A rejoinder
Functioning of Panchayati Raj

THIS refers to M. Rajivlochan’s review of our book Functioning of Panchayati Raj Institutions: Status, Issues and Options (The Tribune, Spectrum, September 27, 2009). While the reviewer is entitled to his views, there are certain things we wish to point out.

Since the main objective of the study was to analyse the present status of PRIs and suggest ways and means to improve them, both primary and secondary data have been used for this purpose. The main sources of secondary data included both published and unpublished documents of the government, while primary data was collected through a detailed questionnaire. Interaction with elected members, officials and civil society organisations was also an important input in the analysis.

The suggestions made in the book also emerge from grass-roots realities reflected in primary data that indicates inadequate financial devolution. That is why increase in the devolution of funds has been recommended.

The Ministry of Panchayati Raj did not provide us the questions to be asked in each state in order to examine the status of its grass-roots democracy, as the reviewer mistakenly surmises. The methodology to conduct the study and specific questions included in the questionnaire were framed by the research team itself.

The use of 18 dimensional matrices identified by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj for mapping the devolution status, mentioned in the Foreword, was just a suggestive hint. The study did not use those matrices very strictly. Moreover, since these matrices are so well known to any serious student of the subject, no need was felt to reproduce these in the book.

As regards the Internet data, these may be available on the Web, but we assessed it from other sources. That is the reason no Internet references have been made.

As for the objection to the reproduction of data from published reports, we have to say that secondary data is a legitimate tool in analysing any issue. The data sources are dully acknowledged in tables and text.

The book is a collection of five separate reports prepared by different research teams. The length of each report depended on many factors such as availability of data and research conditions, especially with regard to the difficulties of fieldwork. While the focus of the study was mainly on the north-west Indian states, especially Punjab, the inclusion of Manipur was guided by the consideration of representing north-east India to obtain a comparative picture. However, Manipur has a limited structure of the Panchayati Raj system. This gives an unfortunate impression of a certain imbalance in the text of book. It is pity that in spite of our best efforts, some proofreading mistakes persist.

As far as the issue of any wrong information is concerned, we affirm that the study is based on the facts and figures supported by secondary and primary data. Hence, there is no question of giving wrong information.

The objectivity of the reviewer can be referred to the disappointing fact that he did not find a single virtue in this book. We are, however, of firm belief that the subject of our study is of critical importance and calls for due attention of the government because it does offer a confident base for any policy formulation

HOME