An Hon. Member: And also Maharashtra.

Shri Yashwantrao Chavan: Maharashtra has only a marginal interest. I wish this dispute is settled as quickly as possible. But having referred the matter to a tribunal, it is not so simple a matter to withdraw the dispute from the tribunal; unless the States concerned themselves come to a concrete understanding and then make an appeal to the tribunal or the government. Then the position would be different. My only point is that major irrigation schemes sometimes do create problems. Therefore, the State Governments, the Central Governments and the Planning Commission have consistently laid emphasis on medium and minor irrigation schemes, more particularly minor irrigation schemes.

Pumping stations and tube-wells are some of the illustrations of minor irrigation. Huge amounts are invested on this particular programme in practically all the States. So, it is not correct to say that minor irrigation is neglected. At last, that is not the approach of the Central Government or the Planning Commission. If the Hon. Member feels or faces any difficulty in any part of his constituency, he may let us know about it.

My Hon. friend, Shri Stephen made a grievance about the fact that the word “socialism” was not mentioned in the budget. I can assure him that even though the word “socialism” was not there, the content of socialism was there.

He is a valued colleague of mine and when he makes a point I should make a reference to it in my reply. I could see his point. The entire thrust of the budget speech is an attack on unemployment, attack on disparities in the society and prevention of concentration of economic wealth. I think that is socialism. Is it not? What matters is not the word ‘socialism’ but the content. Certainly, if it is necessary, we can use it two dozen times but what is really more important is the content of socialism and as I was covering the entire economic field I did not use that word. There was no other intention or motive behind it. Labels are no doubt important because some of these are symbolic words which characterise our approach to the problem. Therefore, I do not underestimate the importance of what he says. I merely tried to explain what I had in my mind when the speech was made. I have tried to make a reference to some of the general problems that were mentioned.

Some Hon. Member, perhaps, Mr. Stephen, made a reference to the Cochin shipyard. I have got certain facts. If he wants I can give details of it. But I do not want to take the time of the House. According to the present schedule of contract which has been entered into with some firm will be completed within five years from December, 1970 onwards. I think, the programme is going according to schedule. So far, about Rs. 2 crores have been spent. Certain preliminary work has been done. He feels that nothing is being done. Certain things are essential to do the work. For example, you have to have the network of roads and for that you have to acquire land. You know how much time is taken in the land acquisition proceedings and all that. Those things are being done. I am glad he made a mention of it so that the Ministry concerned, the officers concerned, will be up on their toes to see that there is no relaxation in the work.

Some Hon. Members mentioned specific problems about their States and some of the political aspects. I do not think I should take note of those political aspects. I can only assure the Hon. Members that our commitments to the people are there and our determination to stand by our commitments is there. I know that the problems are complex and the solutions are not easy. But the only thing that we can say is that this Government will not spare any efforts to achieve those objectives. That is all I can say.