Today, as we reflect on more than 75 years of history of the Indian republic, a fundamental question emerges: Has our republic evolved in keeping with how it was envisioned during the freedom movement? Or has it gradually transformed into a system where control over power and resources has steadily moved away from citizens?
During the Indian freedom struggle, democracy was not viewed merely as a process of transferring power. Rather, it was imagined as a comprehensive reorganisation of society, one where citizens did not exist solely as the governed but also as participants in the process of governance.
In this context, Mahatma Gandhi’s concept of Gram Swaraj is key, which proposed that India could be strengthened as a federation of autonomous, self-reliant, and self-governing villages. The idea of Gram Swaraj that he outlined in Hind Swaraj was not limited to administrative decentralisation, but was a representation of the moral and political soul of democracy. It emphasised that the right to take decisions should remain with the people, and deemed villages as ‘complete republics’.
While many core ideas of Hind Swaraj were incorporated into the Indian Constitution, the broader vision of Gram Swaraj—where villages would be at the centre of decision-making and have control over resources and governance—never fully materialised into reality at the grassroots. Perhaps this is why, despite clear constitutional intent to uphold the rights of communities over local resources and the role of the gram sabha, these principles have had limited impact in practice. This has directly affected more than 6 lakh estimated villages across India that have not been able to form a broad village federation, a possibility rooted in the original imagination of the Indian republic.
The idea of Gram Swaraj through history
The developmental path that India adopted after achieving political independence slowly pushed the idea of village-centred self-governance into the background. Over time, policymaking and development priorities largely took shape around centralised structures, control over which was primarily in the hands of the government and dominant sections of society. In this process, the meaning of citizenship also became increasingly confined to rights alone. A major, long-term consequence of this was the gradual weakening of the spirit of the republic.
During the Indian freedom struggle, democracy was not viewed merely as a process of transferring power, but as a comprehensive reorganisation of society.
However, history does offer important examples of alternative possibilities, especially village-based republics. One such example is of the erstwhile princely state of Aundh in present-day Maharashtra. Against the backdrop of mass movements led by farmers and workers in May 1938, Aundh’s ruler Bhawanrao Pant decided to abide by public sentiment and relinquished his powers. On January 21, 1939, Aundh adopted a Swaraj Constitution and started to reconfigure itself as a republican federation of 72 villages spread across Satara, Sangli, and Bijapur.
Prepared under the guidance of Gandhi, the Swaraj Constitution was based on certain clearly defined principles, including the abolition of the role of the ruler (who would live as an ordinary citizen), limits on expenditure, and the adoption of a village-centric governance system. Although Aundh merged into the Indian Union in 1948, its nearly decade-long experiment remains an important ideological and practical reference for a ‘foundational republic’ in independent India.
Another significant link in the evolution of republican thought emerged in 1946. Inspired by Gandhian ideas, economist Shriman Narayan Agarwal proposed the Gandhian Constitution, which sought to provide a constitutional direction for the emerging Indian nation state. Divided into 22 chapters spread over 60 pages, this text was both an outline of the structure of governance as well as an attempt to redefine the moral underpinnings of democracy. By linking fundamental rights with fundamental duties, it stressed that citizens’ freedoms could not be separated from social responsibility. Moreover, by positioning village panchayats at the centre as the basic unit of governance, this document advocated for a decentralised political and administrative system under which panchayats would have wide-ranging powers, including judicial functions.
Meanwhile, during the drafting of the Indian Constitution, some members of the Constituent Assembly were in favour of incorporating the ideas and principles of Hind Swaraj, particularly the system of Panchayati Raj, into the text. The absence of a general consensus meant that the assembly ultimately rejected the concept of an administrative system based on Panchayati Raj. However, the Gandhian vision was not wholly rejected and Panchayati Raj was included in the Directive Principles of State Policy on matters such as cottage industries and the prohibition of alcohol.
While these provisions were ethical and moral signposts in the Constitution, due to the lack of legal enforceability, they ultimately did not place binding obligations on the state. Over time, it became evident that though the Gandhian vision of the republic had been recorded in the text of the Constitution, it was restricted in the face of practical priorities of governance.
Self-governance and Panchayati Raj: Past, present, and future
Several decades after the Indian Constitution came into force, a broader political consensus gradually emerged around the Panchayati Raj system. In 1992, Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) were granted constitutional status through the 73rd Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment formally established a three-tier structure of rural self-governance at the village, block, and district levels to empower local communities; ensure grassroots democracy; mandate regular elections; and provide reservation of seats for women, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes. Part IX and the Eleventh Schedule were added to the Constitution, placing responsibility on the states to institute these ‘units of self-governance’.
While these developments can be viewed as a culmination of the long history of experiments with republican governance in India, the gap between the Swaraj Constitution of 1939 and the constitutional recognition of Panchayati Raj in 1992 cannot be explained merely in terms of the passage of time.
In the intervening decades, numerous policy choices, ideological debates, and administrative frameworks shaped governance, development, and nation-building. The development model adopted by India during this time prioritised centralisation, planning, and state-driven progress. In these circumstances, reviving village-centred self-governance in the form that it was originally envisioned became increasingly difficult. Consequently, given the historical and political context, several practical questions emerged regarding the ideals and prospects of Panchayati Raj.
While decentralisation of the republic has continued to be discussed at the level of emotional rhetoric and even policy, in actuality, control over village resources had already become heavily concentrated in the hands of the state in the initial decades after Independence. This structural contradiction prevented the efforts towards decentralisation from achieving their desired outcomes.
While the right of self-governance over jal, jangal, zameen appears to be linked to local democracy, India continues to operate under a largely state-centric republican framework.
Between 1952 and 1960, revised land reform laws gave the state government overarching authority over most rural landholdings. This included not only private lands but also community land, which came to be categorised as government land. Similarly, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act of 1957 brought all sub-surface land under state jurisdiction, ensuring a central role for the government in mining-related decisions. Meanwhile, the colonial Indian Forest Act of 1927 remained in place without any fundamental reforms, legally defining forest land as government property and leaving the role and rights of village and forest-dependent communities to administrative discretion.
As a result of these legal and policy arrangements, while the right of self-governance over jal, jangal, zameen (water, forests, land) appears to be linked to local democracy in theory, India continues to operate under a largely state-centric republican framework in legal and practical terms.
Empowered communities, empowered villages, and an empowered republic
When resources are largely controlled by the state, the decision-making capacity of the gram sabha and the role of local communities becomes limited. However, while it is possible to trace the trajectory of this weakening of community rights over the decades, there is also a parallel story of struggle and mobilisation to be found in the history of the Indian republic—from what began in Aundh in 1938–39 to now.
Time and time again, rural communities have raised their voices to demand that all laws related to water, forests, and land be amended or repealed in accordance with the core spirit of Panchayati Raj. In the republic of a developed India, recognising the gram sabha as the fundamental unit for governance of resources is essential to realising the true possibilities of local self-governance.
In today’s time, the Indian Constitution and constitutional system are regarded as exemplary models of democracy across the world. Yet, it is necessary to make them more effective and just. The most pragmatic and ethical path forward would be to abolish, as soon as possible, the remnants of colonial laws and structures that stand in contradiction to the spirit and potential of Panchayati Raj.
It is on this foundation that a developed India can successfully realise its democratic ideals and Gram Swaraj, and make the republic more vibrant as a confederation of autonomous, independent, and self-reliant villages.
—
Know more
- Learn how communities in Chhattisgarh organised a Coal Satyagraha to resist corporate mining and to reclaim their resources.
- Read about the debates around the implementation of the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act in Jharkhand.
