Thursday, 31 August 2017

Local Self-Government Institutions in India


The history of urbanization and urban governance in India dates back to the period of
the Indus Valley Civilization. Subsequent periods saw a major transformation in the
perception of urbanization and urban governance. In the pre-historic period, the origin and
rise of civilizations, identified as urbanization, were normally governed by the local
cultural process.
The concept of local self-government in India as an organized system of governance
emerged during the late seventeenth century with the setting up of the Municipal
Corporation of Madras by the East India Company in 1688. Subsequently, Mayor's Courts
were set up in the presidency towns of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta in 1720. This
followed the empowerment of the Governor-General in Council to appoint justices of
peace in the presidency towns in 1793 mainly to levy taxes on houses and lands to provide
sanitation in the towns. Efforts were made to further strengthen the municipal functions
through resolutions by Lord Mayo, the then Governor-General of India in 1870 and by
Lord Ripon in 1882, which approved non-official majorities in all municipalities and
replaced even the district collector by a non-official chairman. A Royal Commission on
Decentralization (1907), the Government of India Act, 1919, the Simon Commission
Report, 1925, and the Government of India Act, 1935 replacing the Government of India
Act, 1919, are a few important events during the British rule aiming at empowerment of
local self-governments in India. The Government of India Act, 1919, enlarged the scope
of taxation by local self-governments and introduced a dyarchical system of governance
empowering the provincial governments to control the local institutions through a minister. Local self-governments continued to function under the control of provincial
governments or the district administration.
Despite these developments, local government institutions in India as well as in Punjab
continued to function without any significant functional, jurisdictional and financial
autonomy. Whatever was done to empower the local bodies, exposed them to
administrative lapses due to the lack of administrative experience and shortage of funds.
Of late, the growth of the economic process in the form of rapid industrialization and
economic development including globalization, has led to the emergence of vibrant urban
centres in India. Mumbai, Calcutta, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Jaipur,
Ludhiana, and Amritsar to name a few. With different levels of economic development,
these urban centres have been categorized into different groups according to their
population and income levels. The trend of urbanization is in favour of larger towns and
the spatial/ribbon pattern of urbanization is creating demographic imbalances. Punjab is
no exception to this general national urbanization scenario. The existing concerns and
challenges of urbanization and local urban governance in Punjab owe a lot to the history
and growth of urbanization and urban governance at the national level.
Punjab is the fifth major urbanized state after Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Gujarat, and
Karnataka. How local self-governments meet the challenges of rapid urbanization and the
problems of housing, poverty, environment, infrastructure and services, will largely
determine the future of Punjab. But the history of urban local self-governments indicates
that they have not been empowered to meet the growing challenges of urban growth in the
state. No serious effort has been made during the last century to improve their capacity.
Some important strategies need to be developed to improve the capacity of local selfgovernment
institutions.
In Punjab, the municipalities have been organized into three categories, namely, nagar
panchayats for transitional areas, municipal councils for smaller urban areas (further
classified in to class A, class B, and class C municipalities on the basis of their population
and revenue generation capacity), and municipal corporations for the larger urban areas
with a population of three lakh or more and a minimum revenue generation capacity as
specified by the state government, from time to time by notification.
The Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, and the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976
govern the functioning of nagar panchayats, municipal councils and municipal
corporations respectively, which were amended in 1994, after the 74th Amendment to the
Constitution of India in 1992. But the Conformity Legislation of 1994 passed by the state
seems to be a verbatim incorporation of the amended Act and not much change is visible
in the functioning, power structure and the fiscal domain of urban local self-government
institutions of Punjab.
The Constitution of India inserted the subject of local self-government in the Seventh
Schedule, which gave autonomy to state governments to decide functional and fiscal jurisdictions of the local government institutions. Many initiatives such as the Local
Finance Enquiry Committee, 1951; the Taxation Enquiry Commission, 1955; the Rural
Urban Relations Committee, 1963; and the Committee on Augmentation of Resources of
Local Bodies, were taken in Punjab to have a close look at the problems of local
government institutions. The Seventh and the subsequent Finance Commissions, the
Planning Commission's Task Force on Housing, 1983 and the National Commission on
Urbanization, 1988, all statutory bodies set up by the Government of India, did not change
the destiny of local self-governments in the states, which continued to suffer from lack of
functional clarity and financial autonomy. The Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976
did make an attempt to categorize specific functions of the municipal corporations under
two heads, obligatory functions and discretionary functions. However, the 74th
Amendment (1992), a landmark in the history of urban governance in India, prompted the
Punjab government to frame a comprehensive Municipal Bill in 1999, in place of the
earlier Municipal Acts. However, its implementation awaits approval of the central

government.

No comments:

Post a Comment