I can say that this can very well refer to more than one State, and if that is the position whether it is not intended that such cases should be referred to an arbitrator? If that is so, the article would have to be suitable amended. Perhaps we have to say the word ‘States’ should be substituted for ‘State’ wherever the word occurs. But I merely ask this for clarification and, if Dr. Ambedkar is convinced that there is no likelihood of such cases arising between two individual States or the Union and two other States, then of course my point would not arise. But if it is conceivable that they will arise then a proviso will also be equally necessary.
