of vishyamahattar or district panchayat (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.226). By this, we can assume that the kotivarsha was working like district panchayat during Gupta period (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.227).

During the Gupta rule, the district administration was well organised. It maintained all district records like of letters, orders, correspondence and of land, including fertile and non-fertile land, under the headship of puaspatal. The correspondence with persons outside the district carried the official stamp of the district. Even purchase of land for donating it for religious purposes was not possible unless the vishyapati himself took the approval of district panchayat. Within the district, according to Manu, for administrative convenience, each of the ten villages were grouped into one vranda or gut (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.227).

Ten vranda or 100 villages formed a mandal, which were equal to tehsils or talukas' of today. A district had 10 mandals. In Mahabharat period, instead of grouping 10 villages, it was 20 and 30. Many a provinces followed this system. In the 8th and 9th century, babua and ruidh of 10 villages in Paithan district of Hyderabad princely state, sihari and sarkachha of Karpatvanijya and Butpdrak and vishaya in Gujarat were of 12 villages and sevali of Purigari vishaya in Karnataka were of 30 villages. In Vakatak state, in the 5th century, Praveshwar mandal was a group of 26 villages. During the 11th and 12th centuries, tankuup in Rajputana, dadhadika in Gujarat and sattkhand in Bundekkhand were a group of 12 villages. In the same period, it is mentioned that, nayapadrak, markala and barkhetak in Malwa had groups of 63, 84 and 126 villages, respectively. All these can be called divisions of district (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.227).

Although one cannot be sure, it can be assumed that people's bodies must have been there at the tehsil/taluka level. In Chola period, we definitely find evidence of the existence of such bodies. How these were composed is not known, but representatives of villages in nadu were definitely its members. These panchayats actively participated in the maintenance of revenue division of land. In famine, these used to approach central government for obtaining relief from the payment of land tax. Like village panchayats, the nadu panchayats also made donations and undertook maintenance of property and funds given by the people. We also find examples of the nadu panchayat deciding whether the death of a person was accidental or was it a case of murder. Where it found that it was murder, it also decided the nature of punishment to be given to the accused (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.227).

So far as the urban areas or pur were concerned, ancient India had the same pattern as today's corporations in metropolitan cities and municipalities in smaller cities. However, as ancient India was basically rural, hence their importance was not much. Most of these councils were constituted is not known but it seems these contained unanimously chosen senior and respected citizens of the city. From Gupta period, we find a detailed description of the city administration. The pur was headed by purpal appointed by the central government. They also were commanders of cities army. In some cities, they also acted as judges. In all, such persons were chosen for purpal's position who combined both capabilities, i.e., of heading the army and were knowledgeable (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.228).

For assisting the purpal in the administration, there used to be a non-official body known as gothi, panchkul or chaukari which had representatives of all vocations and professions. Sometimes, the pur was divided into wards or areas and these sent their representatives. How they were elected is not known, but, it appears that popularly respected persons were inducted into them. This body also elected or constituted an executive committee whose members kept on changing after an year. The functions of the executive committee included collection of taxes, receipt and disposal of public money and overseeing religious funds and public funds. In brief, these carried various functions related to urban government (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.228).

To assist the executive committee, there were regular salaried employees who used to sit at a regular office where records were kept. A designated official collected local taxes which was the main source of local income, although, at times, he was also charged with the task of collecting central taxes. Where there were many foreigners, the executive committee formed a sub committee to take care of them as also keep a watch on them. There was also a sub committee to keep a record of births and deaths. In industrial areas, there was a sub committee for looking after production. Two other sub-committees decided minimum wages of workers, inspection of markets, ensure sale of pure and unadulterated items and collected taxes from businessmen. At many places, there was a sub-committee for public works which took care of public construction work (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.228).

From ancient times, the villages in India have been the core of administration. These acquired more importance in an era when means of transport were very slow and there were hardly any factories or machines. As already mentioned, in ancient India's life, urban areas were few and were not considered important. As today District Collectors are called to discuss about issues related to the district administration, in ancient times it was the heads of the villages who were summoned for this work. The village (grama) administration was run by the head of the village, known as gramik, gramunda, gramyak, gramkuut, pattakeel, gavund, mahattak, mahantak or munund (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.228).

A village had one head whose position was hereditary, but the government had power to appoint someone else from the same family, if the one in succession was found to be incapable. Possibly, he was not a Brahmin. Since he also was the commander of the village army, he was usually a kshtriya, although at times vaishyas also managed to get this post. The village head was the most important position in the administration of a village. His tasks included the protection of village and acting as head of the village volunteers group and security personnel (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.228).In those times, this was an important function due to difficulties in transport if a group of dacoits suddenly attacked the village, the government was not able to provide speedy help, hence the villagers had to defend their village themselves. There are scores of examples of the village volunteers and the head of the village sacrificing their life for the protection of the village (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.229).

The next important function of the village head was to collect taxes imposed by the government. All important documents and letters were kept in his custody. He collected taxes with help of gram panchayat. He was also the ex-officio member of the gram panchayat and he decided what matters relating to the village shall be considered by the gram panchayat and the entire proceedings of the gram panchayat were conducted as per his direction. He was so influential, that he was like a parent of the village people. Although he was responsible to the government of the day, he was basically people's man and was always forthcoming for protecting the interests of the village people. He was as important for the village as he was for the state (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.229).

