balwant rai mehta and balwant rai mehta committee report _1957_

							     BALWANT RAI MEHTA AND BALWANT RAI MEHTA COMMITTEE
                        REPORT (1957)

Every year the birth day (19th February) of Shri Balwant Rai Mehta, the founder president
of All India Panchayat Parishad, former chief minister of Gujarat and a person who laid
the foundation of three-tier Panchayati Raj system, is observed as „Panchayat Day‟, for
the last many years by the central government, state governments and state Panchayati
Raj Institutions.

                    *                     *                                *

19th February has just passed in the current year – 2009. It is worth-while to remember
him, his ideas on democratic decentralization, his contribution as reflected in the „Report
of the team for the study of community projects and national extension service‟
(popularly known as Balwant Rai Mehta Committee after the name of its chairman),
significant and historical contribution of the report and its relevance in the present day
context of rural local self-governance.


Balwant Rai Mehta was born on February 19, 1899 in Bhavanagar (Gujarat) in an
ordinary middle class family. He studied up to B.A classes but refused to take the degree
from the foreign government. His teachers admired his devotion to study, hard work and
gentle nature.


His joined the national movement of non-cooperation in 1920. He founded Bhavanagar
Praja Mandal in 1921 for carrying on the freedom movement in that state. He participated
in the Civil Disobedience movement from 1930 to 1932. He was sentenced for three
years imprisonment in Quit India Movement of 1942. In short, he spent seven years of
precious life in prison of British Empire. On Gandhiji‟s suggestion, he accepted
membership of the Congress Working Committee. When Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
became president of All India Congress Committee, he was elected its general secretary;
in 1957, he was selected for Lok Sabha. In 1958, he established All India Panchayat
Parishad. He was elected chief minister of Gujarat on September 19,1963. He died in
harness when his plane was shot down by Pakistani invaders on September 19, 1965, in



                                              1
Indo-Pak war. He lived and died for the country; a dedicated life; widely known as
„Architect of Panchayati Raj‟.
He was greatly influenced by Gandhigi‟s ideals regarding polity, economy, and social
reforms. Being the chairman of the aforesaid committee, he wanted to translate into
action the dream of Mahatma Gandhi of establishing „self-governing village republics „.
In March 1950, the planning commission came into existence and began to plan for large-
scale economic and social progress. But no development in any walk of life can be
achieved until it is backed by the development of rural areas and those inhabit them. The
planning commission, therefore, thought of shaping the village development programme,
so as to attack the five giants of Hunger, Poverty, Disease, Squalor and Ignorance
through a self-help programme of Community Development (1952). Community
development was a movement designed to promote better living for the whole
community with the active participation and on the initiative of the community. National
Extension Service (NES) programme was formulated and put into operation on October
2, 1953. Administrative blocks with stipulated staff (B.D.O, Extension Officer, VLW)
and Block Advisory Committees and District Planning Committees were placed and
constituted; persons and local organization etc were nominated in different administrative
bodies. Considerable work was done in the countryside for 4-5 years especially repairs of
roads, sanitation, irrigation, medical facilities, construction of schools, development of
agriculture, animal husbandry and irrigation. But criticism also started among different
circles; the main criticism was that it failed to enthuse the local people for active
participation (though provision was there either in form of cash/kind or labour for
development projects) in their development programmes. It was noticed that the
programme with government assistance, was becoming more and more a government
programme with varying degree of people‟s participation. In brief, it was widely felt that
the programme was failing in achieving the stipulated objectives. The government
evaluation reports (e.g Second Evaluation Report, April 1955) also pointed out some
negative aspects of the C.D & N.E.S programme. It was in such circumstances, a study
team for community projects and National Extension Service was appointed with a view
to promote „economy and efficiency‟, with specific reference to significant aspects of the
programme (organizational aspects – personnel and coordination between different



                                            2
departments –central & state , local initiative, participation of people and priorities of the
programme etc).


The team conducted a detailed study and submitted its report in November 1957. The
report of this team revolutionized the thinking on community development and rural local
government.
The Report consists of 3 volumes: the third one having two parts. The first volume
contains the results of the examination of the various problems in the field of community
development, a summary of the recommendations, a note on the financial implication of
some of these recommendations, and a list of subjects to be studied or examined further.
The second contains a series of studies in different problems relevant to the subjects. The
last volume contains appendices to the various sections of volume I as also some of the
special features in the field of community development in different states; each state
might like to examine those which were new to it, and where found useful, adopt them
with such modifications as local conditions would necessitate (Report of the Team for the
study of community projects and national extension service, vol.I, p. iii, committee on
plan projects, New Delhi, November 1957).


