Decentralizing Power: The Critical Role of Activity Mapping in Panchayati Raj

When the 73rd Constitutional Amendment came into force in 1993, it did something genuinely transformative – it gave Panchayats a constitutional identity and handed them a list of 29 subjects to govern. But listing subjects on paper and actually transferring real power are two very different things. More than three decades later, one of the most persistent questions in rural governance is: who exactly does what, and at which tier of the Panchayat? This is precisely the problem that activity mapping was designed to solve – and understanding it is essential to understanding how decentralization truly works in India.

The constitutional foundation: the Eleventh Schedule 🔗

The starting point of any discussion on devolution is Article 243G and the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution, introduced by the 73rd Amendment. The Eleventh Schedule lists 29 subjects – ranging from agriculture, minor irrigation, and animal husbandry, to primary and secondary education, health, sanitation, drinking water, roads, and social welfare – that are meant to fall within the functional domain of Panchayats.

The three-tier structure of the Panchayati Raj system places the Gram Panchayat at the village level, the Panchayat Samiti (or Intermediate Panchayat) at the block level, and the Zila Parishad at the district level. India currently has about 540 Zila Parishads, around 6,000 Intermediate Panchayats, and over 2.3 lakh Gram Panchayats, together representing more than 28 lakh elected representatives. Critically, however, the Constitution leaves it to state legislatures to actually enact laws determining which Panchayat tier gets which function. This legislative discretion is both the strength and the weakness of the system – it allows flexibility, but it also opens the door to inaction.

What is activity mapping? 🔗

Activity mapping is a structured framework through which each of the 29 Eleventh Schedule subjects is disaggregated into specific, concrete activities – and each activity is then assigned to a particular tier of the Panchayat. Instead of saying “health is a Panchayat function,” activity mapping specifies, for example, that maintaining sub-health centres falls to the Gram Panchayat, coordinating block-level immunization drives falls to the Intermediate Panchayat, and overseeing district hospitals falls to the Zila Parishad.

The Ministry of Panchayati Raj (MoPR), established as a separate ministry in May 2004, was central to pushing this idea forward. In 2005, the MoPR organized seven Round Table Conferences with State Ministers and jointly released an activity mapping framework to encourage states to adopt a systematic approach to devolution. The goal was simple: eliminate ambiguity about who is responsible for what, so accountability has a clear address.

Why activity mapping matters for accountability 🔗

Before activity mapping became a priority, the devolution of functions to Panchayats was largely notional. States would pass resolutions saying certain subjects were “transferred” to Panchayats, but without specifying which tier was responsible for which activity, multiple agencies – state departments, district offices, and Panchayats – would often claim ownership of the same function, or no one would act at all. This overlap and ambiguity severely undermined service delivery.

Activity mapping directly addresses this by creating a clear demarcation of responsibilities. When a citizen in a village does not have access to drinking water, activity mapping should make it immediately clear whether the complaint lies with the Gram Panchayat (for maintenance of hand pumps), the Intermediate Panchayat (for block-level water supply coordination), or the Zila Parishad (for district infrastructure). Without this clarity, bureaucratic finger-pointing replaces genuine accountability.

The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2nd ARC) specifically called for clear activity mapping to prevent overlap between different levels of government – acknowledging that overlap is not just an administrative inconvenience, but a structural barrier to effective rural governance.

The 3Fs framework: functions, functionaries, and funds 🔗

Activity mapping does not work in isolation. It is part of a broader framework known as the 3Fs of devolution – Functions, Functionaries, and Funds. Devolving a function without accompanying staff (functionaries) and financial resources (funds) renders the devolution hollow. A Gram Panchayat that has been assigned primary school management on paper but has no teachers under its control and no budget to act has received little more than a title.

The MoPR’s Panchayat Devolution Index, prepared by the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), ranks states on six dimensions: Framework, Functions, Finances, Functionaries, Capacity Building, and Accountability. According to the latest report, overall devolution across states increased from 39.9% in 2013-14 to 43.9% in 2021-22 – an improvement, but still far below what the Constitution envisions. The Functionaries dimension alone saw a jump of over 10% (from 39.6% to 50.9%) during this period, partly because of infrastructure investments under the Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Abhiyan (RGSA). Yet, as the data shows, functional devolution itself remains incomplete and uneven.

Variation across states 🔗

States like Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh score above 60 on the Devolution Index and are classified as ‘very high’ performers, while states like Jharkhand, Goa, and several northeastern states lag significantly behind the national average of 43.89%. Karnataka, for instance, delegates a substantial number of functions to Panchayats, gives them a strong role in centrally-sponsored schemes, and tops the index on both finances and accountability. By contrast, states with lower scores often have activity mapping documents that exist on paper but are not backed by administrative orders, budget transfers, or staff redeployment.

