If regular elections and active voter participation in panchayat elections are understood as key for the success of democracy, then Maharashtra, like most of India, does indeed have a vibrant democracy. But does this democracy reduce inequality between sexes and castes? Do the marginal groups have an assertive voice? Does this democracy promote associational feeling across social groups?
Decentralised governance through panchayats is indeed about power to people. A Gandhian dream of self-sufficient village republics could be achieved through panchayats, but who does this power rest with in villages? Why do elected women representatives become mere pawns of their male family members? And, why do assertive representatives from marginal castes in panchayats even face violence or the threat of violence for taking their jobs and posts seriously?
What should we call a democracy which ensures the persistence of inequality and incivility? In my 2013 book, Civility Against Caste, I had suggested that caste and the associated culture of patronage politics in Maharashtra give rise to a procedural democracy void of civility. Looking at caste power – in Marathwada, particularly – provided insights into the control of dominant castes on the state apparatus. Elections were reduced to the power of money and the more localised the elections, the more money flowed into mobilisation during elections. Alcohol before the day of voting along with distribution of money are not rare sights a day before panchayat elections. An election is almost like a festival of men; while women do go out and vote, they hardly indulge in the politics of mobilisation in villages. The auction of seats for status struggles are not rare either and rural democracy is up for sale.
Also Read: Maharashtra: Amid Reports of ‘Auction’, Panchayat Elections in Two Villages Scrapped
Democracy thus may seem to be consolidating, if not deepening, in rural Maharashtra but the actual consequences of democratic functioning do not include substantive rural change. Economist Siwan Anderson and her colleagues provide a nuanced quantitative analysis of Maratha power under rural democracy and the decentralised politics of Maharashtra. Close to 90% of people vote in local elections and almost no one is forced to vote. While most vote, Marathas comprise 60% of village pradhans, as against their 40% population share. For Anderson, such over-representation of Marathas in gram panchayat (GP) results is less poverty reduction and more poor governance in villages. They suggest that the Marathas, “as the traditionally dominant caste of the region, are somehow able to control the functioning of GPs — either through their numerical strength or economic strength — and use them for reasons other than in poverty alleviation roles.”
The ‘superior social cohesion’ amongst Marathas—both the landholding and the landless—leads to a kind of political exchange in which the non-Maratha landless groups accede to their subordination in return for minimal insurance transfers.
Voters show their identity cards as they wait for their turn to cast their votes for gram panchayat election, at Varunji village in Karad, January 15, 2021. Photo: PTI
Following the 73rd amendment, the panchayats were endowed with greater funds for rural development. However, dominant castes like the Marathas use local governance and democracy for purposes other than development. Their control and dominance in local institutions of government rationalises their traditional kingly status. One of Anderson’s Maratha respondents observed, ‘Marathas have always been the rulers and so it is natural for people to accept their leadership. They have daanat (obligation to give). When labourers go to them for help in times of need (especially for marriage ceremonies and illness), they give…’
Daanat is more about status and prestige, however, and in my own research in Marathwada, I have suggested that Maratha kinghood is not restricted to dominance over Dalits—it does not spare lower OBCs either and the culture of masculine politics reduces women of all castes to domestic roles in rural politics. The masculine nature of politics in panchayats – centred around caste patronage – does little to reduce caste and gender inequalities. Thus, hopes for the promotion of scientific temper or genuine civility in rural politics is rather far-fetched.
Anderson et al.’s paper on Maharashtra is appropriately titled ‘One Kind of Democracy’. Such democracy in so-called progressive Maharashtra neither actively encourages civility nor material equality. Politics is reduced to a culture of rent seeking across government schemes, where the dominant caste gets an excess share of material benefits and the broader culture of inequality and incivility persists. Marginal castes, the landless, women and nomadic tribes have less to gain from decentralised rural democracy as the festival of procedural democracy continues.
Suryakant Waghmore is associate professor of sociology at Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay.