Devolution in India: A Balancing Act Between Center and Local
The Indian Constitution mandates the devolution of power to local self-government institutions (LSGIs) like Panchayats (rural) and Municipalities (urban) through the 73rd and 74th amendments. Let’s evaluate these provisions and the ongoing debates surrounding the balance between centralized and decentralized governance.

Provisions for Devolution:

Constitutional Mandate: The 73rd and 74th amendments enshrine the principle of devolution, making it obligatory for states to establish Panchayats and Municipalities.

Subjects for Devolution: The Eleventh Schedule for Panchayats and Twelfth Schedule for Municipalities list subjects for which they have functional responsibility, including:

Local infrastructure development (roads, water)
Public health and sanitation
Social welfare programs
Financial Devolution: Though mandated, the extent of financial autonomy for LSGIs varies across states. There are concerns about inadequate resource allocation hindering their effectiveness.

Debates on Devolution:

Effective vs. Nominal Devolution: Critics argue that the current system lacks true devolution, with states retaining significant control over finances and personnel. This limits LSGIs’ ability to function effectively.
Capacity Building: Concerns exist regarding the capacity of LSGIs, particularly in rural areas, to handle devolved responsibilities due to a lack of trained personnel and resources.
Centralized vs. Decentralized Governance: The debate revolves around the optimal balance between central planning and local decision-making. Proponents of strong central control argue for national coherence in development priorities. Conversely, advocates for decentralization believe local governance can better address specific needs and promote citizen participation.
Strengths and Opportunities:

Grassroots Development: Empowering LSGIs can lead to more responsive and accountable governance, addressing local needs more effectively.
Citizen Participation: Devolution fosters increased citizen participation in local decision-making, leading to greater ownership and improved service delivery.
Improved Service Delivery: LSGIs can leverage local knowledge and resources to adapt service delivery to specific community needs.
Recommendations for Strengthening Devolution:

Financial Autonomy: States should provide LSGIs with a reliable source of funding, potentially through increased tax-sharing or grants based on performance indicators.
Capacity Building: Investments are needed in training and development programs for local officials to enhance their skills and knowledge.
Transparency and Accountability: Measures are needed to ensure transparency and accountability within LSGIs to bolster public trust.
Conclusion:

Decentralization through devolution of power to LSGIs holds immense potential for India. However, achieving this potential requires addressing concerns about inadequate resources, capacity building, and ensuring a well-defined balance between central and local governance. By promoting financial autonomy, capacity building, and strengthening transparency, India can empower LSGIs to become effective instruments of inclusive development and accountable governance at the grassroots level.

Law is a set of rules created and enforced by the State to regulate behaviour. Laws are created to maintain social order and peace in the society and provide protection to citizens.
Laws act as a formal means of social control in the following ways:

• Resolving value conflicts: They provide rules and guidelines for resolving value conflicts, such as right to life versus right to die with dignity. For example, law that permits passive euthanasia.
• Settling individual disputes: They provide rule-based settlement of disputes between two or more parties. For example, disputes regarding property, enforcement of contract, etc.
• Uniformity: There are certain rules that even the rulers and those who wield power must follow, for example, discrimination based on caste is legally prohibited for all.

However, a law does not always achieve its purpose and can rather harm society. It can be used to repress individuals and limit their rights. For example, apartheid law, which was earlier prevalent in South Africa. Thus, a legal system, which has been established to maintain social control can sometimes mask the dysfunctional role of law.
The limitations and dysfunctions of law include:

• Unjust laws: Laws can be flawed or biased, and can fail to address societal needs or promote fairness. For instance, daughters were ineligible to be coparceners in a joint Hindu family until the Hindu Succession Act was amended in 2005.
• Misuse of law: Legal actions may be used to harass individuals or to gain revenge rather than redress a legal wrong. For example, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code has been criticized for misuse by the government.
• Not amenable to change: A law may be slow to change because of its reliance on precedents. Also, the Judiciary may be hesitant to introduce changes that society is not ready to accept. For example, the ongoing case related to the legality of same-sex marriages in India.
• Unequal access to justice: Oftentimes, the law and the legal system deny equal access to justice because of inability to pay for legal services, lack of awareness or both. For instance, as per the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data for 2020, about 76% of all prison inmates in India were undertrials, of which about 68% were either illiterate or school dropouts.
• Disproportionate impact on the marginalized groups: Laws can inadvertently have a disparate impact on the marginalized and vulnerable groups, thereby exacerbating existing inequalities. For example, tribals often bear the brunt of land acquisition laws and face displacement.

The legal justice system of a country should continuously evaluate these limitations and dysfunctions and amend the existing laws and implement new ones, so that the purpose of promoting justice, fairness, and social well-being is served.

