Roots: village assemblies, colonial boards, Gandhi and Article 40

Detail

1. The tradition of village self-government

• Self-governing village communities: India had villages that ran their own affairs through sabhas (village assemblies).
• Panchayat: literally "an assembly of five persons". It settled disputes and handled village matters.
• Vedic assemblies: Vedic texts mention the sabha and the samiti. These were early assemblies of the people. They are often cited as proof of an Indian democratic tradition.
• The Arthashastra's administrative ladder: Kautilya grouped villages into units, each with its own centre.

Unit	Villages covered
Sangrahana	10
Karvatika	100 (NCERT: 100; many translations of Arthashastra 2.1 read 200)
Dronamukha	400
Sthaniya	800

• Chola village assemblies: the Cholas had two kinds of village assembly: the sabha (in Brahmin villages) and the ur (in ordinary villages). The Uttaramerur inscriptions of Parantaka I (919 and 921 CE) describe members chosen by lot. This is covered in detail in democracy-forms-outcomes.
• NCERT's caution: the old panchayats were not elected.
• They were usually controlled by elders, the rich and upper-caste men.
• Women, Dalits and the poor had little voice.
• So "tradition" is not the same as democracy. Use this point to balance any praise of "village republics".

2. Colonial local self-government

• Lord Mayo's Resolution (1870): began financial decentralisation. Provinces got some control over their own funds. This made local bodies possible.
• Lord Ripon's Resolution (1882): created elected local boards. Elected local bodies in India date from 1882. Ripon is often called the "father of local self-government in India". (The urban side is covered in urban-local-government.)

• Ripon made India's internal administration more liberal. He lowered the salt tax and gave more power to elected local governments [4].

• Royal Commission on Decentralisation (1907–09): recommended village panchayats as the base unit of local government.

• Government of India Act 1919 (Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms):
• Local self-government became a transferred subject. This means it was run by Indian ministers who answered to the provincial legislature, under dyarchy (dual government in the provinces).

• Several provinces then passed village panchayat Acts.

• Government of India Act 1935: local government stayed with the provinces, and this trend continued.

• Congress demand: the national movement wanted stronger and more effective local bodies. It linked independence with moving power away from the Governor-General and down to the people.

3. Gandhi's gram swaraj

• Gram swaraj means "village self-rule". In Gandhi's ideal, each village is a self-governing, self-sufficient republic. It meets its own basic needs and runs its own affairs.
• In Gandhi's words, independence "must begin at the bottom". Power should come up from the village, not go down from Delhi.
• Oceanic circle: this was Gandhi's picture of how society should be arranged. It has no top-down pyramid. Instead, it is made of circles that widen outward, with the individual at the centre and then the village.
• Original words: "ever-widening, never-ascending circles".
• "Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom" (Harijan, 28 July 1946).

• Trap: the Class 11 textbook prints "ever-ascending circles" and "Life will be a pyramid…". That wording reverses Gandhi's meaning. Learn the original.

• Gandhian thinking shaped later documents too. One example is Shriman Narayan Agarwal's Gandhian Constitution for Free India (1946), which was built around village republics [2].

4. Constitution-making: how panchayats became Article 40

• Local government was placed with the states (State List).
• The first draft left villages out. The Draft Constitution of 1948 did not mention the village. Gandhian members called this omission un-Indian and attacked it sharply [3].
• Ambedkar's view (4 November 1948): while introducing the Draft Constitution, he called the village "a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism". He said he was glad the Drafting Committee had not built the Constitution around the village. His remarks drew angry replies from Gandhian members [3].
• Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (17 November 1948): argued the other side. He wanted villages trained in self-government.
• The Santhanam amendment:
• K. Santhanam moved amendment No. 927 to add a new Draft Article 31A [2].
• It was taken up on 22 November 1948. Ambedkar accepted it, and it was added with no opposition [2].

• It became Article 40 [2].

• Text of Article 40: "The State shall take steps 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." [2]

• Nature: Article 40 is a Directive Principle of State Policy (DPSP). These are guidelines for government in Part IV of the Constitution. They are non-justiciable, which means no court can force the state to carry them out (Article 37).
• Gandhian group of DPSPs: Article 40 sits beside other Gandhian articles. These include Article 43 (cottage industries) and Article 47 (prohibition of intoxicating drinks) [2].

5. Why panchayats got so little weight in 1948–50

• Partition and a strong Centre:
• Partition and fears of disorder pushed the Constitution towards a unitary tilt (strong central powers).

• Nehru feared localism, meaning narrow local loyalties that could weaken national unity and planning.

• Ambedkar's social critique:

• He saw villages as the home of caste oppression.

• Giving power to villages could mean giving power to dominant castes.

• NCERT's question: did Nehru and Ambedkar object for the same reasons?

• No. Nehru's worry was about national unity and development.

• Ambedkar's worry was about caste and social justice. Both led to the same result: a weak, non-binding Article 40.

• What came later: this weak start explains the long road that followed: the Balwantrai Mehta Committee (1957), the Ashok Mehta Committee (1978), and finally the 73rd Amendment (1992). That amendment gave panchayats constitutional status in Part IX (in force 24 April 1993).

Prelims Hooks

• Article 40 (a DPSP) tells the state to organise village panchayats as units of self-government. It is non-justiciable.
• Article 40 was Draft Article 31A. It was added through K. Santhanam's amendment and adopted on 22 November 1948 without opposition. It was not in the original Draft Constitution [2].
• Ripon's Resolution (1882) created elected local boards. Mayo's Resolution (1870) was about financial decentralisation. Don't swap them.
• The Royal Commission on Decentralisation sat in 1907–09 and recommended village panchayats.
• The GoI Act 1919 made local self-government a transferred subject under dyarchy.
• Arthashastra units: sangrahana (10), karvatika (100 per NCERT; often read as 200), dronamukha (400), sthaniya (800).
• Uttaramerur inscriptions (919 and 921 CE, Parantaka I, Chola dynasty) describe selection of assembly members by lot.
• Oceanic circle: "ever-widening, never-ascending" (Harijan, 28 July 1946). Any option saying "ever-ascending" is wrong.
• "A sink of localism, a den of ignorance…" was said by Ambedkar (4 November 1948), not Nehru.
• Gandhian DPSPs: Articles 40, 43, 47 (plus 46 and 48 in the usual list).

Mains Points

• Tradition vs democracy: India's "village republics" give panchayats cultural roots. But they were unelected and ruled by elders, the rich and upper castes. Real grassroots democracy needs elections and reservations, which came with the 73rd Amendment. This is a useful two-sided argument for GS-II.
• The Gandhi–Ambedkar–Nehru debate: Gandhi wanted bottom-up power (gram swaraj, the oceanic circle). Ambedkar feared caste rule in villages. Nehru feared localism after Partition. The result was a compromise: a symbolic but non-justiciable Article 40. This explains why panchayats stayed weak until 1992.
• Colonial legacy: British local bodies (Mayo 1870, Ripon 1882, GoI Acts of 1919 and 1935) came from the top. They were meant mainly to share administrative and financial burdens, not to transfer real power. That habit of keeping power at the top continued after 1947, and it still shows in the slow transfer of funds, functions and functionaries to panchayats.
• Reform lesson: the history shows that a non-binding directive (Article 40) was not enough. Panchayats needed mandatory constitutional provisions (Part IX) for regular elections and powers. This is a good example of moving from a DPSP to a binding constitutional obligation.