Royal Commission on Labour in India: Report(1929)||
On the other hand, the great size of India and the variety of her races, climates, languages, etc., furnish an argument for abandoning the attempt to preserve uniformity. There is no area in the world approaching 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 true that in most matters India presents greater variety than any of these federations; but, having reviewed industrial conditions throughout India, we are satisfied that, if Burma is excluded, there are no such variations as would justify the appreciably of appreciably different standards in different provinces, and the advantages to be gained from closer contact with local conditions do not outweigh the grave disadvantages which the loss of central machinery would bring. Burma, as we have already recognised, presents peculiar problems and, while we are satisfied that it has benefited greatly in respect of labour matters by its inclusion in the Indian Empire, we consider that there is not the same need for the maintenance of uniformity with India as there is in the case of the Indian provinces.