Saturday, May 25, 2013
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Who rules? - Determining the extent of the Panchayat’s power
Chief Minister
Manohar Parrikar was recently reported to have indicated in the course of
legislative debate that he would rather have a referendum than let Gram Sabhas take a decision on the much contested developmental plans that form part of the
Regional Plan. Subsequently, the Chief Minister has been reported to have
suggested that Gram Sabhas are only advisory in nature, said the Chief
Minister, their decisions cannot be legally binding on the panchayat.
Given that that
the Chief Minister is not alone in his observations, and his opinion is shared
by many developers I would like to first reference, and then engage with, the arguments
presented by similarly inclined commentator in the public sphere.
Speaking in the context of migrants, Prabhakar Timble felt obliged to also suggest that, “…we
notice the Gram Sabhas and Village groups of Goa opposing almost all proposals
of investment or development in the village. To a large extent, the
opposition at the Gram Sabha is from those members who are defeated at the
Panchayat elections. In a multi-cornered contest at Panchayat elections, the
aggregate number of defeated candidates is sizeable in relation to the elected
members of the Panchayat. It is really a funny situation wherein the
elected Panchayat is held hostage by the Gram Sabha under the domineering
influence of the candidates who are rejected by the village electorate and who
later form the active component at the Gram Sabha. I have not heard of Gram
Sabha directing and recommending the Panchayat “to do” specific projects or
encourage a set of economic activities in the village.”
Rather than
address the issue of the legality of the Gram Sabha’s capacity to direct the
Sarpanch and council, I would like to deal with the logic displayed above that
attempts to undermine the validity of the discussions that take place in the Gram
Sabha. Timble’s logic suggests that the candidates who have won the election
are approved by the electorate, and those who have lost the election are
rejected by the same body. In making this suggestion, Timble could not be
further from the truth.
The
“first-past-the post” method that Indian electoral system uses to determine the
winner in an election is but one of several ways of doing so. In this method,
the person with the highest votes wins, even if the number of these votes do
not constitute a majority of the electorate, and it is possible that as a
result of the multi-cornered contests that Timble draws our attention to, the
winner in fact enjoys the confidence of just a minority of the electorate.
Indeed, as has been pointed out, the first-past-the post method is ideally used
in elections between two parties. In such a case, where electoral contests are
contested by beyond three parties, it would be highly illogical to assume that
the winner holds the confidence of the majority and has the right to take
decisions on agendas that will hold significance beyond the five year period
that they are elected for.
In a situation
where the winner of an election may hold the confidence of only a minority of
the electorate, it makes sense to read the result of the elections as securing
the right of the successful candidate to lead deliberations in the panchayat
and Gram Sabha, but definitely not to make unilateral decisions. The
multi-cornered fights in the Gram Sabha are evidence of the complex nature of
the Panchayats and a testament to the vibrancy political life of the
electorate. The Gram Sabha then, is not only a crucial space where the
tensions, and ideas can be debated and then independently voted on, but a
critically important one if we are to ensure that the Panchayat is genuinely
representative of democracy.
Having said
this, there is a need to recognize two valid criticisms that are leveled
against the operation of Gram Sabhas. The first is the criticism that given the
number of persons with strong opinions, these Gram Sabhas often descend into
chaos, where everybody is screaming, no one is listening, and nothing gets
done. The second criticism is that oftentimes decisions can be taken that
violate fundamental principles of law.
The first
criticism is really a testament to the fact that a culture of debate has not
yet taken solid root in our political life. The blame for this lies as much at
the feet of persons outside of power, as those who hold power. Sarpanches
should be required to acquire a training in how to effectively conduct debates
where all sides are allowed space to present and rebut arguments. Where persons
fail to cooperate with the process, the law provides for the presence of police
who can be called to restore order. Unfortunately, when the police are called,
it is usually to intimidate persons with opinions opposite to that of the
Sarpanch who seeks to push his agenda through.