There was an office of the village where all documents relating to collection of state taxes, sale and purchase of land or its ownership were kept and maintained. It also kept copies of correspondence with the government and the district officials as also resolutions passed by the gram panchayat. Usually, all good family heads of the village had a right to sit in the gram panchayat. Hence often its membership was quite large. Therefore, it must have been forming an executive committee to run the day-to-day administration of the village. The gram panchayat, apart from working as a council was also a forum for discussion and resolution of social matters (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.229). In the later period, we find that some gram panchayats formed sub-committees for performing different tasks assigned to them. These included sub committees to look after village gardens, ponds and village water works, schools, resolution of conflicts between people, measurement and classification of taxable land and determining the value and price of gold (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.229).

The gram panchayat was responsible for collection of land taxes. It also provided for relief in land taxes during famine. All non fertile land of the village belonged to the panchayat and the state sold them only with the consent of panchayat. Its most important job was resolving village disputes. Serious disputes did not fall under its jurisdiction, but cases of death were adjudicated by the panchayat. However, in civil matters, there was no limit to panchayat's power which could decide disputes relating to property up to thousands of rupees. Gram panchayat also took care of the temples, by way of overseeing their repairs and worship related activities (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.229).

They also maintained donations made by the people and spent them as per the will of the donor. They could also exempt a land form land tax by collecting a lump sum money and recovering that land tax from the interest earned from that lump sum money. At the time of famine, the gram sabha could mortgage all public land for taking loan to help the affected masses. Gram sabha or gram panchayat also took up plans for public welfare. For improving agricultural production of the village the forest and non-fertile land was converted into land which was fit for agricultural production. Maintenance of roads was also within their purview. These also-looked after the construction and maintenance of canals, wells, orphanages, hospitals and nursing homes, and ponds. At times the gram sabha got dharma shalas constructed. However, this does not mean that the gram sabha was only concerned only with the physical development of the people. It also encouraged activities related to cultural and educational development by opening schools and instituting scholarships (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.230).

Perspectives of Democratic Decentralization and Local Governance in India:

India’s journey to new local governance has had a chequered history. There is no denying that India has the oldest tradition of local governance as the Panchayats or village councils have existed since ancient times. They were mainly the ‘informal bodies of village elders from dominant castes and families’, assigned with various kinds of functions like provision of goods and services, maintenance of law and order, general welfare of villagers, and so on. These bodies enjoy a substantial amount of autonomy in terms of organization, functions and finance, bestowed upon them by village communities. Village communities had exercised virtually unmatched freedom of action in all spheres of governance (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand (2012), p.269).

The uniqueness of this form of governance was that it was an absolutely spontaneous development and no external authority had ever devolved power and authority to these bodies. Moreover, there was no uniform pattern of this form of governance as these village communities had no uniform pattern of organization. The successive Muslim invasions in India and consequent beginnings of Muslim rule had very little impact on the functioning of these village communities. Even the Mughals, who had brought almost entire subcontinent under one rule for the first time was not in the mood of unravelling the localized form of governance. Instead, they were mainly preoccupied with police and revenue matters and settled them with the village headmen. Hence, the arrangement continued unaltered till middle of the seventeenth century, despite several political vicissitudes at the central level (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand (2012), p.269).

Even at the advent of British rule in India during the nineteenth century, this indigenous form of local governance was very much there. Sir Charles Metcalfe’s famous portrayal of this form of local governance before the Select Committee of the House of Commons bears a clear testimony of this great tradition of local governance prevalent in ancient India. In his words: The village communities are little republics, having nearly everything they can want within themselves, and almost independent of any foreign relations. They seem to last where nothing else lasts. Dynasty after dynasty tumbles down; revolution succeeds to revolution; but the village community remains the same. This union of the village communities, each one forming a separate little state, in itself, has I conceive, contributed more than any other cause to the preservation of the people of India, through all the revolutions and changes which they have suffered, and is in a high degree conducive to their enjoyment of a great portion of freedom and independence (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand (2012), p.269).

But, there was no serious attempt as such to unlock the huge potential of these little village republics, either by the colonial rulers or by the post-colonial state, except a few polemics and individual efforts by a few visionary thinkers like Tagore and Gandhi. The colonial rulers in India did absolutely nothing to resurrect these ‘little village republics’. The colonial intervention in local governance was primarily driven by the twin motive of empire building and mercantilism. The colonizers had adopted a selective approach regarding local governance. In fact, in order to strengthen their objective of empire building, they built urban ‘centres’ like Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras and left the rest of the country as a ‘periphery’, serving the ‘centre’ without having any kind of development. They were only allowed to feed on the subsistence economy of their hinterlands. Hence, the introduction of local government in rural areas through the Bengal Village Chowkidari Act, 1870, was far from the spirit of self-governing institutions (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.270).

The underlying objective was solely to serve the interest of the Empire. The act was introduced at a time when the Empire was reeling under severe challenges of governance in the wake of the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. The colonial rulers had realized the danger of leaving sensitive issues like governing at the hands of the East India Company and took over the charge of the subcontinent in 1858. The Bengal Village Chowkidari Act, 1870, should therefore be viewed as the desperate effort on the part of the Empire to fortify British rule in India. The rural local government was mainly an offshoot of the act. The real intention was to strengthen the economic and the security aspects of the Empire as the law had authorized the village Panchayats to mop up local taxes for maintaining village Chowkidars and also to set up reliable intelligence mechanism deep into the countryside to keep a tab on the activities of the people (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand (2012), p.270).

