PANCHAYATI RAJ AND POLITICS IN MAHARASHTRA:
Maharashtra is one of the leading states in the field of three tier Panchayati Raj system. The state government, under the leadership of the then Chief Minister Yashwantrao Chavan of Congress Party, had introduced the system of Panchayati Raj in 1962, without hesitating to delegate and bestow the requisite powers. Even before the passing of the 73rd amendment, the state has given 30 percent reservations for women in 1991. And after amendment these reserve seats were raised to 50 percent and also provided reservation to OBCs. The dominant Maratha Caste in the party enjoyed decisive dominance in the state due to its numerical strength, economic power through excessive landholding and agricultural produce, and strong political influence, and relatively high caste status. This remains to continue through controlling panchayats and cooperatives in the state. Both institutions were applied as the breeding ground and training field for the younger political leadership emerging from the rural area.
The Maratha leadership under the Congress party continued to control the PRIs, cooperatives and the state government until early 1990. The challenge from Shiv Sena (SS) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) coalition removed them from the state assembly in 1995 and later claimed share over the PRIs in a few districts. The fragmentation of Congress Party in 1999 and the emergence of Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) under the leadership of Sharad Pawar further shatter the political scene. In 2002, Zilla Parishad (ZP) elections only five of twenty-seven ZPs, did any single party have a majority of its own. In another four ZPs, the SS-BJP coalition attained a clear majority (Baviskar 2009).
Such trends in the state certainly have an impact on the entire idea of grassroots democracy, particularly in the gram panchayats. These impacts could be both positive and negative, howsoever, in all these the oppressed and marginalised sections like the Dalits, Adivasis and Women are in the middle of their struggle for a dignified life, access to resources like land, water and produce, the power to make and take decisions as elected members of the gram panchayat, against the stigma of caste and untouchability and against the multiple level of violence. Further, with regards to the elected members from these sections, there are questions like access to the posts in panchayats and what degree of freedom does one enjoy in fulfilling their roles and duties, the means and method by which they tackle the direct and indirect obstructions, handling discriminatory practices, participation in the decision making process of gram panchayat, transparency, accountability and their overall contribution in the development of the village.
These dynamics of power and complexities of the context under which the PRIs is operational at present demands for a detailed study on how the entire idea of PRIs has been understood by such social groups in the background of ‘egalitarianism’. With more than two decades of the 73rd amendment, where anew and afresh mechanisms are in place, the time is appropriate to undertake such an investigation in order to bring out the findings for improvement of the system.
PROFILE OF NAGPUR DISTRICT:
HISTORY OF NAGPUR:
Nagpur, also known as Orange City, is an ancient city. But much credit goes to Bhakt Buland, the Gond prince of Deogad kingdom, who converted Nagpur as new capital city in the early 18th century when he changed his capital from Chhindwara. Later, the control of Nagpur slowly passed on from the Gonds to Raghuji Bhonsle, the Marathas and Nagpur became the capital of the Bhonsles. In 1817 Bhonsles lost to the British and Nagpur came under British rule. The British ruler annexed the city under Doctrine of Lapse rule in 1853 when Raghuji III died without leaving any heir. The Britishers made Nagpur as capital of the Central Provinces of India in 1861. The Britishers considered Nagpur to be the centre of India and hence identified a point and constructed the Zero Mile Stone and they used this point to measure all the distances in India from this point. Nagpurs development spurred as a trade centre when the Great Indian Peninsula Railway (GIPR) established in 1867. When the Constitution of India came into effect the CP & Berar province became Madhya Pradesh and Nagpur as its capital.
After Indian independence, being a capital of India's biggest state (by area) for more than 100 years, Nagpur city lost the capital status, after this region known as Vidarbha, was made part of the bilingual Bombay State on the recommendation of the State Reorganisation Committee. Tension began to flare when Nagpur became the only city in independent India to lose the status of a state capital. It was even asserted that Nagpur should be made capital of new state of Maharashtra. The political leaders of Maharashtra met these fears half-way, by ensuring the maintenance of a bench of High Court and a session of Legislature at Nagpur and Nagpur Pact was signed. Every year the winter session of the State Legislative Assembly held here according to agreement of Nagpur Pact of 1953. Vidarbha region was merged with Bombay Province and a new Maharashtra State was emerged on May 1, 1960 with Mumbai as the Capital.
DEMAND FOR SEPARATE VIDARBHA:
The demand for a separate statehood for Vidarbha was raised for the first time over 100 years ago when the independent Vidarbha kingdom merged with the British empire in 1853. The people started agitation and demanded the independent status. Considering the growing agitation Alexander Mackenzie the then British Commissioner of the region recommended a separate Vidarbha State in 1888. By 1903 Britishers recognised this area merging with part of Chhindwara and Chhattisgarh, as Central Province and Berar (CP & Berar). The demand for separate Vidarbha was raised again when then Secretary of the State for India Mr E. S. Montagu visited india. The Report of the Constitutional Commission on Reforms 1918 also mentioned the need for a separate state for Vidarbha. Shri Bapuji Aney also raised this demand of separate Vidarbha in various All India Congress Committee Meetings. As a result, a resolution for the creation of Vidarbha that included CP & Berar was introduced by Barrister Ramrao Deshmukh in the Central Provinces legislature assembly and it was passed unanimously on 1 October 1938. It was much before the demand for a "Samyukta Maharashtra" was even conceived. The concept of Vidarbha included 11 districts of Eastern Maharashtra. The leaders of CP & Berar and Maharashtra came to an agreement for creation of two separate regions for Marathi speaking people and signed an agreement on Aug 08, 1947 known as Akola Pact. ‘It was mutually agreed by the parties that there would be two states continue to function under one Governor but would have separate legislative assemblies, separate ministries and judiciary’.
During the AICC Jaipur session in 1948, a committee was formed comprising of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel and Dr Pattabhi Sitaramayya to deliberate upon the reorganisation of states. The committee stated that the creation of Vidarbha state should be left to the people of Vidarbha region, on whether they wish to be part of Maharashtra or wish to have an independent Vidarbha. The first State Reorganisation Committee (SRC) appointed by the Government of India on December 29, 1953 under the Chairmanship of Justice Fazal Ali also recommended the separate Vidarbha state in its report submitted in 1956. Meanwhile, there were Mumbai and Konkan centric political leaders supporting one state based on one language formula and opposing vehemently the separate Vidarbha State. They were realised that it would be challenging to develop a newly Maharashtra state excluding the cash rich region of Vidarbha from it. Finally under the influence of Congress leaders of western Maharashtra, Vidarbha was made part of a new Maharashtra State on May 1, 1960.
Dr. Ambedkar had strongly advocated the inclusion of Bombay (now Mumbai) in Maharashtra however, he feared that it would be difficult to give good governance in united Maharashtra. He advocated the theory of smaller states before the State Reorganisation Commission and stated that one single state cannot administered the Maharashtra. He favoured the principle of ‘One state – One language’ and echoed his idea of smaller states for geographic and historical needs, respect to the sentiments of local people and most importantly for efficient administration. He recommended the division of Maharashtra into four smaller states; i.e. Western Maharashtra, Central Maharashtra (Marathwada), Eastern Maharashtra (Vidarbha) and Bombay City State, considering the unique culture and socio-economic problems of each division. He had feared that western Maharashtra under the rule of Marathas would not be able to give justice to backward regions of Marathwada and Vidarbha, and asserted for creation of smaller states for development. Since creation of a new state of Maharashtra to till today, the demand of separate statehood was continuously raised, not only with an economic and political view, but also in the background of the increasing developmental backlog.