Three fourth of our constitution is a verbatim copy of the Government of India Act 1935, Cabinet Mission Plan 1946, and India Independence Act 1947.  These were colonial laws aimed to strengthen foreign rule by giving minor political concessions.  They were clearly no charter of independence or democracy.   
  

We adopted only their parliamentary system. We did not adopt their county and village governments. We, instead, retained colonial institutions and practices designed by them for their colonies. We also adopted centralised planning and a controlled economy from the Soviet Union.  We thus created a mixed economy in a mixed-up polity, a colonial self-rule, not a democracy.

Western democracies recognise that resources and power belong to the people who devolve them to village and county governments and assign residual coordination functions to higher level governments.  There can thus be no centralised democracy.
 

The US system in which the president is the chief executive and nominates his team approved by the senate committee has considerable merit, unlike any of the hybrid varieties. The US presidential system should be forthwith adopted in local governments. It cannot be considered for the central government until local jurisdictions are excluded from it as in the USA and other mature democracies.
 

Values and ethics are nurtured in the family, village, and neighbourhood. Local empowerment strengthens social institutions; centralisation destroys them.  Social degradation set in during the colonial period got fortified in our centralised democracy.

In democracies, transparency is vital to prevent abuse of authority.  It covers (1) right to information, (2) right to be consulted through public hearings and consultations, (3) right to participate in planning  and through participatory councils on key issues, and (4) right to decide through referendum.  These are all sovereign rights of the people, not concessions given by a benign government. 
 

(1 crore = 10 million)

Gandhian democracy has great similarity with the mature democracies of the West.  Both recognise the pivotal role of local governance, from village to district governments, handling all local matters including land, police and forests.

Gandhiji added four powerful features for social justice and equity.  These are (1) national government accountable to local governance, (2) decentralised production systems, (3) self-sustaining local economies, and (4) secularism as a confluence of all religions. These have great relevance today for global sustainability.

True local empowerment as advocated by Gandhiji would have strengthened rural education, health, industry and economy and effectively empowered women. This, in turn, would have stabilised our population at, say, 50-60 crores, substantially reducing the load on our resources.  It can also revitalise the nation today.
 

If the common people were asked, they would clearly have wanted empowered village and district governments.  The Constituent Assembly imposed a centralised democracy which gave power and freedom to a few and left the rest impoverished.  The father of the nation and those who gave their lives in the freedom struggle were betrayed.

The members of the Constituent Assembly were all persons of eminence, impeccable integrity and dedication to the nation. They adopted the Constitution with full conviction. With hindsight, it is apparent that chose a wrong model. They thereby unwittingly inflicted immense damage on the nation and its people.

It is argued that a strong centre is needed for keeping the nation united.  An overbearing centre trying to run the lives of the people has generated social discord.  If given command over local matters, the people would be enthused to sustain a strong nation.
 

Gandhiji was not opposed to industrialists.  He wanted wealth used in trusteeship for productive purposes. In 1947 leading business houses like Tata and Birla were well established. Numerous Indian communities are known for their entrepreneurship.

Had India acted rationally, it could have selectively invited its own as well as Western entrepreneurs to participate in developing basic industry and infrastructure with the public sector filling the gaps.  Today, after establishing a large, inefficient public sector, after indiscriminate nationalisation and creating scarcity of goods and services, we are begging for foreign investments on terms dictated by outsiders.
 

In 1947 there were adequate educated persons in every district.  Many had acquired municipal experience. All ministers came from some district or the other.  There was enough qualified staff in the district administration to provide support services. 

Villagers have traditional wisdom, adequate to manage village matters. The gram sabha controlling all village resources, officials and matters would provide sound governance with complete transparency and low overheads.
 

All India services, a colonial concept of elite cadres for top positions to control local politicians and rule the subjects, are a mismatch today. The state bureaucracy is now bloated, overbearing, secretive, corrupted and a major source of harassment to the people it is supposed to serve.  No mature democracy has such self-seeking public services.

In democracies, every government has its own slim, open bureaucracy for essential state functions.  Top positions are generally filled through open selection on contract  approved by the elected body.  The civil services are not for creating employment. Resources should instead be used to strengthen the local economy and employment.
 

Reservation could not achieve its objective for half a century.  This establishes that the policy is inappropriate. It uplifts families, not communities.  Local empowerment with special focus on women  is the only sound method for social uplift.

