I come now to the next point, that we have too much of centralisation which ignores the powers of the States. We are at the advent of democracy. Democracy has got a tendency to let loose fickle emotions and disruptive forces. In the circumstances without a strong Centre I do not think we can have a successful democracy. We are at the beginning of nation-building. We have to survive as a nation. The question is the survival of a nation in a world of international conflicts. If that is so, we have to decided in favour of a strong Centre. If a party is to have a leader, should not the nation have a strong central government ? America decided to have a strong central government. Canada decided to have a strong central government. Mr. Macdonald, the leader of the constitution, said that all the centrifugal forces should be controlled and therefore a strong centre was necessary. If at the beginning of a state a nation is faced with so many political, economic and social problems there should be a strong Centre, so that power could radiate through all the parts. The Centre should not be so strong as to kill the autonomy of the local governments. But we have not got any such power concentrated in the Centre to kill the autonomy in the States. Therefore, this allegation that the Constitution is more centralised has no foundation. Of course , articles like 365, 371, and 324 look dictatorial, but when you look at the gust of emotions and the centrifugal forces set adrift by the advent of democracy, you will find that for the sake of political welfare and security of law and order, there must be a strong Centre, so that the nation can survive. There are provisions in the Constitution to amend it and if the Centre is too strong we need not fear because when the nation has attained full stature and we can stand on our own legs, we can amend the Constitution and distribute powers equally.