Among others, the most important contribution of the study team (report) is related to
„democratic decentralisation‟ and the proposed politico-administrative system at the
grass- roots. The report states (vol. I, p. 5), “Admittedly one of the least successful
aspects of the C.D & N.E.S work is its attempt to evoke popular initiative. We have
found that few of the local bodies at a level higher than the village Panchayat have shown
any enthusiasm or interest in this work; and even the panchayats have not come into the
field to any appreciable extent. An attempt has been made to harness local initiative
through the formation of ad hoc bodies mostly with nominated personnel and invariably
advisory in character. These bodies have so far given no indication of durable strength
nor the leadership necessary to provide the motive for continuing the improvement of
economic and social condition in rural areas”. Hence, the report emphatically stated, “ so
long as we do not discover or create a representative and democratic institution which
will supply the local interest, supervision and care necessary to ensure that expenditure of



                                              3
money upon local objects, conforms with the needs and wishes of the locality, invest it
with adequate power and assign to it appropriate finances, we will never be able to evoke
local interest and excite local initiative in the field of development” (Ibid).
The report suggested in actual details was the creation of a three-tier system of
democratic decentralization (later came to be known as Panchayati Raj System), namely,
the village Panchayat at village level, the panchayat samiti at block level and the Zilla
Parishad at district level, and recommended that the entire development administration
should be handed over to these bodies. The Team gave the details of organization,
functions, resources and relations of one with the other. In brief, the village Panchayat
should be purely on an elective basis, with a provision for the co-option of two women
members and one member each from the SCs and STs. Panchayat samiti should be
formed for an area included in a block, to be constituted by indirect election form the
villages. Panchayats within the block area could be grouped together in convenient units
and the panchas of all the Panchayats in each of these units should elect from amongst
themselves person or persons to be members of Panchayat Smaiti; about 20 in number.
These, elected representatives will again co-opt two women, a representative from the
SCs and another from STs. The team came to the conclusion, “the block offers an area
large enough for functions which the village panchayat cannot perform and yet small
enough to attract the interest and service of the residents”. Hence, in the scheme the block
(Panchayat Samiti) becomes the most important tier. Then, there should be zilla parishad,
mainly with a view to achieving necessary coordination between the Panchayat Samitis
within the district. It will consist of presidents of panchayat samitis, members of
parliament and state legislatures and district level officers of the development
departments. The Zilla Parishad would be an advisory –cum-supervisory body, having no
executive functioning.
The recommendations of the study team in favour of a system of democratic
decentralization were considered by the National Development Council (NDC) in
January, 1958, and endorsed. Hence, „democratic decentralization‟ became a definite
policy matter for the government in the country, to be implemented. Though Balwantrai
Mehta Committee gave a blue print of „democratic decentralisation‟, rigidity in structures
and other related functional details were not favoured neither by the committee nor by the



                                               4
NDC, and nor by central council of Local self Government, mainly because of state
variations and circumstances. Naturally, it was left to each state to workout the structure
best suited to its genius and local conditions. „Uniformity and rigidity‟ was not at all
entertained in this context. As a consequence, different patterns of Panchayati Raj
emerged while implementing the policy of „democratic decentralisation‟ in different
states of the Indian union.
However, certain fundamental and basic principles of Panchayati Raj were emphasized
by the concerned circles, involved in policy making. These may be mentioned as follows:
1. There should be a three-tier structure of local self-governing bodies from the village
level to the district level, the bodies being organically linked up;
2. There sould be a genuine transfer of power and responsibilities to them;
3. Adequate resources should be transferred to these bodies to enable them to discharge
there responsibilities;
4. All welfare and development schemes and programmes at these levels should be
channeled through these bodies alone;
5. These bodies being charged with various duties and functions, no higher body should
have an opportunity to do what a lower body can do itself;
6. The three-tier system should be such that it facilitates further devolution and dispersal
of power and responsibility in the future.

These basic principles can be discerned explicitly or implicitly in the philosophical as
well as scientific study report of Balwantrai Mehta Committee. Since the committee
worked in the backdrop of C.D & NES programme, its scheme of „democratic
decentralisation‟ should not be viewed as „administrative instrumentalism‟ alone for the
programme success. Looking back, one can say with all confidence that it had impact on
subsequent developments in regard to the growth and development of Panchayati Raj
Institutions in the country.


The report gave „directional thrusts‟ which were looked into and noted by different
national and state level committees, constituted from time to time, for strengthening
Panchayati Raj Institutions. For instance, Asoka Mehta Committee (1978) referred to first
Mehta committee report. In certain aspects the second Mehta builds upon the first, but in
many others seeks a deliberate departure from his predecessor. While the first Mehta
made the block as the level of decentralization and thus the cornerstone of Panchayati Raj




                                             5
structure, the second one treats the district level Zilla Parishad as the lynchpin of the new
proposed pattern.


73rd and 74th amendments to the Indian constitution (1992) provided constitutionalisation
of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and Urban local bodies. Both the amendments
clearly demonstrate the impact of Balwantrai Mehta Committee report, its philosophy and
ideological underpinnings.


In the present day context of „decentralised rural governance„ in the country, the
aforesaid fundamental and basic principles still have relevance, and to be pursued
vigorously with concerted efforts in order to achieve the „spirit‟ of the 73rd constitutional
amendment as envisaged in the Article 243 (G), which reads thus, “ subject to the
provisions of this constitution , the legislature of a state may, by law, endow the
panchayats with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to
function as “institutions of self-government…”. This implies „optimal autonomy‟ in
political, administrative and financial areas within the overall framework of an evolving
federal polity (as a consequence of 73rd and 74th Constitution Amendment Acts) with
multi levels of governance.




Contact Details
Dr. B.S Bhargava
(Senior Fellow ISS, Bangalore Centre)
269, Teachers Colony,
P.O Nagarabhavi
Bangalore – 560072
Telephone: (080) 23211480




                                             6