Which of the following reasons were cited by the Ashok Mehta Committee for the decline of the Panchayati Raj Institutions in India ? 1. Role of Bureaucracy 2. Lack of Political Will 3. Lack of conceptual clarity 4. Lack of gender parity Select the correct answer using the code given below:

1. Evolution of Local Self-Government and Article 40 (basic)

To understand the **Panchayati Raj system**, we must first look at its roots. While village-level governance has existed in India for centuries, the modern foundation was laid during British rule. The most significant milestone was the **Resolution of 1882**, introduced by **Lord Ripon**. He is celebrated as the "Father of Local Self-Government" in India because he advocated for local bodies not merely to improve administration, but as a vital tool for political and popular education Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.528. He believed that decentralizing power would make the government more responsive to the people. After Independence, the founding fathers debated how to incorporate this vision into the Constitution. **Mahatma Gandhi** was a staunch supporter of village autonomy, famously stating that "India lives in her villages." However, others, including **Dr. B.R. Ambedkar**, were concerned that village society was often plagued by localism and caste-based discrimination. This debate resulted in a compromise: **Article 40** was added to the **Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)**. It directs the State to "organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government." In the early years of the Republic, Article 40 was more of a moral obligation than a legal mandate because DPSPs are **non-justiciable** (cannot be enforced by a court). Consequently, many states neglected these institutions. Later reviews, such as those by the **Ashok Mehta Committee (1977-78)**, highlighted that the growth of these bodies was stunted by a lukewarm bureaucracy and a lack of political will among the elite. This historical gap eventually led to the realization that mere "directives" were not enough, paving the way for the landmark constitutional amendments we see today.

Sources: Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.528; M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (7th ed.), Panchayati Raj, p.755

2. The Balwant Rai Mehta Committee (1957) (basic)

To understand the Balwant Rai Mehta Committee (1957), we must first look at the state of India immediately after independence. The government had launched the Community Development Programme (CDP) in 1952 and the National Extension Service (NES) in 1953 to transform rural life. However, these programs were failing to trigger mass participation; they were seen as bureaucratic exercises rather than people's movements. To investigate why this was happening and to suggest improvements, the government appointed a committee headed by Balwant Rai Mehta in January 1957 Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.383.

The committee’s landmark contribution was the concept of 'Democratic Decentralization'. They argued that development cannot be successful unless the people are given the power to plan and execute it themselves. This eventually became known as the Panchayati Raj system. The committee's most famous recommendation was a three-tier system of local self-government:

• Gram Panchayat: At the village level, consisting of directly elected representatives.
• Panchayat Samiti: At the block level, acting as the primary executive body for planning and development.
• Zila Parishad: At the district level, primarily serving as an advisory and supervisory body, with the District Collector as its chairman Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.383.

It is important to note that while the committee provided a blueprint, it did not insist on a rigid, uniform structure across India. This flexibility led to different "patterns" of Panchayati Raj. For instance, in Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh, the Panchayat Samiti (block level) was the powerhouse. In contrast, states like Maharashtra and Gujarat later made the Zila Parishad (district level) the most powerful unit for planning Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.384. This experimental phase defined the first generation of rural local governance in India.

Sources: Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.383; Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.384

