PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 961
Now with regard to management, all that I want to say is this. Most people do not realise what is involved in this. If the Government wants to take up the management of a mill because it is badly managed, there is no harm in doing that. But the question is this. Suppose the Government management turns out to be worse than the previous management and losses are created, who is going to be responsible for those losses ? I think some provision must be made. Nationalised industries so far as India is concerned do not appear to be very profitable. Our Airways Corporation, as I see from papers, has brought to us a loss of one crore of rupees within one year.
Shri S. Mahanty: And about Rs. 50 lakhs.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: What other corporations would do I do not know.
But if you take the property of a man because it is mismanaged and because there is a social purpose in it, you must also make some provision that the losses that might be incurred are made good by somebody and are not put on the head of the old man who was the owner of the property.
Now, Sir, one word with regard to clause 5. It seems to me very obnoxious. What are we asked to do by clause 5 ? By clause 5 we are asked to give constitutional validity to laws passed by State Letislatures. We have not seen those laws; they have not been circulated; they have not been debated here. And yet we are asked here to exercise the constituent powers of Parliament not only to validate them but to give them constitutional immunity from the other clauses of the Act. Sir, I think it is very derogatory to the dignity of the House that it should be called upon to validate laws passed by some other State which laws it has not seen, it has not considered. The proper thing for the Government to do is to put these subjects in the concurrent field so that Parliament may at least give them validity by the powers vested in it. But it is a very wrong thing. Because we did it in the case of the first amendment where we added the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution, that is no reason why we should widen this anomaly and this ugliness in the Constitution.
That is all that I want to say.