THOUGH panchayati raj laws were revised in Karnataka in 1987, few attempts were made to let the poor manage their natural resources. The rural elite usurped the local bodies and used them to pursue their own interests. Says a cynical Shivamurthy Swamy of the Taralabalu Rural Development Foundation, "The panchayati raj led only to the decentralisation of dirty politics." But in many ways, it also led an awakening among the poor, who have to be brought together so that they can use the self-governance system for their benefit.

At the base of the system was the gram sabha, which was, unfortunately, the most neglected. Ideally, gram sabhas should have provided the first inputs for development plans. Anand Inbanathan of the Institute of Social Sciences (ISS) in New Delhi, claims more often than not, the sabhas were not held and even if they were, landless labourers often did not attend because they would lose a day's work. Workers of the India Development Service in Rannebennur say gram sabha proceedings were dominated by mandal panchayat members.

In the functioning of mandal panchayats, too, says B K Chandrashekhar of the Indian Institute of Management in Bangalore, a serious problem was that they did not have adequate staff to undertake their civic and development duties. As a result, most of their work was referred to zillah parishads.

Rule of the pradhan
In principle, the mandal panchayats should have decided issues through discussion. But decision-making at this level was not participatory. As Inbanathan points out, most members usually quietly agreed with proposals moved by the pradhan.

Elections to mandal panchayats were held on a party basis. This, according to Shivamurthy Swamy, divided the village community. Inbanathan says elections could get violent and elected members were sometimes kidnapped to deny support to one mandal pradhan or the other.

The reservation of 25 per cent of seats in the panchayati raj institutions for women was indeed a step forward. Though political parties had a difficult time finding sufficient women candidates, the fact that they eventually did find them went a long way in improving the status of women. A study by ISS showed women representatives provided effective leadership at the zillah parishad level. But at the mandal level, their participation was less apparent: Women attended meetings merely to pick up the attendance fee or to avoid disqualification. Local observers felt most women were influenced by male members of their families. In several villages, the ISS study reported, women did not attend gram sabhas because these apparently interfered with their chores.

All development departments in the district were under the control of zillah parishads. Virtually the entire state rural development staff was brought under the direction of the parishad chief secretary. Schemes with an inter-mandal, inter-taluka or district-wide character were transferred to the zillah parishad.

Conflict with bureaucracy
The setting up of the zillah parishads and mandal panchayats in 1987 created for the first time an elected body to plan and execute development activities in a district. The powers of the zillah parishad soon led to problems between the bureaucracy and the elected representatives. Bureaucrats were reluctant to work with panchayati raj institutions because they felt responsible to their superiors in the state government, not to members of panchayati raj bodies.

Each parishad was provided with a planning unit consisting of a chief planning officer and six specialists. Each mandal had a sub-plan that became part of the parishad plan.

It was mandatory to set up a finance commission every five years to determine how resources should be shared between the state government and the panchayati raj institutions and between zillah parishads and mandal panchayats.

The zillah parishads formulated their first plans for 1988-89. The state's annual plan for that year was based on plans formulated at the mandal and zillah parishad levels. Several observers, however, pointed out that the proportion of funds allocated to the zillah parishads from the state plan decreased steadily -- 28.6 per cent in 1987-88, 26.6 per cent in 1988-89 and 25.5 per cent in 1989-90. They argued a fixed proportion, about 30 per cent, should go to the zillah parishads. The transfer of resources from the centre also was not very large and was dependent on election-time populism.

According to Inbanathan, each mandal panchayat had an annual budget of about Rs 3 to 4 lakh, including funds disbursed under the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY). About 80 per cent of the JRY funds went to the mandal panchayats and the rest to the zillah parishads. In addition, mandal panchayats could levy taxes on houses, entertainment (other than cinemas) and vehicles (other than motor vehicles) and fees on markets, water rates and surcharges on stamp duties. Inbanathan reckons about 90 per cent of the mandal panchayat funds were spent on recurring and maintenance expenses, monthly meeting expenses and honoraria payments. Experts feel mandal panchayats needed more resources than what was available to them to undertake development activities.