Naturally, whatever little rural reconstruction and urban development was done during the period was basically a part of their housekeeping functions. The British colonial state as a part of its housekeeping functions had adopted several constitutional measures to streamline local self government. Notable among them were the Ripon Resolution, 1882; the Bengal Local Self-Government Act, 1885; the Bengal Village Self-Government Act, 1919; among others. Out of the said measures, the Bengal Village Self-Government Act of 1919 may be regarded as the beginning of local self-government in India, providing a two-tier structure—union boards at the bottom level and district boards at the higher level(Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand (2012), p.271).

However, those self-governing structures were neither self nor local as those bodies were marked by the perennial resource crunch, over-bureaucratization, and dominance of local landed gentry. They remained as mere appendage of provincial government. Independence had brought a shift in power structure, but not in the attitude regarding local governance. Despite repeated advocacy of Mahatma Gandhi for Gram Swaraj, it remained a far cry even in Independent India. Inheriting the colonial mind set regarding local governance, the framers of the Constitution had belied the hope of strong and vibrant local governance by confining it to a non-enforceable section of the Constitution, that is, the Directive Principles of the State Policy. In this context, the comments of two major architects of modern Indian Constitution merit some space here as they adequately mirror the said elitist mentality, which prevented local governance in India the status it deserved in the Constitution(Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.271).

Ambedkar had argued that the love of the intellectual Indian for the village community is of course infinite if not pathetic. It is largely due to the fulsome praise bestowed upon it by Metcalfe who described that they want within themselves and almost independent of any foreign relation … That they have survived through all vicissitudes may be a fact. But mere survival has no value. The question is on what plane they have survived. Surely on a low on a selfish level. I told that these village republics have been the ruination of India. I am therefore surprised that those who condemn provincialism and communalism should come forward as champions of the village. What is the village but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and Communalism? (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.271).

Almost in similar vein, Nehru wrote ‘I do not understand why a village should necessarily embody truth and non-violence. A village, normally speaking, is backward intellectually and culturally and no progress can be made from a backward environment. Narrow-minded people are much more likely to be untruthful and violent’. Thanks to the above sentiment, India’s dream of inclusive local governance had to wait almost four decades before it was finally materialized in 1993. In the meantime, there had been a few pioneering efforts, but they were mostly selective in nature, confined to provincial level. Notable among them were the Balwantrai Mehta Committee, Ashok Mehta committee, the democratic decentralization experiments by a handful of state governments like West Bengal, Karnataka, Kerala, and so on(Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.272).

The Balwantrai Mehta Committee (1957) was the first major headway in institutionalizing Panchayats came from an apparently non-related study by the team for the Study of Community Projects and National Extension Service in 1957, popularly christened after the name of its Chairman, Balwantrai Mehta. Though the study was originally intended to assess community development initiatives and to recommend improvement measures thereon, the findings, however, suggested the necessity of strengthening Panchayats for institutionalizing community participation in Community Development Programme (CDP).

The committee had recommended a three-tier system of rural local government, such as village Panchayats at the village level, the Panchayat Samiti at the intermediate level, and Zilla Parishad at the district level, with Panchayat Samitis being the most effective body. However, the Balwantrai Mehta Committee report failed to rejuvenate Panchayats as the institutions of local governance. A couple of factors could have been identified for that. First, the motive behind the study was more to legitimize central government led development programmes than to establish Panchayats as a real body of community participation. Second, the embedded elitist apathy regarding Panchayats among the government and administration was also factored in the failure of Balwantrai Mehta Committee (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012), p.272).

Another committee, which deserves special mention in the evolution of rural local government in India was the Ashok Mehta Committee (1978). This committee was appointed to inquire into the working of Panchayati Raj Institutions and to suggest measures to strengthen them. The Ashok Mehta Committee felt that a combination of factors had conspired to undermine Panchayati Raj Institutions such as an unsympathetic bureaucracy, absence of political will, lack of involvement in planning and implementation on a substantial scale and the domination of local institutions by the economic and social rural elite. The committee underscored the functional necessity of decentralization and recommended a two-tier system of Panchayati Raj Institution. The committee also recommended that the district should be the basic unit since it was a viable administrative unit for which planning, coordination, and resource allocation were feasible and for which technical expertise was available(Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.273).

The Ashok Mehta Committee was the first to demand constitutional recognition for Panchyats. The committee even drafted a model bill, which they appended with the report, seeking an amendment to the Constitution along these lines. The Janta Party did not stay in power long enough to implement the decisions of the Ashok Mehta Committee, and reportedly, in an initial meeting, the recommendations of the committee were not received well by the state governments. However, the influence of the report of this committee had been significant. In fact, the states of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and West Bengal passed new legislations based on the Ashok Mehta Committee Report. Apart from the above governmental committees, a few state governments like West Bengal and Kerala have done a commendable job in strengthening Panchayati Raj Institutions (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand (2012), p.273).

