Sir, the motion and the amendments raise two
questions. Last time when I moved the motion, my honourable friend
asked for some information to be given to the House with regard to
the constitution of the Utilisation Branch of the Geological Survey of
India. As the House will remember, on the very next day the honourable
friend had tabled a question with regard to the very same question. In the
course of my reply, I gave some information with regard to the Utilisation
Branch and I do not know whether my honourable friend and the rest of
the Members of this House desire any more information with regard to
this Branch. But I see that there is probably some information120
which it was not possible for me to give to the House by reason
of the fact that it could140 (1)
not be put either as answer to the main question or because of the peculiar
nature of the supplementary questions160 that were asked on that day. I
propose to give to the House some information now which I was not able to
convey to it the other day. The first thing that I wish to refer from the point
of view of information is the duties of the Utilisation Branch which I did not
mention that day. I should like to inform the House that according to
the constitution of the Utilisation Branch, it will have three main
duties; 240
firstly, to carry out the necessary field work for proving mineral deposits;
secondly to initiate, where necessary, preliminary mining operations; and,
thirdly, conduct experimental work as may be necessary to solve problems
in ore smelting and other problems of production280 that may be
capable of solution by the utilisation of (2)
India’s minerals. Those are the duties of the Utilisation Branch.
The third question on which my honourable friend
wanted information was the relationship in which the Utilisation Branch
stands to320
the Board of Scientific and Industrial Research. Now, Sir, the position is
this. The Board of Scientific and Industrial Research deals with three things,
namely, inventions, heavy chemicals and naturally occurring salts. The
Utilisation Branch deals with the discovery of minerals360 and proving them. Obviously,
their functions are different. At the same time, there is a certain
amount of interrelationship between the Board of Scientific and
Industrial Research and the Utilisation Branch, and the inter-relation has been
brought about in this way. The in-charge
of the Geological Survey of India is the Chairman of the Committee on heavy
chemicals which420 is working under the Board of Scientific
and Industrial Research. On the other hand, the Director of Board of Scientific
and Industrial Research is a member of the Advisory Committee (3) to the Utilisation Branch of the
Geological Survey. Secondly, by this arrangement, the House will see
that exchange between the two Departments has been arranged.
There were two other questions to480 which my honourable
friend referred. They were by way of criticism of Government’s actions.
He stated that there was a neglect of India’s mineral resources
and, secondly, he suggested that the Utilisation Branch was started more for
the purpose of providing occupation for evacuees from Burma. Now, Sir, with
regard to the first question, I say I regret as much as my honourable friend
does that the question of the development of India’s mineral resources was not
taken in560
hand earlier than it was done. But I think my honourable friend
realises that there were three principal difficulties in the way of
India’s undertaking a project such as the one we have now undertaken,
namely, the establishment of the Utilisation Branch. 600 It is to be
admitted that up (4) to the present
time the Geological Survey of India did not have official mining personnel.
Unfortunately, the Geological Survey of India followed the functions which the
Geological Survey in England had640 followed, namely, to act merely as an
inspectorate of mines rather than as a technical body of experts who were engaged
in developing the mineral resources of India. Secondly, there is a certain
amount of shyness in the mineral exploitation due to the
risks involved in opening up mineral deposits. There was a general belief
prevalent in India, probably700 due to long disuse of mining operations in
the country, that India was not well-endowed with minerals other
than those which were suitable720 for export, such as manganese and mica.
What I would submit to the House and to my honourable friend is that
while we may regret that we have not tackled the business much earlier
than we have done, whether it is not a case where one ought (5) to say that better late than never.
With regard to the question of the employment of Burmese evacuees, I
would like to point out to my honourable friend as well as800
to the House that in this matter, we really had no choice. As I told
my honourable friend, we have been suffering from lack of official
mining personnel. Burma was the only place where mining of lead and zinc was
carried on840
at a large scale. Burma is the only place where mining engineers were trained. Consequently,
rather than saying that we have opened this Branch to give employment to
Burmese evacuees, I think the correct interpretation would be to say that
it is because we were able to use the services of the Burmese
evacuees that we have been able to undertake this project which I
have no doubt is going to be not merely an item in India’s war effort, but
is going to be one of (6) the
greatest things for the future of India.
Sir, turning to the question of the amendments, one
thing I would like to say is that I am really very glad that these960
amendments have been made. I can now say that the account which I have
given of the Utilisation Branch is980 so convincing that those who came
to scoff have remained to pray. But the temple is a very small one and although
I welcome the enthusiasm of the worshippers, I cannot allow this
small temple to be so overcrowded as to leave no breathing space. I am sorry
I cannot accept the amendments. I am sorry I have to oppose these amendments. I
will tell the House exactly the reasons which have dictated this policy. I
would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Members who have moved
these amendments to bear in mind that this Committee is not an1080
Executive Committee. It is not a Committee (7)
which can take decisions and, therefore, anything that is done in this
Committee is not going to commit this House one way or the other. It is purely
an Advisory Committee. 1120 The second thing which in my judgment
presents a stronger reason than the first arises out of the
object of the Committee. The object of the Committee is to bring together
experts and representatives of trade and industry together. That is the primary
object of this Committee. I would like to draw the attention of Honourable
Members to the composition which has been devised for this particular
Committee in order that this principal object may be achieved. Sir,
there are altogether1200 16 members on this Committee as planned
for the present. The House will see that what has been done is to put
five experts on the Committee and to put five representatives of trade and
industry along with them. First of all, there is the Director (8) of Geological Survey of India. Then
there is the Director of the Board of Scientific and Industrial Research.1260
They constitute a body of experts who will sit on this Committee. Then, as
representatives of trade1280 and industry, we have given two scats
to the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. We have given
two seats to steel industry and we have the Secretary of the Commerce
Department to represent the Commerce Department on this Committee.
From this, the House will see that the object of the Committee is really to
bring experts who will tell the industrialists and the representatives
of the trade what minerals they are in a position to prove and the representatives
of trade and industry will tell the experts how they could be commercially
exploited. Now Sir, if the House bears in mind that this is the
principal object of this Committee, there is really not much scope (9) left for the inclusion of1400
what I might call general opinion in the country.
The next argument to which I wish to refer is the fact
that the Committee is already a large Committee. As planned now, there are 14
Members on it. If I1440 accept the amendment which demands four
Members, then the Committee will consist of 18 and I must take into
consideration the fact that if I allow four Members of this House,
the Upper House will demand at least three. That means that the Committee will
consist of 21 Members which will be too difficult for doing the business which it
will be called upon to undertake. The next point to which I should like
to draw the attention of the House is that the constitution of the
Committee already provides for the nomination of four Members by the Labour
Minister. (10)1540
