Village Democracy: Panchayat System
Vedic and post-Vedic sources show the Indian villages as self-sufficient and autonomous miniature republics. While kingdoms and empires rose and fell, these villages survived. This essential sense of continuity in the village social organization can be understood by centering the conversation on the panchayat system.
Sir Charles Metcalfe described the autonomous village in 1830 as “little republics, having nearly everything they can want within themselves…They seem to last where nothing else lasts. Dynasty after dynasty tumbles down, revolution succeeds revolution, but the village community remains the same. This union of the village communities, each one forming a separated little state in itself, has contributed more than any other cause to the preservation of the peoples of India…”
The panchayat system in India has been part of the cultural base from the Vedic Age up to 1962. In order to grasp the concept of village democracy in ancient India, it is important to describe the changes undergone by this ancient institution, and to highlight the features that were consistent in the historic transition.
The village panchayat consisted of an assembly of elder members of the village, whose decision was binding. These elders were selected by the villagers, and a ‘Muqaddam’ (also known as ‘Mandal’) was elected to supervise all activities that procured in the village. The Muqaddam assisted the patwari in managing the village accounts. In mixed-caste villages, the panchayat was a heterogenous body, representing all castes and communities present in the village. Moreover, the panchayat also collected funds for the communal financial pool, the money from which was utilized for entertainment costs of visiting officials, natural disasters, construction of bunds and digging of canals.
The decisions of the village panchayat varied from case to case, especially in matters of conflict between the lower castes and state officials or local ‘zameendars’ (landlords). In these situations, the Jati Panchayats would step in and steer the conversation towards a more amicable solution. The Jati Panchayats were formed during the 1th and 17th centuries for each ‘Jati’ or caste that was present in the village. The function and authority of the Jati Panchayats consisted of revolving civil and land disputes between different castes in Rajasthan, deciding whether marriages were performed according to the norms and values of the village, determining ritual precedence during functions and, finally, deciding punishments except in criminal cases. One significant point to note is that the state respected the decision of the Jati Panchayats even in legal proceedings (except criminal cases). Thus, it can be said that the village panchayats regulated the rural society during the Mughal era.
The Indian village and democracy — the questions consist of two strong themes. The Indian village because it consists of one sixth of the human race, and democracy because, at present, it seems to be the only alternative to totalitarianism. For years, India;s political development has been on democratic lines. First, let us be clear on the definition of democracy. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines democracy as “A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.” Under modern conditions, direct government by the people is impossible, especially in a region as vast as the Indian subcontinent. Translated into the village practicum the French slogan of ‘liberty, fraternity and equality’ means that one can do what they like, as long as they remember their neighbour. Unfortunately, outside the village, India has yet to become a fully democratic system.
For the peasant, the distinction between political and economic democracy is important. What is being offered to them is political democracy, when they care little for politics, Economic democracy, on the other hand, would be the peasant’s choice because what he most desires is, afterall, economic security. The collective farming system derives much of its strength from the panchayat, which is the most preserved form of ancient village self-government to survive into the modern age. Through the panchayat, land is distributed and redistributed, and all common concerns are decided. In comparison, the Russian collective farms derived its strength from the ‘Mir’ or the village community, so much so that there is a Russian proverb that says: “What the Mir has settled is God;s own judgment”. Similarly, there is an Indian proverb that says ‘In the panchayat is God’.
Local self-government is essential to the stability of democracy. Sidney Webb, writing in India in 1915, stated that any and all National, Provincial and Municipal governments would fail to take root in the minds of the public unless it is grafted on “the spontaneous grouping of the people themselves”. Although the caste panchayat was more of a republic than a democracy, it had one essential democratic feature, i.e. it was subject to the rule of custom, based upon the concept of justice for all, and expressed the general will of the community. Villages were divided into quarters, and each quarter elected a representative who served in the panchayat, usually for life. Village servants, or the lower class were usually underrepresented, if at all. Cases are heard in the presence of all, and in democratic fashion, while everyone may give their opinion, the ultimate decision is made by the panches. This is a miniature form of an ideal, democratic government, with democracy at the base and aristocracy at its head.
While the panchayat system did involve some democratic characteristics, it would be redundant to suggest that it alone as an institution would be able to showcase the ideals of true democracy in society. However, it would be equally redundant, not to acknowledge the panchayat systsem’s historical contribution in ensuring the existence of a grassroot democratic institution for the last three thousand years of Indian subcontinent history.
One of the most significant limitations of the panchayat system is perhaps the fact that it works within very congruent, small societies. However, the complexity of human societies cannot be disregarded, as all major human societies are a compilation of smaller ones which have evolved over the centuries (Henrich, 2012). According to Höllinger & Haller (1990), the existence of small states is evidence that humans search for congruity within our immediate surroundings.
Although the panchayat can only work on a small scale, it can be used to redesign the existing democratic structure, ensuring direct democracy at a base level. In conclusion to our comparative analysis, it can be said that the panchayats in India provide a valuable basis in understanding how democracy has evolved in a social and historical setting.