Left Front Government Research Articles

Devolution of Financial Power to Local Self-Governments

The article notes that though it was an early starter in decentralisation programmes, West Bengal seems to have failed to keep pace with the resurgence of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in India during the 1990s and is now lagging behind other states. The Mukarji and Bandyopadhyay Committee found in their evaluation report in 1993 that the PRIs of West Bengal were suffer-ing from conceptual and programmatic constraints. Inability of the state to perceive the PRIs as self-government institutions was denoted as a conceptual constraint which, the Committee felt, eventually led to a programmatic constraint. The present study demonstrates that the conceptual limitation originally identified by the 1993 Committee appears to be legitimised in the very con-ceptualisation of the ‘feasibility frontier’ offered by the Left Front Government of West Bengal.

Capitalist development, peasant differentiation and the state: Survey findings from West Bengal

The analysis which follows examines the structure of investment and production taking place in West Bengal, the reference point being the debate between Marxism and populism about peasant differentiation. The process of socio‐economic differentiation has not stopped, but in methodological terms farm size alone fails to register its extent. The main claim advanced by populism — Chayanov's argument concerning demographic differentiation, that rising consumer/worker ratios are accompanied by higher family labour input — was found to be inapplicable. Of particular interest is the role during the last quarter century of the Left Front government in the process of agrarian transformation, and the extent to which its pro‐poor policy interventions have stabilized smallholding peasant production. Among the effects of state intervention in the agrarian sector have been declines in (a) the number of holdings above ten acres (b) in the extent of sharecropping contracts, and (c) in the incidence of absolute landlessness. Although producers under 2.5 acres have been the main beneficiaries of institutional credit provision by the state, distress sales (in the form of marketed surplus) by poorer farmers are still evident.

Panchayati Raj in West Bengal: Popular Participation for the People or the Party?

ABSTRACTSince 1978 the Left Front government in West Bengal, led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) — CPI(M) — has pursued a strategy of decentralized planning through locally elected panchayats (councils) in the countryside. The stated ideological commitment of the CP1(M) is to support and eventually empower the poor and oppressed and this has resulted in Panchayati Raj assuming the status of not just a state sponsored decentralization strategy, but the institutional forum for the mobilization of the poor and the expansion of the party's base. However the CPI(M)'s strategy is to some extent ambiguous in that it combines a need to maintain an electoral status as a party leading a state government within the Indian Union and a political status as a party promoting the conditions for, and the transition to, a people's democracy and thereby socialism.

Limits to Radical Intervention: Agricultural Taxation in West Bengal

ABSTRACTAgricultural taxation policy formulation under the Left Front government in West Bengal indicates landed interests are now powerful enough to resist enhanced taxation. As the most radical government in India abandoned proposed agricultural tax increases in the face of landowner opposition, and felt obliged to lower land taxes instead, India is not likely to increase land revenue for economic development. This effective landowner veto power over taxation policy indicates significant agrarian reform is not forthcoming in India, and the trend is towards greater subsidies for surplus‐producing farmers. The research was conducted through interviews with the policy formulators in West Bengal.

Village Forums or Development Councils: People’s participation in decision-making in rural West Bengal, India

The policy shift towards decentralisation promises important social change in rural India, providing as it does a three-tier system of local self-governments, the Panchayats: at the village level, the district level, and an intermediate level between the two, called the Block Panchayat. There is evidence of far-reaching social change in rural West Bengal, a state in eastern India, after the Left Front government came into power, particularly because of revitalisation of the three-tier Panchayat system. The initial years of Left Front rule saw the village poor enthusiastically attending Panchayat meetings and taking part in decision-making at the village council, the Gram Sabha, the general body of villagers of voting age covering 10-12 villages, and the Gram Sansad, the forum of local democracy at the ward level. However, today, relatively few people in the villages are taking part in government-sponsored initiatives. Panchayat meetings are scarcely attended and almost always exclude certain classes and members of the community. In order to combat the problem, the Government of West Bengal has recently tried to further devolve the power and responsibilities of local government and has established Gram Unnayan Samiti (GUSs) or Village Development Councils, consisting of political members from both elected and the opposition parties and certain nominated members. The GUSs are supposed to bring in more participation at the grassroots level. In this paper, we study the formal policies regarding decentralisation and people’s participation in West Bengal, and analyse the dynamics of political processes regarding decision-making at operational level after the introduction of GUS. We have analysed audio recordings of meetings of the Gram Sabhas and the dynamics of the newly formed GUSs to uncover the actual rate of people’s participation, actual meeting procedures and reasons behind people’s reluctance to participate. We argue that solutions lie in having a strong third-tier in order to address issues of lack of transparency and accountability in decision-making, and make recommendations as to how that might be achieved.