Capacity building: the missing link 🔗

Even where activity mapping and devolution have been formally carried out, effective governance at the Panchayat level requires capacity building – training elected representatives and functionaries to understand their roles, manage finances, and plan for local development. Without capacity, devolution risks becoming a transfer of responsibility without a transfer of capability.

The Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Abhiyan (RGSA) is the central government’s primary instrument for this. Revamped for implementation from 2022-23 to 2025-26 with a total financial outlay of ₹5,911 crore, RGSA trains elected representatives, Panchayat functionaries, and other stakeholders to improve governance capabilities. Between January and December 2024 alone, around 25.67 lakh participants received training under RGSA, making it one of the largest grassroots capacity-building programs in the world. The scheme also supports digital tools like eGramSwaraj for decentralized planning and fund tracking, and infrastructure like Gram Panchayat Bhawans and computers for digital enablement.

The RGSA framework itself acknowledges a critical structural reality: low capacity leads to inadequate devolution, which leads to disempowered institutions – a self-reinforcing cycle. Breaking this cycle requires simultaneous progress on both devolution and capacity, not a sequential approach where one waits for the other.

Challenges in the devolution of functions 🔗

Despite decades of effort, several systemic challenges continue to obstruct meaningful devolution through activity mapping.

Political and bureaucratic reluctance 🔗

State governments and line departments are often reluctant to devolve real power. Transferring functions means relinquishing control over staff, schemes, and budgets – and many state bureaucracies resist this. The Panchayati Raj Institutions have historically not gathered the expected momentum due to political and bureaucratic reluctance to devolve resources and power, domination by local elites, and a lack of political will. Even regular Panchayat elections were not held consistently in many states for years after the 73rd Amendment.

Decline in functional devolution 🔗

One of the more alarming data points comes from a 2022 MoPR report: functional devolution actually declined from 35.34% to 29.18%, indicating that many Panchayats lost rather than gained control over core services during this period. Sectors like rural electrification and vocational training remain firmly under state government control in most states, limiting PRIs’ ability to govern comprehensively.

Fiscal dependence 🔗

Activity mapping without financial devolution is an empty exercise. Panchayats currently raise only around 1% of their revenue through own sources, making them almost entirely dependent on transfers from the state and central governments. Own Source Revenue (OSR) of Panchayats totalled just ₹25,595 crore between 2017-22, with 60% coming from southern states alone – revealing deep regional inequality in Panchayat financial autonomy.

Inadequate staffing 🔗

Many Gram Panchayats lack full-time secretaries or trained personnel to execute the functions assigned to them. The 2nd ARC and MoPR have both emphasized the need for full-time, trained Panchayat secretaries as a baseline requirement for functional governance. Without competent functionaries on the ground, even the most carefully designed activity mapping remains unimplemented.

The way forward 🔗

Activity mapping is not an end in itself – it is a governance tool. For it to work, states must move beyond passing resolutions and actually issue administrative orders, transfer relevant government staff, and assign budgets to the appropriate Panchayat tier. The MoPR’s Panchayat Devolution Index serves as a valuable accountability mechanism by publicly ranking states, creating peer pressure to improve and incentivizing best-practice adoption. Digital platforms like eGramSwaraj, Gram Manchitra, and SabhaSaar are making Panchayat planning and expenditure more transparent, creating an enabling environment for devolved functions to be exercised responsibly.

The constitutional vision behind the 73rd Amendment was not just to create elected Panchayats, but to make them genuine institutions of self-government. Activity mapping is one of the most practical tools available to realize that vision – by ensuring that when a person in a village needs a road repaired, a school staffed, or a hand pump fixed, there is a specific, empowered, and accountable Panchayat tier that has the mandate, the staff, and the money to act.

What do you think? If you were designing an activity mapping framework for your state, how would you decide which activities belong to the Gram Panchayat versus the Zila Parishad – and what safeguards would you put in place to ensure that devolution on paper translates into real power on the ground? Also, given that functional devolution has actually declined in recent years despite constitutional mandates, do you think incentive-based ranking mechanisms like the Devolution Index are sufficient to push states toward genuine decentralization?

References

1. https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/pdf1/S11.pdf
2. https://www.britannica.com/topic/panchayati-raj
3. https://crmindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/SoPR-Report-13-3-2021.pdf
4. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/year-end-review-2025-ministry-of-panchayati-raj
5. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2102965
6. https://decentralization.net/2025/02/the-status-of-devolution-to-panchayats-in-india/
7. https://rgsa.gov.in/Home.html
8. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2198179
9. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2090152
10. https://rgsa.gov.in/resources/files/FrameworkRGSA.pdf
11. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-editorials/strengthening-panchayati-raj-institutions-in-india