Rural Local Government (Panchayati Raj Institutions)

Decentralization is considered to be the most sought after prescription for ushering in good governance. India had embarked on the ambitious decentralization initiatives in the 1990s via a couple of landmark amendments to the Constitution, namely, the 73rd and 74th Constitution Amendment Acts, to reinforce local democracy by empowering local self-governing institutions, both at the rural and urban areas. The decentralization experimentations in India, popularly known as ‘democratic decentralization’ has enabled self-governing institutions both in rural and urban areas to play a pivotal role in the provision of public services, creation and maintenance of public goods, and planning and implementation of developmental activities (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand (2012), p.254). However, Panchayati Raj Institutions are the institutionalized pan-Indian form of rural local governance that came into existence with the passage of the 73rd Constitution Amendment Act, 1992. The act has heralded a three-tier structure of rural local governance such as Gram Panchayat at the bottom level, Panchayat Samiti at the intermediate level, and Zilla Parishad at the district highest level (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.276).

The 73^rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 is considered to be a watershed in the history of local government in India. It has virtually salvaged the age-old tradition and institution of local governance from a dependent status to one of self-reliance by conferring the much-coveted constitutional status on it. Until the passage of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, states were the only subnational units, officially recognized by the Indian Constitution. The provision for local government remained under the state list and hence there was no uniform pattern of it across the country. The act has heralded three-tier Panchayati Raj Institutions across the country. The functional domain of rural local bodies was limited largely to the provision of some core services such as water supply, sanitation, local roads, and so on. The ‘developmental’ activities were limited to the role of implementing developmental schemes sponsored by either central or state governments. The passage of the act has empowered the local bodies to formulate and implement development plans of their own (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.276).

The legislative origins of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act can be traced back to the 64th Constitutional Amendment Bill, which was introduced in the Parliament in 1989 by the government of the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. The introduction of the Bill was perhaps the first attempt to confer constitutional status on rural local governments. Though the Bill failed to clear the test of the Rajya Sabha, its broader objective of reviving the country’s century old institution of rural local self-government was highly appreciated. The major reservation against the said Bill was that it provided a very little space for the state governments regarding local governance. However, after much deliberation the issue of conferring constitutional status on rural local governments came into being with the passage of the 73rd Constitution Amendment Act, 1992(Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand (2012), p.276).

Though the manifest reason behind the act was to bring about an efficient delivery mechanism for development, there were serious political compulsions before the political leadership to bring forward the issue of local democracy. The decades of 1970s and 1980s had witnessed several anti-establishment movements on the basis of ethnic, religious and linguistic identities across the country. The militant secessionist movements of north-eastern states, Punjab, and northern hilly tract of West Bengal, as also the demand for separate statehood in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh had challenged the credibility of Indian state to govern. Under the circumstance, sharing the power with communities at the grass-roots level was conceived as a desperate attempt to release the mounting pressure on the Indian state. Moreover, this policy of decentralization was hailed because that would substantially downsize the powers of the opposition-ruled recalcitrant and demanding state governments and establish a direct linkage with district collectors and the Panchayat Raj bodies, bypassing state governments. Whatever be the motive behind the constitutionalization of Panchayats, the act has changed the very contour of local governance at the rural level (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.277).

Some of the redeeming features of the 73^rd act are as follows: 1) The act has heralded a three-tier Pachayati Raj Institutions with Zilla Parishad at the top, the Panchayats Samitis at the intermediate level, and Panchayats at the bottom. 2) The act has clearly devolved power, authority, and responsibilities to rural local bodies to enable them to function as the institutions of self-government (Article 243G),3) The act has made it mandatory for all levels of Panchayati Raj Institutions to conduct periodic elections every five years. In case of early or premature dismissal of the Panchayati Raj Institution, elections are to be held within a period of six months, with the newly elected members serving out the remainder of the five-year term (Article 243E)(Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.277),4) The act has also made provisions for the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in all Panchayats at all levels in proportion to their respective shares in the Panchayat concerned. In addition to that, the act has also made mandatory reservation of one-third of all seats in all Panchayats at all level for women, of which one-third to be reserved for the women belonging to SCs and STs. The constitutional provision for the reservation of seats for SC and ST also extends to position of Panchayat chairperson at all three tiers and one-third mandatory reservation is earmarked for them(Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.278).

5)The act has stipulated the constitution of a state level Election Commission to ensure free and fair elections in local bodies, 6) The act has also empowered the state government to constitute another independent state-level commission, that is, the Finance Commission, for a five-year review of the overall financial position of local bodies and recommend principles that should govern the allocation of funds and taxation authority to local bodies. The governor of the state is entrusted with the power of constituting the finance commission, which will review the financial positions of the Panchayats and make recommendations thereon to the governor and 7) The act has also made provision for the constitution of Gram Sabha, the body of the electorate of the Gram Panchayats and established a more direct channel of people’s participation. The underlying rationale was that the Gram Sabha would function as a fulcrum of developmental process, where the community would participate both at the formulation and the implementation of developmental plans. Moreover, this body would function as organs of local accountability and oversight (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.278).

