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