Take for instance this simple example that I can give you at the moment. Suppose there are trade relations with a country, and as a result of an impending war or of her conduct which is against international policy those trade relations are to be terminated, suppose, all the members of that international association in a body said that they should denounce such trade relations or follow a particular kind of policy as regards them and, that would be a decision, pot a treaty. Even if that decision were adopted practically by the whole world, the Indian representative would have to say that he must go back to India and see that every Unit of India–even a State with a population of 20 or 25 thousand-has to say about it, and that until such consent is forthcoming he could not implement it. That will reduce the whole Central Government to a farce before the international world. As the House is aware, We are moving towards a position when most of tile decisions regarding all larger policies are taken by international conferences, not in the shape of actual treaties but conventions. Decisions with regard to education, hours of labour and various other matters are taken in this way. Surely if this clause is deleted, it will again come to this that a small section of India can hold up the implementation of the decision approved by the rest. Assuming this s power is taken away, India’s representatives can go to any of these gathering, and be a party to all their decisions, but when they come here one-sixtieth of India call put a veto upon the implementation of those decisions That will be the effect of accepting this amendment. If therefore India is to be an international personality and equal to other sovereign bodies of the world it must have the power not only to take part in these decisions but also to implement them.