The 11th Schedule (Art 243G) has been added which gives the list of twenty-nine functions to be performed by Panchayati Raj Institutions. According to Article 243(G) of the Act, ‘Panchayats shall be given powers and authority to function as institutions of self government’. This would be done by delegating powers and responsibilities to Panchayats at the appropriate level such as (a) preparation of plan for economic development and social justice and (b) implementation of scheme for economic development. Article 243(H) authorizes a Panchayat to levy, collect and appropriate taxes, tolls, and fees. These two articles clearly lay out the powers, authority, and responsibilities of Panchayats vis-à-vis state governments. They empower rural local bodies to play pivotal role in the provision of public services, creation and maintenance of local public goods, and planning and implementation of developmental activities and programmes to alleviate poverty and promote distributive equality (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand (2012),p.279).The key objective of the panchayat is to balance the two values of citizen participation and service delivery. These are the basic goals of decentralised democracy envisaged in the Report of Balvantray Mehta Study Team (1957) and the subsequent 73^rd amendment to the Constitution of India. The amendment arguably envisions citizen participation within service delivery (V.N. Alok(edited),(2013),p.1).

Urban Local Government Administration (Urban Local bodies)

The history of urban governance in India begins in 1687; followed by the formation of Madras Municipal Corporation (1688), and thereafter, Calcutta and Bombay Municipal Corporations were formed in 1726. Most of the urban towns were converted into Municipalities during the 19th century. In 1882 the Viceroy of India, Lord Ripon who is popularly known as the father of local self-government, passed a resolution of local self-governance, which eventually led to the evolution of the democratic form of municipal governance in India. According to the 1991 census, the urban local bodies are classified into the four major categories, namely Municipal Corporation, Municipality, Town Area Committee, and Notified Area Committee. As per the Constitution of India, the 74th Amendment act of 1992, the categories of towns are to be designated as Municipalities or Nagar Panchayath with elected bodies (Integrated Rural Technology Centre, p.1)

The structure and function unlike rural governance, urban governance is not hierarchical. Article 243Q of the 74th Amendment Act, 1992 (came in force in 1993), stipulated that there shall be three types of urban local bodies in India, namely, the Nagar Panchayat, for the transitional areas; municipal councils or municipalities for smaller urban areas; and municipal corporations for larger urban areas. State governments are allowed to design their own municipal acts in accordance with the broad parameters outlined in the 74th Amendment Act (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.283).

Article 243W of the Constitution of India deals with the ‘power, authority and responsibilities of municipalities’, which clearly lays out the functions of municipality including the list of functions enumerated in the 12th Schedule. The details of these functions are stipulated in the 12th Schedule of the Constitution. These are urban planning, including town planning; regulation of land-use and construction of buildings; planning for economic and social development; roads and bridges; water supply for domestic, industrial, and commercial purpose; public health, sanitation, conservancy, and solid waste management; fire services; urban forestry, protection of the environment, and promotion of ecological aspects; safeguarding the interests of weaker sections of society, including the handicapped and mentally challenged; slum improvement and upgradation; urban poverty alleviation; provision of urban amenities and facilities such as parks, gardens, and playgrounds; promotion of cultural, educational, and aesthetic aspects; burials and burial grounds; cremations, cremation grounds, and electric crematoriums; cattle pounds; prevention of cruelty to animals; vital statistics including registration of births and deaths; public amenities including street lighting, parking lots, bus stops, and public conveniences; and regulation of slaughter houses and tanneries(Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand (2012),p.284).

The 74th Amendment Act, 1992:

The 74th Amendment Act, 1992 has ushered in a new phase of urban governance in India. However, it has a striking similarity with the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992. This act is incorporated in Article 243, Part-IX A, of the Indian Constitution. The major provisions of the act are as follows: 1)Urban local bodies, to be known as Municipal Corporation, Municipal Councils, and Nagar Panchayat depending on the population, shall be constituted through Universal Adult Franchise in each notified urban area of the country; 2) these shall be constituted for a period of five years; 3) not less than one-third of total number of seats in each urban local body shall be reserved for women; 4) these bodies shall be endowed with power and authority to formulate and implement schemes for economic development and social justice on eighteen subjects(Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand (2012),p.284).

5)in order that the urban local bodies can perform the functional assigned to them, the legislature of a state shall assign them specific taxes, duties, tolls, and levies and authorize them to impose, collect, and appropriate the same; 6)each state shall also constitute a finance commission which shall review the financial position of the urban local bodies and recommend the principles which should govern the devolution of resources including grant-in-aid from the consolidated fund of the state of these bodies(Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand (2012),p.284),7)the superintendence, direction, and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all election to the urban local bodies shall vest in the State Election Commission; 8) the act has made provision for the constitution of Ward Committee in all municipalities with a population of 3 lakhs and more; and 9) District Planning Committee and Metropolitan Planning Committee shall be constituted to prepare a development plan(Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.285).

The 74th Amendment Act, thus, gives a constitutional status to the municipalities. It seeks to redefine their role, power, function, and finances. This has ushered in a new era of urban governance and urban management in India. The act is significant because apart from the traditional functions it has also allocated the municipal bodies the function of economic development and social justice, which suggests their elevation from mere instrumentalities for ‘agency functions’ to responsible bodies for development planning. The provision of state-level finance commission is a landmark step in the direction of providing financial autonomy to the urban local bodies. Reservation of seats, especially for women, ensures the participation of socially deprived sections of society. The new act has become an instrument of political education. In the context of urban politics, people are learning to organize, to question established patterns of authority, to demand their rights, to resist corruption and so on. This learning process enhances their preparedness not only for local democracy alone, but also for political participation in general (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.285).