Reservation has become a political tool to divide and exploit communities. All social issues should be in exclusive local jurisdictions. Multi-stakeholder councils may be instituted at sub-district and district levels to settle issues not resolved in villages.
 

Centralised five year planning is not a recognised discipline. It is unscientific, wasteful and anti-people.  Financial resources are aggregated and then assigned on the basis of national priorities, without taking local environmental resources and needs into consideration. Plan funds are wasted to meet financial targets while maintenance, being non-plan, gets neglected.  Its mentor, the Soviet Union, has collapsed because of such faulty planning. We are still wedded to it!

The Constitution provides for devolution of funds through finance commissions, not through planning.  Article 243ZD, introduced in 1992 through the 72nd amendment, mandates district planning initiated by local governments, covering socio-economic, infrastructure and environmental issues expressed in analytical, quantitative and spatial plans. This clearly is scientific regional planning.  Centralised planning is now totally unconstitutional. 
 

* village governance

The panchayati raj as instituted has no semblance with Gandhiji’s panchayati raj.  The district bureaucracy is still under the state government. There is no elected leader in the district who can take final decisions on key local matters such as land, police, and forests.

Justice is hardly available.  District judges linked with district governments, such as high courts with state governments, can obtain decisions locally on augmenting courts and resolving delays and harassment.  District heads will work as a team accountable to the people of the district.

In such democracy by remote control, petty politicians tie up with corrupt officials, with contractors and criminals and  manipulate transfers thus misusing power. This fosters criminalisation of politics, destruction of forests, corruption, social exploitation and delayed justice.
 

The institutions of democracy are not culture specific but universal - they nurture local cultures.  Gandhiji's bias in favour of rural life made him critical of western democracy and project village governments as specific to India.  He thereby alienated the so-called elite from his vision.

      Gram panchayat    =   village council
      Gram sabha            =   village assembly
      Sarpanch                 =   Village head

Gram panchayats as instituted are dependent upon the district panchayat and district collector.  Once elected, a panch cannot be removed for five years. The gram sabha is ineffective as the law requires its meetings only once a year. The sarpanch ties up with petty politicians and state officials and they all abuse authority in feudal style.

The gram sabha consists of all persons on the electoral rolls in its jurisdiction. It has greater legitimacy than a legislature which consists only of representatives.

As per ancient Indian and current Swiss practices, the village assembly controls village resources, staff and administration. It elects representatives for one to two  years. All decisions are taken in open assembly.  A representative can be removed any time for misconduct. (Nalini Singh, Video, Two democracies, Ancient India and Switzerland, Doordarshan, 1991). This is Gandhiji’s gram swaraj.
 

The people give mandate to representatives only for the functions of the body to which they elect them.  In mature democracies, even a president cannot interfere in local matters.  In our mixed-up democracy, ministers and legislators violate local jurisdictions. According to former Chief Justice of India, ES Venkatramiah, allocations of funds to legislators for local programmes is an assault on the Constitution.
 

The Constitution assigns the bulk of the resources to the central government which then bestows them on the people in feudal style.  States start projects to exert pressure on the centre for funds which do not materialise.  Numerous projects remain incomplete, increasing  inflation which hurts the poor.  All states are unhappy.  Overheads, wastage, misuse and corruption are high.  Only 16 paise out of a rupee reach the people.

All revenue emanating from a district should be regarded as a district resource.  The district first retains what it needs and devolves a share, determined through an independent process, for higher level needs.  Districts with fewer resources may be allowed to retain more.  The centre may be allowed to deficit finance, transferring the liability to the people through inflation until it reduces its wasteful expenditures. The local economy will flourish generating adequate resources for the entire nation.
 

Colonial practices can be nothing but destructive in a democracy.  Many  leaders recognise the need for basic democratic reforms.  Misguided legislators resist them.

Referendum, a sovereign right of the people, is intrinsic to democracy but needs a procedure for being exercised.  The people may seek a writ for referendum on instituting sovereign rights commissions at the centre and in the states to (1) oversee the democratic rights of the people, and (2) process people’s proposals for reforms through referendum.  All other commissions on social issues will then become redundant.  So will PILs.

Social organisations and the media should mobilise public awareness for a second freedom struggle. The political leadership should be questioned as to why our legislators should enjoy more powers than those in the powerful USA. Also why it extols Gandhiji, yet rejects him and his democracy.
 

The West is economically strong not merely by exploiting the poor nations but more by
recognising exclusive local jurisdictions, the hallmark of democratic governance. 
t is about time hat we stopped using excuses to cover up our own mistakes.