3. The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act: Structural Framework (intermediate)

To understand the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act (1992), we must first look at how it fundamentally changed the architecture of Indian democracy. Before this Act, the Indian Constitution provided for a dual polity—a structure where power was shared only between the Union and the States. With this amendment, India became a rare example of a three-tier government system, adding a formal 'Local' level that is constitutionally protected Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Salient Features of the Constitution, p.33. The Act achieved this by inserting a new Part IX (titled 'The Panchayats') and a new Eleventh Schedule, which lists 29 functional items that can be entrusted to these local bodies. At the heart of this structure is the three-tier system of Panchayati Raj. The Act mandates that every state must establish Panchayats at the village, intermediate (block), and district levels. This ensures a uniform structural framework across the country. However, there is a small flexibility provided: states with a population of less than 20 lakh have the option not to constitute the intermediate level Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Salient Features of the Constitution, p.33. The foundation of this entire hierarchy is the Gram Sabha, which is a body consisting of all persons registered in the electoral rolls of a village. Think of the Gram Sabha as the 'Village Parliament'—the ultimate source of direct democracy. A brilliant feature of the 73rd Amendment is how it balances national uniformity with state autonomy. It divides its provisions into two categories: Compulsory (Mandatory) and Voluntary (Discretionary) Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.392. Compulsory provisions are those that state governments must include in their local laws, such as holding elections every five years. Voluntary provisions are left to the discretion of the states, like deciding how much financial power or 'taxing authority' to delegate to the Panchayats. This ensures that while the structure is fixed, the actual 'strength' of the local body can be adapted to local needs Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.388.

Level	Body Name	Scope
Top Tier	Zila Parishad	District level
Middle Tier	Panchayat Samiti	Intermediate/Block level (Optional if pop. < 20L)
Base Tier	Gram Panchayat	Village level

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Salient Features of the Constitution, p.33; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.388; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.392

4. Urban Local Bodies: The 74th Amendment Act (intermediate)

While the 73rd Amendment focused on rural empowerment, the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992 was designed to revitalize urban governance. Before this act, urban local bodies (ULBs) were often unstable, lacked regular elections, and were frequently superseded by state governments. This amendment gave them constitutional status, making it mandatory for state governments to implement a vibrant urban democratic system Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Municipalities, p.399.

The Act inserted Part IX-A into the Constitution, titled 'The Municipalities' (Articles 243-P to 243-ZG). It also added the Twelfth Schedule, which lists 18 functional items that fall under the jurisdiction of municipalities—such as urban planning, water supply, and public health Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Municipalities, p.399. Depending on the size and nature of the urban area, the Act provides for a three-tier structure:

• Nagar Panchayat: For 'transitional' areas (villages turning into towns).
• Municipal Council: For smaller urban areas.
• Municipal Corporation: For larger urban areas NCERT Class VI, Grassroots Democracy, p.179.

Beyond these, there are specialized bodies like Cantonment Boards for military areas and Port Trusts for maritime zones to handle specific administrative needs Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Municipalities, p.404.

A unique feature of this amendment is the emphasis on integrated planning. It mandates the creation of two specific committees: the District Planning Committee (DPC) under Article 243-ZD to consolidate plans from both Panchayats and Municipalities, and the Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC) under Article 243-ZE for large metro regions D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Municipalities and Planning Committees, p.325. This ensures that urban growth isn't haphazard but synchronized with the surrounding rural landscape.

Feature	73rd Amendment (Rural)	74th Amendment (Urban)
Part Added	Part IX	Part IX-A
Schedule	11th Schedule (29 items)	12th Schedule (18 items)
Key Focus	Panchayati Raj	Municipalities

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Municipalities, p.399, 404; NCERT Class VI, Exploring Society, Grassroots Democracy, p.179; D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, MUNICIPALITIES AND PLANNING COMMITTEES, p.325

5. PESA Act 1996: Governance in Scheduled Areas (exam-level)

To understand the **PESA Act (1996)**, we must first recognize that India's tribal communities have lived for centuries under their own unique customary laws and traditional management systems. When the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act was passed in 1992 to institutionalize Panchayati Raj, it was realized that a 'one-size-fits-all' model might disrupt these delicate social fabrics. Consequently, Article 243M of the Constitution exempted Fifth Schedule areas from the standard Panchayati Raj provisions, leaving it to Parliament to extend them with necessary 'exceptions and modifications' Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.393. This led to the enactment of the Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, popularly known as PESA.

The fundamental philosophy of PESA is self-governance through the Gram Sabha. Unlike in regular areas where the elected Panchayat body holds most power, PESA makes the Gram Sabha (the assembly of all adult villagers) the nucleus of democracy. The Act mandates that any state legislation must be in harmony with the customary laws, social practices, and religious traditions of the tribal community Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.393. This ensures that tribal people are not just beneficiaries of development, but the masters of their own resources and destiny.

