If the presumption that this is a deficit State is correct, then we will have to be very careful about two or three fundamental questions before we embark upon any change in the present policy. The first is that we must have some assurance or clarification from the Government of India about what their import policy is going to be for the next year. The second is what is going to be the price level that they want to adopt for imported grains in the next year because we are aware that this year and the last year the heavily priced overseas grains which were imported in this country had to be sold at unreasonable prices with consequent sufferings to the people. If we are going to have decontrol in this State, many of the hon. Members have suggested that we should have a system of fair price shops, but may I ask them, can we run fair price shops properly with the price level of imported food grains in this State? My reply to that question would be an emphatic `No’. If at all we are to run fair price shops then the selling prices of the grains that we import from other States and other countries would have to be very reasonable and within the reach of the consumer. When I say ‘consumer’ I have got a particular category before my eyes. I do not speak of a consumer who has got a high purchasing power nor do I mean a consumer who is himself a big producer. There is a class of consumers who have got only the minimum purchasing power in the country and who are non-producers or non-agriculturists. Our policy must have reference to and priority for this class of consumers.
Those who pleaded for decontrol reminded me of the law of supply and demand and asked me to think in terms of that law and allow it to have its own course. Yes, I am quite aware of this very fundamental law of economics but may I tell them that there is another law, a superior law, the law of nature, the law of hunger which neither forgets, nor forgives, nor discriminates. if we ignore this fundamental law of nature, I am sure neither the Press nor the public outside will forgive this Government and the hon. Members of this House. So, before embarking on any change in our policy we will have to be very cautious on this question. As I have already told the hon. Members our policy will be influenced by these two very basic conditions, namely, the’ price level that will prevail and the import policy that the Government of India are going to adopt for the coming year or two.
At the same time I would like to assure the House that we are not going to be guided by a doctrinaire point of view. I refuse to think in terms of ideologies as far as questions of decontrol and controls are concerned. We must try to meet the people’s demand reasonably. If decontrol is going to solve the question, I should say I will go in for decontrol. There is no question of simply using the word ‘decontrol’. I may assure the hon. Members of this House that if these two basic conditions are fulfilled, certainly we will consider what policy we should adopt for the years to come.
Then certain criticism was levelled against the Government. It is a matter of detail, but I would like to reply to some of the points raised because if I go on ignoring those points possibly, I will be misunderstood and the Government’s policy also will be misunderstood. The most important point that was made by the hon. Member Shri Tulsidas Jadhav was about starvation deaths in the State. The hon. Member always takes pride in creating panic about scarcity conditions in this State, but may I tell him that the report about starvation deaths to which he referred is not true. The incident of starvation deaths in East Khandesh which was reported in the Press was properly enquired into. I personally asked the Collector to look into the matter and we have found out that the woman who committed suicide had nothing to do with the availability of food or otherwise. There are many people who choose to commit suicide for their own reasons and it is no use blaming Government for such deaths. This is a wrong approach to the question. That is not the proper way to do things. It is on record that the ration for the previous week had been drawn by that family and, therefore, there is no question of there being no money to purchase the ration. If such deaths are called starvation deaths, why not say that all the deaths that took place in that month were starvation deaths and throw the blame on the shoulders of the Government? I can only say that such an argument is cynical and wholly unjustified and unfair. I do not want to say anything more on this point.
