76 SOCIAL SCIENTIST As part of its populist propaganda, the government first introduced this scheme in October 1964. It was supposed to ensure that a part of total cloth output would be of the type used by the ^weaker sections' in the economy, to be sold at controlled prices which they could afford. However, as was brought out very succintly in the 61st Report of the Estimates Committee (1973-74) on Civil Supplies, the proportion of total output of cotton textiles of the controlled variety was progressively reduced and actual production was below even these levels. Initially the scheme envisaged 50 percent of cotton textiles production to be controlled and the obligation of individual mills was statuatorily fixed. However, within a few years it was reduced to 40 percent. After another modification in 1968, the obligation declined further to 25 percent. Actual production was even lower: from about 200 million square metres in the quarter November 1968-January 1969, it fell to a mere 9 million square metres in the quarter February-April 1971. It may be noted that this obligation which was statutory to start with was made voluntary from July 1971. The industry agreed to produce voluntarily 100 million square metres of controlled cloth per quarter (that is 400 million square metres in a full year). However except in 1971-72, the actual produciion was far below this quantum. Once again in March 1974, the government reverted to statutory control, and the obligation was raised from 400 to 800 million square metres. There was also a hike in price of controlled cloth to the extent of 30 percent. Nonetheless the industry's actual production remained only around 80—90 million square metres against the statutory requirement of 200 million square metres per quarter. Another thing which came to light was that even within the quantity produced there were ingenious changes in the pattern of production—the proportion of saris, dhotis, shirting and drill produced was negligible while the output of longcloth increased sharply to protect the higher priced uncontrolled varieties of saris, shirting and so on. That the industry was not anxious to produce controlled cloth and that the official machinery failed to cajole or coerce the industry into fulfilling its social obligation was increasingly becoming clear. Nor did the mills keep to the understanding that in the event of shortfalls in the production of controlled cloth they would reduce the prices of the non-controlled varieties. The argument put forward by the industry for its reluctance to produce controlled cloth has been that it has to incur losses in its production. Though this may be true in the case of some firms, given the tremendous differences in productivity across firms in the industry there are firms which would be making some profits in its production although not as much as would be made in the production of the non-controlled varieties. There is no ^sociaF justification in exempting these firms from this obligation. It was in recognition of this fact that the government introduced some exemptions in 1975-76. ^Sick' mills taken over by the NTC were exempted from this obligation. Also, to