Introduction 

India’s 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments created a three‑tier local government system to bring decisions closer to citizens; yet uneven devolution and capacity gaps often keep key choices at higher levels, away from ground realities.

Body

Arguments Supporting the Statement

• Centralized Planning Ignores Local Realities: Policies designed far from the ground often mismatch local needs.
  • Eg: The Crop Insurance Scheme (PMFBY) faced criticism as uniform guidelines ignored crop and climatic variations, leaving farmers in rain-fed regions underinsured.
• Rigid Guidelines Restrict Flexibility: Execution agencies have little discretion to adapt programs.
  • Eg:PM-KISAN transfers are uniform, but farmers in drought-prone Marathwada need irrigation support rather than just income transfers.
• Exclusion of Grassroots Participation: Community involvement is often tokenistic, reducing ownership.
• Implementation Gap due to Distance: Bureaucrats or consultants lack first-hand understanding of ground conditions.
  • Eg:In the Swachh Bharat Mission, toilets were built rapidly, but usage remained low due to cultural practices not being addressed.
• Weak Empowerment of Local Bodies: Despite constitutional mandate (73rd/74th Amendments), Panchayats/ULBs remain financially and administratively dependent on higher tiers.

Counter-Arguments

• National Integration Needed: Centralised vision ensures uniformity in core sectors like health and defence.
  • Eg: GST framework ensures common taxation across states
• Resource Mobilisation: Higher tiers of government can allocate funds where local units lack capacity.
• Technological Interventions: Digital platforms bridge centre-local gaps, improving coordination.
• Cooperative Federalism: Large coordination is required for some projects which are designed around cross-state and national integration.
  • Eg: Green Energy Corridors planned centrally for interstate power flows.
• Rights Protection: Central intervention is often essential to safeguard weaker sections, as local governance may be biased or dominated by elites.
  • Eg: Forest Rights Act (2006) recognized tribal land claims, preventing displacement by local power structures and ensuring inclusive development.

Balanced Way Forward

• Context-Specific Decentralisation: Delegate routine decision-making to local bodies, while retaining national oversight in critical sectors.
• Strengthen Cooperative Federalism: Use GST Council and NITI Aayog-type forums for joint policy design and dispute resolution like NITI Aayogs’s Localisation of SDGs (LSDG).
• Build Local Capacities: Provide financial, technical, and administrative training to Panchayats and ULBs for effective execution.
• Integrate Technology & Data: Employ GIS, MIS, and e-governance to connect ground realities with higher policy levels.

Conclusion

Centralised templates help align standards and scale, but they often miss local realities. A practical balance is to set broad goals nationally while shifting real choices, funds, and staff to districts and panchayats with transparent, community‑audited data.

DOWNLOAD PDF