In the second
case, if, and when Gram Sabha decisions have been taken in violation of basic
principles of law, this opens up space for the decisions of the Gram Sabha are
adjudicated by the superior courts that exist both within the panchayat system
as well as outside of it. Rather than see adjudication of these allegedly
faulty decisions as a problem, once more this process should be seen as a way
to build up precedents for Gram Sabhas to follow, and harmonize this system of
local self governance with the larger systems of state and central governance
that have until date received far more importance.
The problem
however seems to be that rather than allow for a more democratic state,
business interests and the interests of the MLAs are working together to deny
this possibility by writing off the Gram Sabhas as failures even before these
institutions have been allowed to work in an ideal environment.
(A version of this post was first published in the Gomantak Times 18 April 2013)
Sunday, May 5, 2013
The Itinerant: In the Womb of Holy Mother Church
Within the Roman
Catholic faith, the church is hailed as a holy mother, referencing her capacity
to nourish and sustain. And indeed, one of the nice things about being a
Catholic is that as long as there is a functioning Catholic Church in the
vicinity, there is always a constant in one’s life. No matter where in the
world you go, or what language they speak there, the liturgy of the Mass is
unchanging. As a result, all you have to do is follow the mass with your own
responses in the language you are comfortable in, and almost instantly, even if
only for the duration of the mass, you have a home even in the most foreign of
locations. This scenario can lead to a number of rather interesting
experiences, where you realize that through this standard ritual of the Mass,
one can also reach out to the individuals around, or alternatively be
profoundly touched by the same people.
Take for instance
my experiences while in the city of San Francisco, almost two decades ago. Located
some three blocks away from my home on the edge of the Mission district, and
its steeples clearly visible from my bedroom window, was the Church of St.
Paul’s. While I did not really engage with members of the parish, the strongest
memory I carry back of the church is the voice of the lady who led the choir
every Sunday. Strong and matronly, but by no means untrained, her voice
contributed to the more moving experiences I have had in that church. Even
today, though I often cannot recollect the internal architecture of that
church, I can close my eyes, and recall from memory her voice ringing out
through that Church, and embodying the faith experience of my time in San
Francisco.
While living in
Lisbon, I found my spiritual home at the Chapel at Rato, as much for the
eloquence of the priest Tolentino Mendonça who prays the Mass, as for the, as
yet anonymous, voice of the man who leads the choir every alternate Sunday. Who
knows what it is in the voice of this man, but when, accompanied by his guitar
he sings the Psalm, there is something profound that moves among the
congregation. Indeed, so moving is his voice that newcomers to the congregation
often look up to try and glimpse into the choir loft, and determine the owner
of that voice. If you are among the faithful, and you ever make it to Lisbon, a
service at the Chapel at Rato must be a part of your itinerary for both these
reasons.
It is as a
tourist that I have had the most bemusing experience as a church goer.
Believing that a space opens up in a completely different manner if one uses
the space, I often attempt to attend Mass in the more spectacular churches of
places I visit. Attempting to do so in the Mesquita of Cordoba, I walked up the
evening of my arrival and inquired of the guard on duty what time the daily
mass at the church within was scheduled. “It is not for Muslims, only for
Catholics” was his response twice over, until I could beat it into his
consciousness, that despite my possibly Moorish features, I was indeed
Catholic, not Muslim and had not the faintest intention of recovering the
monument for the glory of Islam by offering namaz inside. (Of course I don’t
see why anyone should object to a Muslim wanting to offer namaz inside a space
that was originally built for congregational prayers, but I am not Cordovan,
and that was not my battle).
Once inside the
Mesquita the next day, my faith in the experience of these spaces being
different when used rather than just gawked at, was rewarded not only through the
smells and bells that inform the Catholic experience of the Mass, but especially
when in the course of exchanging the peace of Christ, through a smile and the
grasp of my hand, I was made even if for a moment a member of that church’s
believing community.
(A version of this post first appeared in The Goan dated 27 April 2013)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)