The Textile Enquiry Committee says that we are getting much less cloth than we had even under a foreign Government in the year 1938-39. Only one conclusion can be drawn from this statement of the Textile Enquiry Committee in its report. I have great respect for his intelligence and I know that the meaning of the report will not have been lost on him. What I was saying was that Indo-Pakistan trade is very important. In the entire scheme of our import-export trade, that does not feature much. The market that we lose there is being taken by the foreigners, especially the U.S.A. and U.K., and the market Pakistan loses in our country is being taken up to a great extent by these two countries, and if you see the line of trade, the fall in the Indo-Pakistan trade has given rise to our trade with one or other of the foreign countries with regard to certain commodities. Our import and export policy does not take initiative to see as to how the trade could be developed with Pakistan. I am aware of the political difficulties that are in the way of the Ministry. At the same time, it is the duty of the Ministry to take initiative and bring home the fact that unless and until we put our trade between these two countries, where normal and natural economic ties have been disrupted, on a proper footing, there will always be disadvantages on our side and certain other interlopers will come in and take advantage of that situation in order to ruin our economy and that precisely is what is happening today if you carefully look into the developments in that connection. There is, yet, another problem of our relations with U.K. that calls for a separate treatment. In the old days the hon. Ministers and their leaders and their camp followers were all complaining against the preferential treatment that was then called Imperial Preference—the various agreements that were arrived at unilaterally for fleecing India’s economy. Times have changed and no longer are we supposed to be in the British Empire; we are a Commonwealth country and a Republic. But what about those preferences? Have they all been abolished? Who are deriving all the benefits out of them? That is a point which needs clarification. Whenever we raise that point, we are told that we are deriving more benefits because of these preferences than the United Kingdom but whenever we read their papers—their London Times, Economic Section and all other papers emanating from the city of London—we find that they tell their own people that they are happy, that they are having this kind of relationship with us and they are gaining by such preferences. Now, are we to understand that we are both gaining as a result of these preferences? I don’t think so. The position is not at all so. On the contrary, as a result of these preferences, India stands to lose. That position, I think, has not been altered to the satisfaction of our country and the hon. Minister will perhaps clarify that position when he speaks. If these preferences work to the detriment of our economy, the time has come when we must give them up. We need not go in for such preferences, and I am sure that the policy which is required has got to be adopted in the interests of our entire economy, not merely in the interests of our foreign sector and not merely in the interests of any particular sector. Reference has been made to sterling balances. I don’t know how much of the sterling balances is left at the moment. It would not exceed 740 crores. It may be much less. A large part of our sterling balances had been expended with a view to meeting the deficits in the balance of payments. It was thought at the end of the war that these balances which had accumulated there would be utilized for financing certain developments in our country, for developing the economy in our country, in particular for importing machinery that we directly required. After the termination of the war, the reverse process took place. I would only mention what Sir Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister at the moment, has written in his War Memoirs. He is very bitter about India’s claims on sterling balances. He says that he does not like at all that India should make demands on the sterling balances. He thought he had saved India and, therefore, India had no right to claim the sterling balances. This is how he has written, although he does not use the same blunt words but he makes it very clear. Here is the British Prime Minister who would not like a penny out of the sterling balances to be paid to India but circumstances have compelled him to do so many things. Similarly, he has been forced to accept a position where sterling balances had to be paid under certain agreements in instalments and we all know that. But you see that large chunks of the sterling balances had been spent for meeting the deficit in the balance of trade. A much bigger amount has been spent for meeting the deficit in the balance of payments including such items as pensions. You know we have a tapering annuity, out of which pensions are paid, and that money is paid from the sterling balances. Therefore, it is a scandalous thing that these balances had been spent not for the development of the economy of our country, but for meeting certain liabilities which we might have just as well avoided and liabilities which we should not even recognise; for instance, the liabilities with regard to pensions and all that. It is no use trying to explain the position in great details regarding the sterling balances in our country. Sir, it is usual in all parliamentary systems of Government for the President, at the opening of a session, to address both Houses of Parliament. It has been criticised as being merely a narration of facts which have happened during the past year. But that is the usual thing, as hon. Members know, which happens in most of the Parliaments which work under parliamentary systems of Government. I am sure that the hon. Members are aware that India has always stood for peace, and ever since her independence, has done what she could to preserve peace in the world. Both in Korea and in Indo-China, our efforts led to a cease-fire, and for the first time, with the settlement of the Indo-China problem, there was no shooting war anywhere in the world. But now again there are war clouds, especially in the Far East. As has been emphasised by the Prime Minister time and again, patience and tolerance are necessary to solve the tangle in Formosa. Our Government have recognised the Chinese People’s Republic as the Government of China and have recognised the Chinese claim to the Cairo Declaration. If the Cairo Declaration is to have any value, then it is fairly certain that Formosa is part of China. Submit