Mr. President, Sir, I see great mischief in this article. It is contended on the other side that this is only an extended and indirect version of article 229 that is to follow. If it is so innocent as that, my feeling is that it is redundant. This article provides for interference in matters contained in the States List by the Central Government through the agency of the Council of States. The saving feature is, it is said, that in the Council of States the representatives of the various States are going to sit and they are not likely to overlook the interests of the States concerned and to reinforce this, matters like food are brought into the picture. In matters like food it will be in the interest of the States concerned if the Centre steps in and comes to their rescue. In such cases the States will certainly avail themselves of the provision made in article 229. They will have the good sense to request the Centre to step in and legislate in such matters which will be beyond their power or capacity to deal with. Now, I should like to put a pointed question to Dr. Ambedkar. For instance, now there is a situation prevailing in the State of Hyderabad and in Madras Presidency. In some of the border areas in these two States there is disturbance of public peace. Now I would like to ask whether it will be proper, under similar circumstances, for the Centre to intervene and take over the entire portfolio of law and order from the two States concerned and step in. Sir, I am sure that it will be a mockery of provincial autonomy if such a thing happens. So, my point is that this article, if it is only an extended version of article 229, is superfluous, but if there is something behind it, if it is intended that the Centre should go beyond what is contained in article 229, then it is surely mischievous and need not find a place here. Dr. Ambedkar’s original amendment has provided for three years. I should like to know from my friends who have contended that it is necessary that this provision of three years should be there, whether an emergency can be called an emergency if it is going to last for three years and more. Then it will cease to be an emergency and become permanent feature. So the present amendment has tried to modify the vigour of this section which has great potentiality for mischief to interfere with provincial autonomy. I would request Dr. Ambedkar even at this late stage, if it would be possible for him, to withdraw this article and assure that there will be no interference with provincial autonomy.
