Pratidhwani the Echo

A Peer-Reviewed International Journal of Humanities &
Social Science

ISSN:
2278-5264 (Online) 2321-9319 (Print) Impact Factor: 6.28 (Index Copernicus International) Volume-V, Issue-IV, April 2017, Page No.91-96

Published by Dept. of
Bengali, Karimganj College,
Karimganj, Assam, India

Website: http://www.thecho.in

Sustainable Development and Panchayat Raj Institutions: A

Case Study of Hailakandi District of Assam

Dr. Suchitra Das

Asst. Professor,
Dept. of Economics, Karimganj
College, Karimganj,
Assam

Abstract

After walking
a long way with the means and ways of achieving growth and development it

is realized that mere
increasing GNP or high HDI is not an end of development. The most important issue is how to achieve sustainable development. Accordingly worldwide each
and every
country is coming with different strategies and policies of how to achieve
the growth and development without
sacrificing the needs of the future generations.

Recently, the United Nations (UN)
Summit on Sustainable Development 17 sustainable development goals with 169 targets and 304 indicators were
taken into consideration to achieve sustainable development. Amongst these goals one goal was to remove poverty. Now in Inidan context and more
particularly in Assam poverty is a great problem. The very first day of Indian planning, poverty removal was its
prime importance and now
with
the targeted SDGs, poverty removal as the means to achieve sustainable
development has got a new dimension. In this regard Panchayat Raj Insitutions (PRIs) in India and in Assam
particularly,  can  play  a  crucial
role
to
remove  poverty  and  achieve  sustainable development through
ensured community participation. The
present paper studies the involvement  of  PRIs  of  Hailakandi  district
of  Assam  in  sustainable
development.
Satisfaction level of people about the functioning
of  PRIs in poverty
removal is
studied. It is found that 43.71 percent of rural people were not at all satisfied with the
poverty removal
functions of the PRIs. Thus, to reduce
poverty and attain sustainable development special effort has to make in the rural areas.

Key words:
Sustainable Development, Sustainable
Development
Goals, PRIs, Poverty.

Introduction: The term ‘sustainable development’ has become the most important issue of economic development. Worldwide each and every
country is coming with different
strategies and policies to achieve growth and development without
sacrificing the needs of
the future generations. Sustainable
development results in all sphere
positive impact on the
society whether it is economic, social or natural. When there is sustainable development it leads to a use of eco- friendly technologies for the existing industries which has the blame of harming the environment by
producing pollutant, uneven use of natural resources etc. Sustainable development thus, ensures non negligence of environmental constraints, as well

does not destroy
natural resources. By
protecting the needs and rights, 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 economic development.

However, in different conferences since
1980’s different strategies 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 Agenda for Sustainable Development” comprising of 17 Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) with 169 targets and 304 indicators.  India being a signatory
of this conference focused to take strategies to attain sustainable
development. Accordingly, the Government of
Assam also recognized 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 done by
different Governments in the interest of the well-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: Hailakandi with an area of 1327
sq.km is a district in the southern part of Assam. Of
the three districts of Barak valley, 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΄
and 92˚  46΄  east
and between
24˚  8΄  and  24˚  53΄  north  latitude.
Of
the
three  districts  of
Barak
Valley, 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 occupations 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 played
by
PRIs in sustainable development.

Methodology and data base: As found there
were
17 SDGs goals, 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 survey is done. Out of 62 Gaon Panchayat in Hailakandi
district purposively
three GP is selected and 10 percent of the villagers 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
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. Now 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 target
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 village as well as participation of
villages in development
activities.
The 73rd   amendment  Act
(1992) is  a
stricken  landmark in  the transition of political power to the grass-root democracy
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 where 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
goals (Mohanty, Bidyut 2017). Thus to go with sustainable
development, it is the
urgent need
of participation of each and every one or more precisely to say community participation. In this regard Panchayat 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 goal 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 generating
scheme are going on to combat the poverty
and
ensure employment. 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 through 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 say the recent sustainable development looks for inclusion of present and future generation.

Analysis 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 villagers have very less satisfaction with
the PRIs. It was found that 40 percent of the villagers were 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 providing
job cards to the villagers ensuring 100 days of employment was very satisfactory. As 51 percent of the families were
completely satisfied
and
10 percent were moderately satisfied
with this function of the PRIs.

But interestingly it was found in the study
that just distribution
of the card was enough 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 where they
could participate. While in selecting of ASHA, the local health
workers nearly 60 percent
of the villagers are satisfied with the PRIs (refer table 1).

Table 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 villagers go
to urban areas in search 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

the community participation can reduce poverty, and thus follow
the path of sustainable
development.

References:

1.   Dresner, S. (2002), ‘The Principles of Sustainability’, Earthscan, London

2.
Mohanty, Bidyut (2017), ‘Panchayats, Women and Sustainable Development Goals: Reaching out
to the last person’,
Mainstream, VOL LV No
12 New Delhi.

3.   Mohanty, Rudhi Sundar (2014), Rural Development Programmes in Panchayati Raj

Institutions
(PRIs): An Overview,
Odisha Review.

4.   Sustainable Development Goals and Gram Panchayats, The Future we Want, Office of the Resident Cordinator
of  India,
New
Delhi accessed
online at in.one.un.org

5.   World Commission on Environment and Development (1987),
‘Our Common Future’,
Oxford
University Press, Oxford.

6.   http://kvkhailakandi.nic.in/district.html