Currently, PESA is applicable in ten states that have Fifth Schedule Areas: Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, and Rajasthan Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.393. These states were required to amend their local Panchayati Raj Acts to comply with PESA within one year of its commencement Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.391. Some of the extraordinary powers granted to Gram Sabhas under PESA include:

• Mandatory consultation before land acquisition for development projects.
• Ownership and management of minor forest produce.
• Power to prevent land alienation (illegal sale of tribal land to non-tribals).
• Control over local plans and resources, including village markets and intoxicants.

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.393; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.391

6. Ashok Mehta Committee: Diagnosis of PRI Decline (exam-level)

In 1977, the Janata Government appointed a committee headed by Ashok Mehta to examine the stagnant state of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs). While the earlier Balwantrai Mehta model had initiated the system, by the mid-1970s, it was widely felt that these institutions had become 'lifeless' or mere shells of their intended selves. The Ashok Mehta Committee's report (1978) remains legendary for its brutal and honest diagnosis of why the system failed to take root during its first two decades of existence Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.385.

The committee identified three primary 'pathological' reasons for this decline:

• Bureaucratic Resistance: The committee noted that the bureaucracy was often lukewarm or even hostile toward PRIs. Officials were reluctant to work under the control of local elected leaders and preferred a centralized command structure.
• Lack of Political Will: The political elite at the State and Central levels were hesitant to devolve actual power. They viewed PRIs as competitors for influence rather than partners in development. This led to irregular elections and frequent supersessions (suspensions) of local bodies.
• Conceptual Confusion: There was a fundamental lack of clarity about whether PRIs were meant to be mere administrative agencies for implementing government schemes or autonomous units of local self-government. This 'identity crisis' meant they were never given the constitutional or financial backbone they needed.

Beyond these systemic issues, the committee pointed out that PRIs had become dominated by economically and socially privileged sections of society, leading to the marginalization of the poor and Scheduled Castes/Tribes. Interestingly, while the committee suggested reservations for SCs and STs to address this, it did not specifically identify a 'lack of gender parity' as a core reason for the system's historical decline in its 1978 report. Ultimately, due to the collapse of the Janata Government, these recommendations were not implemented at the national level, though states like West Bengal and Karnataka later used them as a blueprint for their own reforms Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.385.

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.385-386

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the timeline of local self-government evolution, you can see how the Ashok Mehta Committee (1977-1978) acts as a diagnostic bridge between the initial enthusiasm of the 1950s and the eventual constitutionalization in the 1990s. This question tests your ability to identify the structural and political barriers that the committee highlighted as reasons for the 'decline and stagnation' of the first generation of Panchayati Raj Institutions. The building blocks you learned regarding the reluctance of state-level leadership and the administrative friction between appointed officials and elected representatives are exactly what this question evaluates.

To arrive at the correct answer (C), you must apply a process of elimination based on the historical context of the 1970s. The committee noted that the role of bureaucracy was often obstructive, as officials were hesitant to work under local political control. This was compounded by a lack of political will from state governments who viewed these bodies as threats to their own power, and a fundamental lack of conceptual clarity where some saw PRIs only as administrative tools for development rather than units of self-government. These three factors created a 'hostile environment' that the committee sought to fix with its 132 recommendations, as detailed in the Report of the Committee on Panchayati Raj Institutions.

The common trap here is Option 4 (Lack of gender parity). While gender representation is a cornerstone of the modern 73rd Amendment, it was not cited by the Ashok Mehta Committee as a reason for the historical decline of the system in 1978. UPSC frequently includes modern progressive values in questions about historical reports to test if you can distinguish between contemporary goals and historical critiques. Since Option 4 is incorrect, you can immediately eliminate (A), (B), and (D), leaving 1, 2, and 3 as the only logical combination.