Coming to certain defects–of course I can mention only certain defects–I can point out that I do not like the provisions about relations between the Units and the Centre. Speaking on an earlier occasion, I had described that our State was not a Federal State but a decentralized Unitary State. Subsequent provisions, namely article 365 and article 371 have vindicated any description. As far as States in Part B, C and D are concerned, avowedly and admittedly the powers of superintendence and control are vested in the Centre and therefore to that extent the State becomes unitary. The only question of doubt or dispute is with regard to States in Part A. At the time that I spoke on this point, I mentioned a number of marks of subordination to the Centre. I need not repeat them. The domination of the Centre is there. But my grievance is that it is secured by indirect means. I would not have minded it if it was done avowedly, openly and in a straightforward manner. The units are kept completely dependent in financial matters on the good graces of the Centre and it is this kind of semblance of independence with complete dependence upon the Centre for finances that is in my opinion the most objectionable feature.