During the British rule, peasants suffered due to high rents, illegal levies, arbitrary evictions, and unpaid labor. As a result, they emerged as the main force in agrarian movements fighting directly for their own demands.

Nature of the peasant movements in the 19th century:

• Centered around economic issues: The demands of the peasants were centered almost wholly on economic issues such as the Pabna revolt of the 1870s.
• Lack of understanding of colonial motives: There was a lack of an adequate understanding of colonialism and hence colonialism was not the main target of these movements. These movements were directed against the immediate enemies of the peasants i.e. foreign planters indigenous zamindars and moneylenders.
• Limited objectives: The struggles of the peasants were directed towards specific and limited objectives and redressal of particular grievances. It was not the objective of these movements to end the system of subordination or exploitation of the peasants.
• The limited reach of movements: Their territorial reach was limited and there was no continuity of struggle or long-term organization.
• Archaic methods of struggle: The 19th-century peasants did not possess a new ideology and a new social, economic, and political program.
  • These struggles, however militant, occurred within the framework of the old societal order lacking a positive conception of an alternative society.

In contrast, the peasant movements of the 20th century were more organized and nationalistic in nature, which can be evidenced by the following:

• Peasants as part of the Indian national movement: With the appearance of Mahatma Gandhi on the Indian political stage, peasants were brought into the mainstream struggle against colonialism with agrarian movements like the Champaran movement of 1917, Kheda Satyagraha of 1918 and Bardoli Satyagraha in 1926. There was an emergence of nationalist consciousness among peasants.
• Nation-wide organized movements: The nature of these movements was similar across the country in terms of methods adopted like the no rent campaign, no Chowkidars tax campaign, etc.
• Emergence of class-conscious organisations: The movements eroded the power of the landed class, thus, adding to the transformation of the agrarian structure.
  • There was an emergence of independent class organizations of peasants in rural India due to the Congress policy of safeguarding the interests of zamindars and landlords.
  • The first Kisan Congress held at Lucknow in 1935 led to the formation of the All-India Kisan Sabha.
  • These movements were based on the ideology of nationalism.
• National-level leadership: During this period, peasant movements were led by Congress and Communist leaders. For instance, the Tebhaga movement (1946-47) was led by the Bengal Provincial Kisan Sabha.

Therefore, the peasant movements of the 20th century were deeply influenced by and had a marked impact on the national freedom struggle.

The Cold War (1946-1991) was a period of geopolitical tension between the United States (US) and the Soviet Union and their respective allies, the Western Bloc and the Eastern Bloc. Decolonization process that started after World War II resulted in the emergence of several new nations and both the US and Soviet Union, backed by their respective allies, competed intensively for influence over the new nations of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle-East. During the Cold War, the concept of the ‘Third World’ came into being. It referred to the group of countries that represented the third component in the operation and dynamics of a bipolar global balance. These Third World countries were mostly decolonized countries and were developing countries or low income countries. These countries remained non-aligned during the Cold War as they were apprehensive of both powers’ intentions. They also played a very important role of a buffer between the two blocs during the Cold War as:

• Newly independent countries: Many Third World countries had only recently come out of colonial rule and in the 1950s and 1960s, a number of nationalist leaders emerged in the Third World. These leaders wanted to build stronger, more developed countries. They also wanted to reduce the influence of foreign powers over their internal affairs.
• Non-alignment: These countries made a commitment to non-adherence to multilateral military pacts and independence from great powers or block influences and rivalries. Their non-alignment was one important factor, which reduced the intensity of the Cold War. The Non-Aligned Movement, of which India was a major leader, repeatedly advocated maintenance of peace and cessation of arms race.
• Neutral and sovereign functioning: Some Third World countries did not manage to grow peacefully and considerable tensions began to surface which forced the two super power blocs to spend energy and resources to diffuse growing discontent in these countries. This was because it was the strategy of super powers to attract these countries to follow their ideology of Capitalism or Socialism.
• Against imperialism and colonialism: The countries made the commitment to continue their struggle against imperialism in all its forms and manifestations including neo-colonialism, racism, foreign occupation and domination, disarmament etc.
• Peaceful coexistence: These countries desired peaceful coexistence among all nations and complete rejection of the use or threat of use of force in international relations. In the General Assembly, India submitted a draft resolution declaring that the use of nuclear weapons would be against the Charter of the United Nations and crime against humanity and should therefore be prohibited.

Between the periods of World War II in 1945 until 1991, both blocs used several tactics, economic, political and military, to woo the Third World and dominate the other bloc. But the non-aligned position of the ‘Third World’ helped them maintain their sovereignty and avert another world war.