I wish to refer to one or two points which seem to me to require some comments. I find there is an article for the appointment of a Financial Commission, namely article 280. In this article, it is laid down, I am referring to clause (c) “the continuance or modification of the terms of any agreement entered into by the Government of any State specified in Part B of the First Schedule, (that is, the Indian States) under clause I of article 278 or under article 306.” The words ‘under clause (i) to article 306’ are new and they have been inserted after the Second Reading. I am sorry and I regret very much that, being ill, I could not send in my amendment to this. This ought to be considered by the House or by the Drafting Committee or by whosoever be in charge, whether it would not have been better and in the interests of all concerned that the whole financial integration between the Indian States and the Government of India had been entrusted to the Finance Commission. There would have been an independent tribunal as it were which would have judged and decided taking into account all conditions. The present condition is this. The Government of India which is a party to the financial integration is to give the final ruling. That Government being the dominant partner, and the Indian State being the subservient partner, the balance of benefit is always likely to be on the side of the dominant partner. Therefore I say that it would have been much better if the financial integration had been left to the Finance Commission. The clause I referred to above is a new addition, which has been inserted after the Second Reading. This clause restricts reference to the Finance Commission to certain agreements only. I am afraid the attention of the House has not been drawn to this particular new clause. I would very humbly request the President and the authorities concerned to reconsider of financial integration between the Government of India and the Indian States is entrusted to the Finance Commission. This is a very important point; much more so, because, as one of the previous speakers said, some of the States are losing a very big portion of the income which they derive, e.g., from customs and railways. In such a State of things, it behoves the Government of India to take into account the loss which they are suffering and to take upon itself the burden of the privy purse at least. By the abolition of the States, the Government of India on the whole derives much more benefit than the particular State concerned. I am sure that after a few years, every Indian State would in any case have had responsible Government. The popular movement was so strong that in a few years time, they could not have remained rulers and probably the position as far as the rulers were concerned would have been much worse.
