---------------------------♦----------------------------- INTRODUCTION

“Participation means direct involvement of masses individually or through representatives. Participation cannot be imposed on the people from above; it should be voluntary and based on the will to participate. People’s participation or involvement can better be understood in terms of participation in decision-making, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of developmental programmes and projects and the most important is the sharing of the benefits of development.” (Mishra, 1995)1.

A reference to these institutions has been made in the Vedas and other scriptures. The writings of Kautilya also contain evidence showing their existence in the ancient period. In due course of time, the village communities began to be governed by a council of five members, Panchayat. These bodies performed the functions of tension management and conflict resolution. The legitimacy of the authority of Panchayat was based on religion and custom. In addition to these Panchayats of village communities, there existed simultaneously, caste and sub-caste Panchayats to regulate the code of conduct of their members. Although Panchayats of village communities as well as of castes have been glorified as democratic institutions by those who have taken a romantic view of the rural society of the ancient era, these were dominated by the male landlords of the higher castes owing to its caste-base, patriarchal and feudal character. Be that as it may, these institutions had complete hold over the rural people during the ancient period. The establishment of a centralized system of administration by the Mauryan dynastly, however, is reported to have reduced their significance to some degree. But their authority was fully restored as a result of decentralization of administration during the Gupta period. On the whole, the Panchayats remained autonomous institutions of local government in the ancient India.

The evolution of the Panchayati Raj system in the post-colonial period may be divided into the pre-Balwant Rai Mehta Study Team Report, post-Balwant Ray Mehta Study Team Report and the pre-73rd Amendment and the 73rd Amendment phases.

2

Here in this study, we have gathered data from the respondents about the methods of decision making in PRI meeting/discussion. The table given below presents the data on this issue.

The table reveals that 137 respondents opined that PRI decision are taken as per rule, i.e. voting system, followed by 34 (15.18%) respondents who have no clear idea about the decision making process. While 53 (23.66%) responded that all the decision are taken unanimously. Similarly at the Gram Panchayat level 20 (14.09%) Panches, 4 (26.67%) Sarpanches and 10 (16.95%) Panchayat Samiti members did not response to it. It means they act as a person of just thumb impression or signing on paper about the consensus of final decision taken by other member of the Panchayat. Majority of 99 (69.72%) Panches and 8 (53.33%) Sarpanches opined that all the decisions are taken as per the rules like casting of vote. 6 (75.00%) Zila Parishad member responded that maximum of decision taken through the process of casting vote. So on the basis of above data that decisions are taken either by voting or by Unanimity.

A women leader has to devote time and feel concern towards functioning/activities of PRI as well as in the family. Some women leaders feel PRI’s work as an involvement in functions.

This table shows that majority of 179 (79.92%) respondents agreed that they participate in their family/other activities, while 45 (20.00%) respondents did not participate in social/activities. Similarly 112 (78.87%) Panches, 12 (80.00%) Sarpanches, 49 (83.05%) Panchayat Samiti members and 6 (75.00%) Zila Parishad members constitute the group of women leaders who participate in their family and other activities but extent of their participation is directly lies on their family socio-economic and political position like male dominance, economic situation, education standard and PRI position.

So on the basis of above analysis we may conclude that there is a large extent of participation in family and other activities by women PRI leaders. The social system of rural society contains the extent of freedom, participation and rights of women in all sphere of socio-economic and political life. The success of developmental programme depends upon the spirit of mutual understanding, harmony and co-operation between public and officials. To perform the PRI functions and activities PRI leaders have to interact with other officials like Deputy Commissioner, BDO & PO. Mahila Mandal Representatives, Anganwari workers or other women representatives.

Altekar, The Position of Woman in Hindu Civilization, New Delhi: Motilal Banarasi Dass Publications, (1978). Ambedkar, B. R. (Writings and Speeches, Vol. II, (Bombay).

Arya, Subender Singh, Political Participation of SC: A Case Study of two Reserved Assembly Constituencies in UP (1977-91) (1992). Ashok and Harish, Women Poser Status of Women in India, Gian Publishing House, New Delhi (1991). Baig, Tara Ali, India’s Women Power, New Delhi: S. Chand and Company, (1976). Chattopadhyaya, K. D., Status of Women in India, Abhinav Publications Delhi, (1941). Dhillon, H. S. Leadership and Group in a South Indian Village, Planning Commission, New Delhi (1965). Forebes, Gerabine, Women Modern India, The New Cambridge History of India,: Cabridge University Press, New York (1998). Hazel D. Lirna, Women in Local Government, Concept Publication House, New Delhi, (1983).