The 74th Amendment Act has surely revived the urban local bodies of India, but they still face a number of problems. The first and most serious problem facing the urban local bodies is the acute scarcity of finance. In the absence of proper funds, powers become meaningless because the same cannot be translated into real efforts and outcomes. The new act provides for the constitution of a State Finance Commission to look into the financial sources of local bodies, but the recommendations of the commission are not binding on the respective states. People’s participation in urban bodies is still negligible. A major cause of this attitude is that people look towards the municipal bodies with inherent suspicion and take it for granted that their problems and grievances will not be taken care of. Moreover, like the 11th Schedule, there is no clear demarcation of functions between different local units of the urban local government, leaving it to the respective state. This has given the states the liberty to impose their own choices in this regard, which has at times created more confusion than order, regarding what is to be delegated and what is not (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.286).

In the changing scenario, the urban local bodies need to exclusively devote themselves to the task of development, and therefore should enjoy a large measure of autonomy. But the ground reality depicts a contrary picture. Criticizing the 74th Amendment Act, Nirmal Mukherjee argues that ‘it is almost a carbon copy of the 73rd Amendment Act’ and ‘a hasty afterthought’. Comparing with the 73rd Amendment Act he further notes that ‘it looks as if some independent thinking went into the panchayat law and then, one day, the municipality-wallahs suddenly woke up and said “we too, please” and were simply served the panchayat dish with municipal sauce’. Second, it ‘thoughtlessly constitutionalizes as artificial dichotomy between rural and urban when all previous thinking has stressed a continuum between the two’ . Another myopia with the act is that of the ‘panchayats for rural areas’ bias or panchayats are locked into a ‘rural only’ bind (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand (2012),p.286).

Nature and Functions of District Administration in Modern India:

Why the role of district collector as an administrator at the district top level is very significant for doing developmental works compare to other offices at the same district top level?. The District as a key unit of overall administration continued during modern India as well. The East India Company appointed its own officials at the district level for collection of revenue. With this objective, in 1872 Warren Hastings created the office of Collector who also performed judicial duties. Lord Cornwallis was not in favour of devolving executive, revenue and judicial powers in one single person, i.e. the Collector. Hence during his period, revenue and judicial functions were taken away from the Collector and he was left with executive functions only. This system continued until India became independent in 1947 (C.P. Barthwal (2014),p.230). Even after independence, the district remained the focal point of Indian administration. All welfare activities of the government are actually performed at the district level. The district becoming the hub of all planning and development functions of the country has led to overburdening of functions performed at the district level. Even then the districts in India are busy in nation building activities at the local level (C.P. Barthwal(2014),p.230).

Every inch of the entire Indian territory is part of some district and for the country's masses the Collector is the government. The activities of the district administration are quite extensive which affect lakhs of people. Over the years, the introduction of democratic decentralisation and panchayati raj has brought about some basic changes in the objectives of district administration. The central and state governments can not implement their policies from the headquarters, therefore a state is divided into units like divisions and districts (C.P. Barthwal (2014), p.230). The real functions of the government are performed only at the district level. It is at this level that the plans of the government are converted into action. The people also evaluate the performance of any programme on the basis of how skill fully it was implemented at the district level. They do not evaluate a programme as to how it was prepared by the ministers, secretaries or heads of the departments. Hence the district administration is more in direct touch with the people than any other level of government and, therefore, the role of the district administration becomes very important in the life of the masses (C.P. Barthwal(2014),p.230).

The main functions of the district administration are such as public security, protecting all rights of the people, maintenance of law and order and administration of civil and criminal justice. It also collects land revenue, agricultural tax, production tax, entertainment tax and other taxes imposed at the district level. It looks after the administration of district treasury, land-improvement, land-management, land acquisition, land records, chakbandi (rearrangement of landholdings among different owners of a land in a manner so that the land holdings of individual/family, instead of being scattered, become consolidated at one place), and to make people aware of their rights and responsibilities. These are some of the basic functions of the district administration (C.P. Barthwal(2014),p.231).

Due to development programmes and public welfare policies of the government, there has been an extensive and speedy increase in the administrative functions. The government is running many programmes in the areas of land, cooperative and industry. As per wish of the government and for the satisfaction of people of the district, the district administration executes all these programmes with full zeal. The government has started special welfare programmes for children, women and disabled people. The district administration ensures people's participation in the execution of these programmes. It is the duty of the district administration to see that essential items do reach the people (C.P. Barthwal (2014),p.231).

This is because substantial number of the Indian population lives in distant villages where due to absence of adequate means of transport essential commodities like oil and salt are not able to reach. The district administration plays a major role in arranging essential commodities for these deprived sections. During natural disasters like floods, earthquakes and fire, the district administration plays a major role. Even in normal times, the role of the district administration does not become less for the masses. In brief, the district administration has always remain as friend and guide of the people(C.P. Barthwal(2014),p.231).