C P Barki, mandal pradhan of Medleri in Rannebennur taluka, claimed he was unable to implement as many works as he would have liked because of financial constraints. But local observers also point out pradhans directed development programmes to their own constituencies or chose beneficiaries to enlarge their political base.

Reports of corruption soon became common because, as one observer put it, "The members of a zillah parishad saw development primarily as a money spinning activity." Mandal panchayat members, too, showed more interest in construction works than, say, forestry.

But there were also reports that some programmes were implemented more effectively than before. According to T R Satishchandran, director of the Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), the availability of medicines in rural areas increased and the maintenance of roads improved.

Priority to social services
In 1988-89, zillah parishads gave priority to social services (primary and secondary education and rural water supply), rural development programmes, agriculture and allied services and communications. In the following year, the priority areas continued to be education, animal husbandry, rural development and beneficiary oriented programmes and rural roads. C H Gowda, mandal pradhan of Chitrahalli mandal in Chitradurga district, asserted only 40 per cent of the mandals in the district utilised JRY funds for social forestry.

In Karnataka, the social forestry, horticulture and soil conservation departments, among others, were accountable to the zillah parishads. But Satishchandran argues no conscious environmental effort was made by members of panchayati raj institutions. They did not appreciate that environmental regeneration had to be a part of an overall development effort. "Afforestation was not perceived as a development activity. Mandal pradhans were more interested in short-term benefits," says K M Hegde of the Sahyadari Parisara Vardhini in Bhairumbe of Uttar Kannad district.

P L Budihal, a senior state forest official, says if mandals spent money on social forestry, they preferred roadside plantations, which had greater visibility than block plantations. Another forest official, C Venkatasubbaiah, says in politically divided villages, one party would ask for a plantation on common land to drive out encroachers from rival parties.

M V Nadkarni of ISEC adds, "Mandal panchayats were interested primarily in harvesting produce and had little interest in ploughing resources back to regenerate plantations" (See boxes).

The forest bureaucracy also did not make much of an effort to involve the villagers. Though Venkatasubbaiah claims villagers were asked about the choice of species prior to planting, their involvement at plantation time was minimal. Mandal panchayat involvement began after three years, when the department handed over the plantations over to the mandal. The mandal panchayats were entitled to 50 per cent of the produce and the rest went to the forest department.

But C H Gowda, mandal pradhan of Chitrahalli, says the members of his mandal wanted a bigger share of the produce. The state government was in the early 1990s reportedly considering a scheme to allot 90 per cent of the produce to the people, provided 50 per cent is used to reforest the land.

After the social forestry plantations were handed over to the mandal panchayats, they were to be managed by village forest committees. But this was done in only a few villages. And, where they existed, villagers had little knowledge of them and mandal panchayats tended to disregard them in their attempts to make money out of the social forestry plantations.

Of the development funds available to various departments, a considerable proportion was spent on salaries and maintenance, leaving very little for development. For example, of the Rs 60 lakh allocated to the national watershed development programme in Chitradurga, only about Rs 30 lakh was available for soil conservation after meeting salary expenses. The state's officials claim JRY funds allocated by zillah parishads were sufficient only to meet costs of maintaining the forest department infrastructure.

Operational problems
Budihal also points out funds diverted by mandal panchayats for social forestry plantations were usually too small to raise meaningful plantations. He says if 10 members of a mandal panchayat wanted to raise plantations in their areas, the approximate sum of Rs 50,000 available had to be divided among them.

It is quite apparent that the rural elite controlled the panchayati raj institutions and the programmes they implemented usually reflected their priorities. Powerful mandal pradhans in several villages even misused their powers and entered into illicit arrangements with timber contractors.

But the experience also shows the poorer sections were gradually becoming aware of their rights. Though it will probably be a while before rural communities can determine their destinies, it is clear that social action groups could hasten this process by organising them to take advantage of panchayati raj institutions.