The recent incident at the Anjuna Gram Sabha where it could be clearly seen that two persons were assaulting a member of the gram sabha, Dr Inacio, brings to light the need for urgent redressal of the potential threat faced by gram sabha members in various villages – not just Anjuna. There is no doubt that there is another set of issues related to the presence of the tourism mafia, but this article will be confined to procedural matters relating to the gram sabha.
Measures have evolved either through rules or amendments to deal with situations where gram sabha members are silenced, or booed by a bunch
of hooligans.
These hooligans clearly represent certain vested interests that are impacted by the issues the particular member of the gram sabha or group of members of the gram sabha wish to raise, which are in public interest.
A member from the Block Development Office is deputed, but often it is not even known that such a member is present. It is necessary that the name of the representative of the Block Development Officer should be announced at the start of the gram sabha, similarly, the name of the person (and agency if any) that has been engaged to video-record the proceedings in terms of the rules under the gram sabha. This is important as it is not evident considering that there are also press members video-recording the proceedings. These processes also need to be transparent.
What the BDO’s observer is required to do, needs to be clearly spelt so that there is no ambiguity.
Often, it is seen that the observer approaches the Secretary and asks for details of the decisions taken and provides the same as the report to the Block Development Officer. This makes the whole process redundant, because the presence of the Observer then does not make any difference. If the purpose was only to ensure that the Block Development Officer is apprised of the discussions and decisions, and the same are being taken from the Secretary, then the independence of the report gets compromised. It may be useful to draw up a format, which has details about what this observer is required to report.
This must include specific information about the manner in which the gram sabha is being conducted, and whether the rules are being followed. Also certain details must be mass-collected in advance from every Panchayat, such as the constitution of Supervisory Committees by the gram sabha, and in the Observer’s Report it needs to be stated as to whether the presence of each of the members of those supervisory committees is there at the gram sabha.
This brings to another key factor. The representative of the Block Development Officer must be competent, and hence need to be of a particular designation that would do justice to the report.
It should be possible to draw a pool of workforce from other government departments, who should already be empanelled for this purpose.
Apart from this, the potential observers should be trained for writing these reports. Incompetent representatives reduce the whole exercise to a joke, and enables continuance of these unhealthy practices. The check and balance is of course the video recording, which again, needs to be sealed through a process, and opened also through a defined process, so that the recording does not get tampered and becomes valuable evidence.
This coupled with
the presence of the fourth estate can be an effective check and balance.
It is not as if these suggestions are emerging in this column alone. Active gram sabha members have made representations as a group to the Director, Directorate of Panchayats, Government of Goa. They pointed out that the 15th Finance Commission for Goa had supported what they styled as ‘grassroots democracy’ with a provision for funding to the extent of almost 300 crores.
They also said that this massive funding needs to be utilised for compulsory training and knowledge of laws and procedures to be imparted to all concerned in the village panchayats.
Writing to the Director way back in April, 2023, this group of active gram sabha members had sounded that the situation would only escalate more in the future, creating a ‘bad governance’ name for Goa in the eyes of the Central funds besides numerous other local problems. The prediction has proved prophetic with the escalation to the level of serious assaults.
The group had also proposed other measures for corrective action, such as study of all the BDO observer reports of all panchayats for the period of since 2020 to identify areas which need corrective actions to reinforce grass root democracy in Goa. All these measures are doable and will uphold the institutions that are meant to ensure democracy.
Providing very specific minimum guidelines and formats for every requirement, and imparting specific training regarding gram sabhas can play a significant role in ensuring accountability. It is also necessary to amend the "Goa Panchayats (Gram Sabha Meetings) Rules, 1996”, to pin a certain measure of accountability, in the manner in which it is done under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
But will the Government heed these suggestions, or is it complicit with the hooliganism going on, at the behest of the powers that be? Where is the responsiveness of the Government? Only when the Government is responsive to suggestions such as these and engages to find solutions, will the 73rd amendment to the Constitution of India have real meaning and pave the way for a vibrant grassroots democracy.
(Albertina Almeida is
a lawyer and human
rights activist)