There are two points on which I do not want to accept suggestion to appoint a Parliamentry Committee. Our idea is not to demoralise the Air Force. I would like to tell hon. Members, unfortunately, in the recent few months there were a series of accidents which created an anxiety in everybody’s mind, which I do share. But, at the same time, we must not forget, during the NEFA campaign, the wonderful work our air force did without a single accident. That is something which we should take note of.

We have to see that ultimately we do not demoralise them. Some sort of a Parliamentary Commission would create a sort of feeling in their mind, as if something is being done, to find fault with them.

Again, such a committee will have to deal with a large amount of operational data. I think this is a compelling reason which kept me out of the consideration of this type of an enquiry. This is a very important argument. I would like to say that demoralisation comes the other way too. If we just try to create that psychology that in the Air Force they have always to play for safety, that also is not good. There is a difference between civil aviation and the Air Force, because they are supposed to take the risk and fulfil their mission.

Everybody has to take a calculated risk. Sometimes even knowingly he is supposed to take an uncalculated risk. He has to be trained for that purpose.

Again, I must say- again I may he told that I am using statistics to Prove something the flying hours in the Air Force has increased nearly 2 1/2 times more than what was done in 1954 or 1955. I cannot give the flying hours because it will be rather an important information. They have the method of calculating the accident rate per 10,000 flying hours. According to the statistics that is made available to me, they say that compared to other countries the rate is certainly within limits. Therefore, I must put on record the fine work that has been done by our Air Force and the tremendous training commitment that they have done. We must not give an impression that by opening this enquiry we are trying to express any sense of censure.

Our idea is a strengthen them. We cannot afford to lose such trained valuable lives. That is, more important for us. Life of the aircraft is also very important for us. But we must try to find out whether there are any defects which are unconsciously there and which we can try to eliminate. That really speaking is the purpose of this enquiry.

The last point that I want to make is about the Canteen Stores Department, CSDI as it is popularly known, to which a reference was made by Shri Trivedi. The CSDI is essentially a welfare organisation. As we all know our troops are stationed in far-flung forward areas, where marketing facilities are not available. For a large number of requirements of the army personnel outside the issue of rations, which are supplied by the Government itself, they have to depend on some sort of supplying agency. In order to provide this facility, during the British days some agency started functioning. First of all, it was the Contractors’ Syndicate, which was replaced by the Canteen Stores Department in 1942. The present CSDI came into existence in 1947. It is not making use of any Government money.