The implementation of the Five Year Plans have enhanced the responsibilities of the district administration. The additional personnel located in the district by the development departments for carrying out Five Year Plans and other development activities have been a source of strength to the district administration. The head of the district is known as District Magistrate, District Officer, District Collector, or Deputy Commissioner. He is the kingpin of the entire administration. The district police, industry, agriculture, education, medical and health, public health, electricity, etc., are all under him. He is the key representative of the government in the district. His office is in direct touch with the government. He belongs to the Indian Administrative Service. While the British Collectors viewed themselves as uncrowned sovereigns and people as mere subjects, the post-independence IAS officers were full of enthusiasm and idealism for the betterment of the people(C.P. Barthwal(2014),p.231).

The objective of the government today is the welfare of the masses and therefore, the Collector has become the general manager of the district. As Collector, his foremost task is the assessment and collection of land revenue. He also arranges for the collection and recovery of irrigation dues; income tax dues; agricultural dues; canal dues; taqavi (taqavi consists of loans for assisting agricultural production) loans; distress taqavi; sales tax; court fees; revenue stamps; and excise duty on various commodities, such as, liquor, drugs, petrol, etc. He, in consultation with his subordinate officials, assesses the amount of relief required in case of an agricultural calamity, estimating the amount to be given to each individual and how to recover it(C.P. Barthwal (2014),p.231).

There might be situations when a complete recovery of loan is not possible. In such cases, he consults the state government for relaxations that can be given. In case of a famine, extensive relief works, opening of relief camps, distribution of seeds and capital, supplying cattle and agricultural implements, and remission or suspension of land revenue or rents are taken up by the Collector and his staff. Land acquisition for housing schemes, development projects, slum clearance, etc., is another responsibility of the Collector. He reports to the government the discovery of any treasure, its nature and value. The district treasury is under his control. He arranges the preparation and maintenance of land records. This includes execution of land reforms, and administration of nazul lands. He is the custodian of the government estates, government land, forests, waterways, etc. He also hears appeals in revenue cases against the orders of the lower courts. To assist in all these functions, he has a whole hierarchy of staff under him, such as, Sub-Divisional Officers, Naib Tehsildars, Patwaris, Kanungos etc(C.P. Barthwal (2014),p.232).

As District Magistrate, he is responsible for maintenance of law and order in the district. For this there is a police force in the district, with Superintendent of Police as its head, under the control and supervision of the District Magistrate. As an agent of the judiciary, he ensures the execution of writs and orders of civil and criminal courts. The district jail is under his general control. As a co-coordinator, he holds periodic meetings of officers of various agencies posted in the district and remove bottlenecks in coming in their way. He is crisis administrator. During emergencies like natural calamities, riots, fires, communal disharmony, etc., he takes care of the district(C.P. Barthwal(2014),p.232).

After the initiation of development planning in India, the development role of the Collector has become the focal point. He is ex-officio chairman of the District Rural Development Agency. He, along with his staff, is responsible for the implementation of various rural development schemes, such as, Desert Development Programme, Drought Area Programme, Training the Rural Youth for Self-Employment (TRYSEM), National Rural Employment Programme, Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas and Samagra Gram Vikas Programme, etc(C.P. Barthwal(2014),p.232).

In some states, there is provision of a District Development Officer, who is also an IAS, to look after these activities. Besides these, he functions as the District Census Officer, Chief Returning Officer for all elections, represents the district on all ceremonial occasions, receives VIPs and dignitaries visiting the district, supervises the working of municipalities, ensures that there is no shortage of essential commodities, maintains regular contact with military authorities in the district, and makes regular tours of the entire district, especially villages, for knowing people's grievances and problems. Other officers at the district level are such as District and Sessions Judge, Civil Surgeon or Chief Medical Officer, Superintendent of Police, Executive Engineer of Public Works Department, District Education Officer, District Food and Supply Officer, District Social Welfare Officer, etc(C.P. Barthwal(2014),p.232).

Each district is divided into tehsils, each headed by a Tehsildar. Below it, is a pargana headed by a Kanungo and at the lowest level is the village. Headed by a Patwari or Lekhpal. The district is also dotted with elected local bodies, both at the urban and rural levels. In urban areas these bodies are known as the Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats, These prepare plans for economic development and social justice; implementation of schemes entrusted to them; urban and town planning; regulation of land use and construction of buildings; planning for economic and social development; construction of roads and bridges; water supply; public health, sanitation, conservancy and solid waste management; provision of fire services; protection of environment and promotion of ecological aspects; safeguarding the interests of the weaker sections of the society; slum improvement; urban poverty alleviation; provision of urban amenities like parks, gardens, play grounds, etc.; promotion of cultural, educational and aesthetic aspects; provision of burial/cremation grounds; establishment of cattle ponds; prevention of cruelty to animals; maintaining vital statics of the district; registration of births and deaths; provision of public amenities like street lighting, parking lots, bus stops and public conveniences; and regulation of slaughter houses and tanneries(C.P. Barthwal(2014),p.233).

At the rural level, there is a three-tier structure of panchayati raj bodies named differently in differently in different states. The lowest tier is usually called Village Panchayat or Gram Panchayat. The intermediate tier is named Kshetra Panchayat or Block Panchayat. Finally, the highest tier is known as Zila Parishad or District Panchayat. These have powers in the areas of agriculture and agricultural extension; land improvement and soil conservation; minor irrigation and water management; animal husbandry, dairing and poultry; fishries; social and farm forestry; minor forest produce; small scale industries; khadi, village and cottage industries; rural housing; drinking water; fuel and fodder; roads, culverts, bridges, ferries, waterways, etc.; rural electrification; non-conventional energy sources; poverty alleviation programme; education; technical and vocational training and education; adult and non-formal education; libraries; cultural activities; markets and fairs; health and sanitation, including hospitals, primary health centres and dispensaries; family welfare; women and child development; social welfare; welfare of weaker sections; public distribution system; and maintenance of public assets. Finally, there are Cantonment Boards to take care of civilian population living in the Army cantonments (C.P. Barthwal(2014),p.233).

