doe= s not destroy natural resources. = By protecting the needs and r= ights, sustainable development ensures enjoying the same quality of life by sharing of resources of all living creatures of the earth. It has thus become common target of all the countries to set such a framework which sustains the environment and at the same time uplifts the socio and economic standard.

The term ‘sustainable development’ was popularized by the = World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in its 1987 report entitled ‘Our Common Future’. Since then several definitions are given to define ‘Sustainable Development’. However, the most commonly used definition is given by WCED which says = development is sustainable where it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Thus, to have sustainable development always a balance should be made in between improvement of lifestyle that is uplifting of human wellbeing and preserving natural resources = or more widely to say the ecosystem. As stated by WCED ‘Environment and development are not separate challenges. Development cannot subsist on a deteriorating environmental resource base; the environment cannot be protected when growth leaves out of account the costs of = environmental destruction. These problems cannot be treated separately by fragmented institutions and policies. They = are linked in a complex = system of cause and = ;effect’. Thus sustainable = ;development = ;is = ;interlinked in between social, = economic, political as well ecological heads. This interlinks will led to sustainable econom<= span style=3D'letter-spacing:.05pt'>ic d= evelopment.

However, in different conferences since 1980’s different strate= gies and = goals were set up to achieve sustainable development. Recently, = in September 2015, the United Nations (UN) Summit on Sustainable Development adopted the new global goals for sustainable development. United Nations General Assembly adopted the agenda of "Transforming our world: the 2030 A= genda for Sustainable Development” comprising of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with 169 targets and 304 indicators. India being a sig= natory of this conference focused to take strategies to attain sustainable development. Accordingly, the Government of Assam also reco= gnized the importance of SDGs. As stated by Government of Assam Panchayat and Rural Development, the 17 SDGs, 169 targets and

304 = indicators represent the consensus of the global community on things to be d= one b= y different Governments in the interest of the wel= l-being of the entire world and humanity. Keeping the above in view, the Government of Assam has decided to implement the SDGs in the = State with effect from 1st January, 2016, and to launch an initiative titled "Assam -

2030 in light of SDGs" from that date.

In this respect it necessitates to study the role= played by Panchayat Raj Institutions in achieving sustainable development.

Background of the study: Hai= lakandi with an area of 1327 sq.km is a district in the southern part of Assam. Of the three districts of Barak vall= ey, Hailakandi has = got inter-state border with Mizoram on its south, Karimganj district on its west and in north-eastern side it

has Cachar district. Hailakandi is situated between longitude92˚ 25΄&= nbsp; and 92˚ 46΄ east and between 24˚ 8΄ and 24˚ 53΄ north latitude. Of = ;the = ;three districts of = ;Barak Vall= ey, Hailakandi is the smallest district.

Largest number of population of Hailakandi i.e. 92.69 percent resides in the rural areas and their main occupation is agriculture and allied activities. Rice accounted for nearly 80 percent of the gross cultivated area .But this practice is seasonal, in other times they mainly depend on other occup= ations such as day labour. District has very weak economic and social infrastructure.

The unemployment problem in the district is very acute due to high density of population, lack of economic opportunities and shortage of industries in the region.

With largest rural areas Hailakandi has local rural self-government or Panchayat Raj institution (PRIs)= constituting of 1 Zillah Parishad, 5= Anchalik Parishads with 62 Gaon Panchayat.

Objectives of the Study:

1. To study the role pla= yed by PRIs in sustainable d= evelopment.

Method= ology and data base: As f= ound there were 17 SDGs g= oals, goal 1 that is to ‘end poverty in all forms everywhere’ is taken into consideration to study the role of PRIs in sustainable development. The study is based on secondary and primary Data. The secondary data is collected from published books, journals, official websites and internet sources. For collection of primary data sample s= urvey is done. Out of 62 = Gaon Panchayat in Hailakandi district purposively three GP is selected and 10= percent of the villa= gers and all elected members of the GP are interviewed. For this a standard questionnaire is prepared and using suitable statistical tool data are analysed.

Theoretical Background and Literature Review: As it= is known to us that India is a country with = nearly 70= percent = of which is covered by rural&n= bsp; areas. Thus most of the population is residing in the rural areas. Again the picture of rural areas as we all know have less accessibility in economic, social and political outreach. Poverty, economic inequality, social inequality, less accessibility of= education, = health, hygiene etc are the common feature of the = rural areas. N= ow when we say sustainable development in Indian context the most targeted area is the rural areas. Without taking into consideration of the rural areas we cannot fulfill the very ta= rget of sustainable development.

Thus, Panchayats are vested with the power to develop the rural areas. The Balwant Raj Meheta Committee remarked that Panchayat Raj would act as the representatives of the village and ensure the development of the villa= ge as = well as participation of villages in development activities. The 73rd amend= ment Act&= nbsp; (1992) is a stricken landmark in the transition of political power to the grass-root d= emocracy in our country, Decentralization of power have led to the local bodies to take active participation in all socio economic and political decisions. PRIs provide the opportunity to the rural masses to involve themselves from grass-root level to achieve all the national challenges.

