pn
CHAPTER XXV,
previous stage. Recently, indeed, the world has awakened to the fact that
tack of progress in one country constitutes an obstacle to progress in others,
and theneed of dealing with labour questions on a scale transcending
national boundaries resulted in the formation of the International Labour
Organisation. To divide India, at this stage, into a series of units
which could only progress independently would be a definitely retrograde
step. If legislation were left to the provinces, there would be many
occasions in which a province would have a difficult choice. It would
either have to refuse to adopt a salutary reform or run the risk of placing
its own industrialists at a disadvantage as against their rivals in another
province, and possibly of encouraging industry to migrate outside the
province. The difficulties in the way of introducing a shorter working
week in industries in one province would be very serious if the same
industries in an adjoining province were permitted to work for a longer
week. Even if public opinion in every province desired some such
reform, industrialists would insist on a guarantee that their rivals
would accept the reform before binding themselves to it. Each province
would thus tend to wait upon action elsewhere, and all would be at a
disadvantage. In more than one connection we have stressed the
advantage of co-operation and co-ordination, and we feel that in respect
of labour legislation, particularly, co-ordination is one of the valuable
assets for progress in India. The position of India in respect of inter-
national labour relations has been urged as another ground for
keeping labour legislation as a central subject. We do not think that
India’s treaty obligations involve any insuperable obstacle to the
constitutional changes which would result in transferring labour legis-
lation to the provinces ; but it is certainly true that India’s relations to
the world of international labour make it desirable that she should
preserve her unity in this matter.
Objections to Uniformity.

On the other hand, the great size of India and the variety of her
races, climates, languages, ete., furnish an argument for abandoning the
attempt to preserve uniformity. There is no area in the world approach-
ing India in size in which uniformity may be said to be secured in respect
of labour laws. In the United States, Canada and Australia, it is the
component states or provinces that are mainly responsible for labour
legislation. Against this must be set the fact that all these federations
were formed by combining states which were independent of each
other. The powers of the central authority, therefore, had to be created
by subtraction from the powers of the States, and the position was, in
consequence, very different. Further, when two of these federations
were formed, the subject of labour legislation had not appeared above
the horizon, and their experience does not suggest to us that their
example is one that could be followed by India with advantage. It is
brue that in most matters India presents greater variety than any of
these federations; but, having reviewed industrial conditions through-
out India, we are satisfied that, if Burma, is excluded, there are no such
variations as would justify the acceptance of appreciably different