Sir, so far as clause 6, which affects the States, is concerned, I find from the general tenor of the speeches that those who spoke supported more or less in every way, the general principles of the Bill. Some of the criticisms were, to my mind, irrelevant in the sense that some of them questioned the manner in which the merger has taken place, and some related to the question of changes in the administration adversely affecting the area which has been merged. For instance, an honourable Member from Orissa who first spoke, while supporting the measure, complained about some changes that have been brought about by the merger in the area of the State administration. He pointed out that some of the facilities they were getting when the area was administered by the ruler were not being given, after the merger by the Orissa Government. It is quite possible and conceivable that a benevolent ruler might have spent some more money for the good of the people in that area and that the Orissa government might not have found it possible to do so in that particular are in that particular form. I may say that the whole idea of merger, as conceived, is not to keep small bits of territories separately for the purpose of administration. When a merger has taken place it is possible that they may lose some smaller or minor advantages. But the whole idea is to look at it from a broader point of view and to have a better administration on the whole and to bring backward areas to the level of the provincial administration. Now, when you want a larger good to be obtained, it is quite conceivable that you may have to make smaller sacrifices. But when it is proposed to merge these areas, the smaller sacrifices should not be considered worthy of complaint. Otherwise merger would be impossible.