This clearly= shows that before the World communities, as represented by UN bodies, became aware of the new disturbing trends and= started thinking about the Millennium Develop-ment Goals (MDGs)—2000, and = Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—2016-

30 wh= ere local bodies may play an important role, in India = PRIs were already earmarked for the devolution of 29 subjects—having in fact the rudiments of all the SDGs = ;g= oals (Mohanty, = Bidyut 2017). Thus to go with sustainable development, it is the urgent need of participation of each and eve= ry one or more precisely to say community participation. In this regard Pancha= yat Raj = Institutions (PRIs) can play a crucial role to achieve sustainable development. PRIs constitute the active involvement of larger section of the society mainly the rural India.

In the present study out of 17 goals of SDGs, goal one that is poverty eradication is taken into consideration. Strategically this particular g= oal is in practice from a= long time in India which is also included in = SDGs in recent times. For end of poverty, several poverty eradication programme is started in India as well as in Assam too. Employment generati= ng scheme are going on to combat the poverty and ensure empl= oyment. MNREGA is such a programme which is giving assurance of sure income in rural areas. The jobless in rural areas are also having a secured income throu= gh this programme that we all know. = ;Apart of that Indira Avash Yojona, sanitation, drinking water facilities, mid-day meal health schemes etc are in practice in the rural areas.

Now = the question is = how far all these have led successfully to remove poverty= since last six decades. Thus, = SDGs is launched in 2016 rethinking of we cannot have a sustainable earth by keeping some one out of the mainstream. Thus all have to walk together. None should be left behind or we can s= ay the = recent sustainable development looks for inclusion of present and future generation.

Ana<= span style=3D'letter-spacing:.05pt'>lysis of Data: To = have a = peep on the functioning of PRIs in the first = goal of SDGs as well as of our country some of the villagers of the sample area were questioned about how far are they= satisfied with the functioning of PRIs in giving houses to BPL, = sanitation and job cards, selecting= ASHA for health service, monitoring the existing health centre, work done under MNREGA and water supply facilities. To measure the satisfaction 0 is used for not satisfied, 1 for moderately satisfied and 2 for = complete satisfied. From the study it was found that the villagers = are less satisfied with the functioning of the PRIs. From = the following table it can be seen that 43.71 percent of the poor villagers are not at all satisfied with the allocation and monitoring functioning of PRIs. Under the heads of providing sanitation facilities, monitoring the health and making the provision of safe drinking water facilities, the villa= gers have very less satisfaction with the PRIs. It was found that 40 percent of the villagers w= ere not at all satisfied by the way sanitation facilities were provided. Making the provision of safe drinking by the PRI could not even cover all the families of the sample villages. It = was found that 58 percent of the families were not easily assessed to safe drinking water= facilities. However, provision of providi= ng job cards to the villa= gers ensuring 100 da= ys of empl= oyment was very satisfactory. As 51 pe= rcent of the families were completely satisfied and 10 percent were moderately satisfied with this function of the PRI= s.

But interestin= gly it was found in the study that just distribution of the card was enou= gh for the PRIs as they failed to monitor or execute in real sense the main function of MNREGA that is to monitor different works done under this scheme. Nearly 59 percent of the villagers were not at all satisfied with the functioning of the PRIs regarding monitoring the works done under the MNREGA= scheme. Most of the BPL families who had job cards did not participated in any work done in the villages or some of them had the card but did not get any work done w= here they could participate. W= hile in selecting of ASHA, the local = health workers nearly 60 percent of the villagers are satisfied with the PRIs = (refer table 1).

Ta= ble 1: Satisfaction level of villagers regarding Allocation and Monitoring Functions of PRIs ( in percentage)
Heads	Not satisfied	Moderately satisfied	Completely satisfied
1. Allocating houses	35	30	35
2. Sanitation Facilites	40	42	18
3. Distribution of Job cards	39	10	51
4. Selecting ASHA	20	20	60
5. Monitoring Health Centre	55	26	19
6. Monitoring works under MNREGA	59	20	21
7. Provision of Drinking Water supply	58	32	10
Total	43.71	25.72	30.57
Source : Sample survey

When interviewed the elected members of the PRIs in the sample area it was found that no proper records are maintained in the GPs. All of them do not attend regularly the Gaon Sabha. The presentation of the people is also less. As stated by the elected members of PRIs that, it is very difficult for them to satisfy the needs of the people. It was also found that most of the elected members also do not have any perfect idea about the term sustainable development. Very less effort was seen to improvise the agricultural pattern even in the villages. = It was surprising to see that the villagers purchase green vegetables and fishes coming from outside. = Production from local fields was negligible. Most of the villa= gers go to urban areas in s= earch of jobs. They find it difficult to maintain their life by the means available in the rural areas. When found what type= of jobs they do in the urban areas it was found mostly they do day labour activity like pulling rickshaw, driving auto, house painting, housemaid, day labour etc. and thus putting the extra pressure in urban dwelling. The concept of self-help groups (SHGs) are also found in the villages but the members of the SGHs are working in very difficult condition with lack of finance, market etc. Thus, even in the villages there is scope to generate means to sustain but due to lack of information, education and sincere effort of all either the PRIs or the citizens they fail to grasp it.

Thus, in the conclusion it can be said that to reduce poverty and attain sustainable development special effort has to make in the rural areas. Avenues have to be opened so that the villages can become self-sufficient to sustain. = ;Active participation of PRIs and thus