However, the district administration has remained important since ancient times. Its importance increased more during the British period. After independence, it not only remained so but there has been a tremendous increase in the nature of welfare functions it performs. The ancient district had officials who were appointed by the king or emperor either on hereditary principle of or as per his own sweet will. Merit system was not there. Today's district officials are all appointed on merit through a fair and impartial entrance examination and/or interview (C.P. Barthwal(2014),p.233).

Moreover, the ancient districts lacked elected content. Whatever councils or so-called people's bodies were there, all contained members who were nominated because they were either aged or evinced popular respect of the area's population. Elected content was also somewhat missing during the British India. However, in the post-independent India, following the democratic tradition, the district contains elected local bodies, both at the urban and rural levels. The 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution of India have made elected component more pronounced by making for a provision for direct election of many officials who were earlier indirectly elected and making it possible for hitherto deprived sections of the society, like women, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes(C.P. Barthwal(2014),p.234).

There has been major enhancement of district functions in the modern India as compared to ancient India. The districts in ancient India performed only few functions, perhaps because life then was very simple and people had very little needs. Moreover, at times, the states were so small that these could dispose of many district level functions themselves. Finally, all powers were centralised in the king or central government. In contrast, in modern India, more so after independence, as we accepted the principles of democracy, welfare state and decentralisation there has been a tremendous increase in the number of functions performed at the district level (C.P. Barthwal(2014),p.234).

After India’s independence, during the last few years, there have been a number of major initiatives taken by various states and local governments in India towards ushering in information technology in the functioning of government. The emphasis has been on providing better services to citizens and improving the internal productivity of the departments and the line departments at the district level (Suresh Misra and Devendra Singh (2009),127). The district administration is now responsible for maintaining a lawful regulated environment conducive for development activities(U.B. Singh(2009),p.150).

The developmental role of district administration focuses on agriculture production, co-operation, animal husbandry and fisheries and welfare activities like community development programmes, public health, education and other social welfare activities like elimination of poverty and development of human beings and material resources. The tasks concerning local bodies cover the functions which are concerned with the administration of local bodies. The district administration supervises and exercises control over municipal bodies and panchayats in urban and rural areas respectively. The district administration hears the complaints of the people and redress their grievances (Manjusha Sharma and Monika Dara (2009),p.188).

CONCLUSION:

The nature and functions of District Administration has been significantly changed and increased from ancient to the present modern times in India. The role of the District Collector as a coordinator of different development departments at district level has become important with the emergence of development administration during the post-independence period in India.The main criticism against the District Administration is that while taking decisions it has been following casteism and corruption still exists at the District Administration at the district head quarters level and the rest of other parts of the district administration in India. So, both casteism and corruption should be completely eliminated for the smooth functioning of district administration throughout India.

REFERENCES:

1. https://spb.kerala.gov.in/sites/default/files/inline-files/Tandem18.pdf,p.20

2. https://www.niti.gov.in/aspirational-districts-programme

3. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh. The Changing Role of Collector and District Magistrate. The Indian Journal of Political Science. 1994; 55(2): 166-172.

4. N.C. Wadhwa. Modernization and Re-structuring of District Administration.In S.S.Chahar(edited). District Administration in India: In the Era of Globalization. New Delhi.Concept Publishing Company. 2009.

5. C.P. Barthwal. Nature Of District Administration In Ancient And Modern India: A Comparative Analysis. The Indian Journal of Political Science. 2014; 75(2): 221- 236

6. Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand. Public Administration in a Globalizing World: Theories and Practices. New Delhi. Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd. 2012. https://pdfdrive.to/pdfs/public-administration-in-a-globalizing-world-theories-and-practices-pdf

7. V.N. Alok. Panchayats and Rural Development in India: Changing Role. New Delhi. Indian Institute of Public Administration. 2013.

8. Integrated Rural Technology Centre. ‘Impact Assessment of KILA Training Programme on capacity building for Urban Local Body Officials’. Palakkad. http://dspace.kila.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/496/1/UrbanLocalBody.pdf

9. Suresh Misra and Devendra Singh. District and E-Governance: Restructuring Service Delivery Mechanism. In S.S.Chahar (edited). District Administration in India: In the Era of Globalization. New Delhi. Concept Publishing Company. 2009.

10. U.B. Singh. District Administration in Independent India: Need for a Fresh Look. In S.S.Chahar.(edited). District Administration in India: In the Era of Globalization. New Delhi. Concept Publishing Company. 2009.

11. Manjusha Sharma and Monika Dara. District Administration and Good Governance. In S.S.Chahar(edited). District Administration in India: In the Era of Globalization. New Delhi. Concept Publishing Company. 2009.

Received on 25.08.2023 Modified on 27.11.2023

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2024;15(1):39-52.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5828.2024.00008