Haryana needs a new administrative dharma

Ranbir Singh

The Government of Haryana has decided to increase the number of divisions from four to six. In addition to Ambala, Gurugraam, Hisar and Rohtak, Karnal and Faridabad have been made new divisions. 

 The Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar has claimed that this is part of a series of measures to provide efficient, transparent and more responsive administration to the people (The Tribune 3 January, 2017). Earlier, the Government had created Charkhi Dadri as a new district. At the time of its formation in 1966, Haryana had one division (Ambala) and seven districts Successive political dispensations have increased the number of divisions and districts more from the political angle than from the administrative one. 

In this context, it will be worthwhile to recall that the Bhupinder Singh Hooda led Congress Government had constituted the Haryana Administrative Reforms Commission under the Chairmanship of Karan Singh Dalal, MLA from Palwal, to suggest streamlining of the state administration. The Commission included two former Chief Secretaries M.C. Gupta and Prem Prashant, a distinguished academician D.R. Chaudhry (Former Chairman of Haryana Public Service Commission) and O.P. Lather, former Engineer-in-Chief of Irrigation Department. 

The Commission had recommended that the number of districts should be reduced from 21 to 10. There should be one district for each of the 10 parliamentary constituencies of the state. Besides the number of sub divisions and tehsils should be 90. i.e. there should be one sub division and tehsil for each assembly constituency. Subsequently it recommended that there should be only 10 Zila Parishads and 90 Panchayat Samities in the state. It further suggested that the area of gram panchayats should correspond to the area of a Patwar circle.

It is a different matter that the previous government ignored those recommendations and kept on increasing the number of districts, sub divisions and tehsils and gram panchayats due to political considerations instead of administrative ones. The present government appears to be doing the same. 

It may be argued that smaller divisions, smaller districts, smaller sub divisions, smaller tehsils, smaller panchayat samities and smaller gram panchayats will bring the administration closer to the people and could also be conducive for greater transparency and responsiveness. But it may or may not enhance administrative efficiency which depends more on the quality of administrators and political leadership of the state.

To be fair to the present government, it may be submitted that it had started the CM Window for the redressal of public grievances. But this mechanism could not match the expectations due to the apathy of the administrators at the district and the sub district levels. The government has also endeavoured to provide good governance by promoting e-governance. However this objective too has so far not been successful due to the lack of aptitude and expertise in the field staff. The deficiency in net connectivity is the other major factor. The lack of awareness among the masses about the Right to Service Delivery and the Right to Information and apathy on the part of the service providers and the State Public Information Officers at various levels has been an impediment in the above context.

Besides, Promod Kumar, Director of Institute for Development and Communications, has been appointed as head of the Haryana Governance Reforms Authority (HGRA) and mandated to simplify old rules and procedures. Unlike other commissions and authorities, the HGRA will not be submitting its report to the state Government in lumpsum. It shall do so monthly.

If the state government is genuinely committed to good governance, it shall have to de-bureaucratise the district administration by strengthening the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs). For this purpose it will have to revisit the Document on Activity Mapping (2006) and ensure genuine devolution of functions, functionaries and funds to them. Mere prescription of minimum educational qualifications for becoming members and office bearers of these bodies is not enough. There is need for an effective capacity building through continued training and hand holding. The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act (1994) also needs revision to make clear cut differentiation in the functions of gram panchayats, panchayat samitis and zila parishads and for putting into place an effective mechanism to ensure coordination in the working of three tiers.

The state government will also have to ensure healthy interface between the office bearers and officers of PRIs and the officers and functionaries of the line departments. Moreover, the very base of decentralised rural governance, the gram sabha, will have to be strengthened through sustained and effective awareness campaigns. But far more important than these steps is the need to change the mindset of political leaders and bureaucracy for this purpose.    

(The writer is former Dean of Social Sciences, Kurukshetra University and has been associated with the Haryana Administrative Reform Commission)