View Article - Institute of Development Studies

18Simply put, interactions, negotiations and manoeuvring both at the local level as alsobetween the top and the bottom assume a dialogical character. 5 Therefore, our aim here isto examine forces underlying reforms and reciprocally, those unleashed by political andlegislative reforms. All these constitute parts of our enquiry of whether decentralisationmakes government more responsive to the needs of the poor.Differently decentralised: Our focus on varieties of decentralisation is inspired bythe fact that the States in India are larger than most countries in the world in terms ofgeographical territory and population. Understandably different regions of the country are‘differently democratic’ and ‘differently decentralised’. Consequently, we need to adopt adisaggregated approach that captures the diversity and complexity of Indian social, politicaland economic reality. Several scholars focus on ways in which the historical-social contexthas shaped the democratic institutions in different parts of India and reciprocally howsocial realities have been affected by such widely divergent patterns of democratisation. 6As we shall try demonstrate below, inter-State variations in decentralised reforms revealthemselves in at least three distinct ways : a) legislative reforms have followed very differentcourses in the selected States; b) political motives behind such initiatives have been quitedistinct, as has been the nature of social/historical forces that have either helped or hinderedthe reform process; and c) practical results of State initiatives have varied a great dealdepending on social and economic conditions, the nature of political parties, socialinequalities, the educational and political awareness of the public and so on. All this hassurely influenced the local features of respective Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs).The political/legislative narrative of decentralisation in West Bengal : Selection ofWest Bengal as one of the case studies is prompted by the obvious reason of its being inthe national forefront of decentralisation efforts for nearly three decades. Such a long andsecure tenure of the decentralised regime, that too under the tutelage of the same rulingcoalition throughout the entire reform period, provides us with a rare opportunity forstudying the ‘evolution of devolution’ in a meaningful way. Indeed, to mention it somewhatsimplistically and prematurely, as the process of decentralisation has unfolded over theyears in the State, PRIs have grown out of their role as ‘development’ panchayats (as mereappendage to the development bureaucracy) to assume the character of ‘political panchayats(spearheading, in concert with the CPI(M) party, the programme of agrarian reformslaunched by the State government). But with decelerating agricultural productivity growth