Sir, I really do not propose to burden the House with further statistical information and just to avoid this, Government kept at the disposal of the hon. Member of this House, only two days before, the latest statistical information. I do not want to repeat what is stated there, but I must explain the difference in the statistics given by me and by my predecessor. Last time, while speaking on the floor of this House on the question of subsidies I had mentioned that the probable amount that we will have to spend on that account would he Rs. 23 crores and, Sir, I still stand by that statement. The important thing is how you look at the question. The hon. Member Shri Bharucha explained his point view. He said that he stands for preferential treatment to be given to the cities. When I mentioned the figure of Rs. 23 crores I was not thinking in terms of the four cities only. In the month of May we were thinking, under the basic plan of import of this State, of importing something like 11,50,000 tons of foodgrains from the Central Government, and if that whole amount of foodgrains were to be supplied throughout the State at the price level prevailing in the month of March in the city of Bombay, then Sir, Rs. 23 crores would have been necessary. I still repeat what I had said at that time. The hon. Member also tried to point out a sort of discrepancy in the statement made by my hon. Colleague Shri Dinkarrao Desai in the month of March. He had mentioned then that probably Government would have to find an amount of Rs 9 to Rs 10 crores. I may say, Sir, that he had in view then only those four cities. If one takes certain statistics out of context and compares them, something that cannot be explained will result. I am trying to put before the House the facts based on my own information.
The hon. Member tried to make out a point about the four cities. I may assure him, Sir, that I have the interests of the four cities as near to my heart as he may claim to have, but, at the same time, I cannot afford to ignore the interests of the people residing outside those four cities. Whatever help that we got from the Government of India, we tried to distribute it uniformly throughout the State. On principle, I am against showing preference to any particular cities. I have dealt, Sir, with the hon. Member Shri Bharucha’s points in a cursory way.
Then, Sir, the hon. Member Shri Patil spoke about 'no profit, no loss' scheme and he was wondering why an amount of Rs 2 crores had been asked for. The hon. Member does not seem to have gone through the information that is contained in the White Book, where it is specifically mentioned that Rs. 2 crores have been asked for subsidising grains to be distributed in the State. The point relating to subsidy has been explained previously by me. The hon. Member also made some reference to statistics, but I do not propose to repeat again and again what I have already said.
I shall now come to the points that were raised by the hon. Member Shri Jadhav. I unsuccessfully tried to interrupt him while he was speaking. That was done merely with a view to knowing what he himself thought about the fundamental question of control and decontrol in the State, but, Sir, he cleverly, if I may say so, avoided to commit himself, as he normally does, on vital questions affecting the people of this State. He said, ‘If you are going to have controls, have them and take the discredit; if you want to decontrol, yes, have it that way and have the discredit.’ He is only trying to put discredit on the head of the Government which is not to his liking, but, Sir, with your permission, I may tell him and this Hon. House that, whenever one tries to criticise a certain policy followed by the Government, in order to offer constructive criticism, it is necessary to commit oneself as plainly and as explicitly as possible to definite sets of principles on the basis of which an alternative policy can be formulated. But unfortunately, the hon. Member Shri Tulsidas Jadhav has not committed himself to any set of principles which can be called an alternative to the policy of this Government.