The effectiveness of grassroots governance in India hinges on the strength and reliability of the Panchayati Raj system. At the heart of this system are Panchayat Secretaries—officials entrusted with critical administrative responsibilities that directly impact rural populations. Unfortunately, a growing concern has surfaced across many regions: the dismal attendance and inadequate performance of Panchayat Secretaries.
The implications of their absenteeism and disengagement from core duties are not only administrative but also social, as they erode public trust and hamper developmental initiatives at the village level.
One of the most pressing issues is the chronic absence of Panchayat Secretaries from their designated places of work. Villagers routinely complain about empty offices and unresponsive administrative setups. Key functions such as signing certificates, processing welfare applications, and maintaining records are either delayed or neglected altogether.
These aren’t trivial tasks—they are the very services that citizens rely on to access government schemes, prove identity or land ownership, and receive aid. When a Panchayat Secretary fails to show up, entire communities are left in limbo.
A significant part of the problem lies in the burden of additional charges—a bureaucratic term that essentially means that one secretary is assigned responsibility for multiple panchayats. While this might appear efficient on paper, in practice it results in divided attention, diluted accountability, and sheer exhaustion. No individual, regardless of competence or dedication, can effectively manage the affairs of several villages simultaneously. The system becomes one of compromise, where the least urgent matters are perpetually deferred, and the most pressing ones receive only partial attention.
Moreover, many secretaries are frequently engaged in site inspections and field duties. While these are legitimate components of their role, their overwhelming frequency, often dictated by higher authorities rather than grassroots needs, means that routine administrative functions are consistently sacrificed. Villagers arriving at the Panchayat office for urgent document work are met only with locked doors or vague promises of return. The work culture seems to prioritize compliance with district-level or state-level commands over local service delivery.
What has added fuel to the fire is the growing perception that many Panchayat Secretaries are quick to respond—not to the needs of the people, but to calls from MLAs, Ministers, and political higher-ups.
Whenever summoned to a politician’s residence or entourage, these officers reportedly drop their official responsibilities without hesitation. This creates a perception of political favouritism, and worse, suggests that their primary accountability is to power structures rather than to the people they are meant to serve.
Such issues, if left unaddressed, risk turning the Panchayat system into a hollow framework. It is unacceptable for rural citizens to be denied timely services due to the indiscipline or overburdening of secretaries. The very purpose of decentralised governance is defeated when those responsible for implementation are either unavailable or too distracted to deliver.
So what must be done
First and foremost, a thorough review of staffing needs must be conducted. Many regions have seen population growth and expanded administrative requirements, but the number of Panchayat Secretaries has not kept pace. A recruitment drive to appoint more secretaries is not just desirable—it is imperative. Each panchayat must have a dedicated secretary who is not juggling responsibilities across multiple villages.
Second, a robust attendance and accountability mechanism should be instituted. Digital attendance through biometric systems, GPS tracking for field duties, and surprise inspections could deter absenteeism. Performance-linked incentives and penalties may further reinforce discipline.
Third, the culture of political interference needs to be addressed head-on. The role of a Panchayat Secretary is administrative, not political. While cooperation with elected representatives is necessary, it must not come at the cost of public service delivery. Establishing a code of conduct and clear boundaries for official duties can help reinforce this distinction.
Lastly, empowering local panchayats to report non-performance can be a game-changer. If village heads and ward members are given a formal channel to raise concerns about absenteeism or negligence, it could pressure the system to self-correct more rapidly.
In a nation striving toward inclusive growth, the neglect of rural administration is a grave misstep. Panchayat Secretaries are the face of the government for millions. Their absence, delay, or disinterest is more than a bureaucratic lapse—it is a denial of dignity and development to the very last person in the queue. It’s high time the state steps in with reforms that match the seriousness of this issue. The villages of India deserve better.
