 What the central government is trying to do by having a reduction of the reference is to get more money for itself. Currently when the central, when the finance commission decides it gives some money right now 42% goes to states. Centre has constantly felt after the 14th commission that this is a lot of money going to states. So they have found various ways and means to actually reduce that so that they can get more money for themselves. Now it's interesting that they have used defense because nobody will question defense and particularly the fact that defense expense has been coming down. But there are two points to this. One is that yes if they feel defense needs more money then they should use it from the money that they already have. Why should they reduce the flow to states? Second is that the money that goes to defense is more on capital expenditure investments. But finance commission doesn't deal with the capital expenditure, it deals only with revenue expenditures. What are they asking for? So it's a very curious thing. Non-lateral fund for what? For salaries? That kind of thing. No of course not. I mean that's utter nonsense. It is a state, it's a part of the issue it would get. Now it's become a UT for purpose of finance commission they have retained it as a state so it makes no difference. Either they will get less nor more because it anyway was getting a part of the state it would get money from the finance commission. Now though it will become a UT from 31st, on 31st October. It makes no difference because for purposes of this finance commission the finance commission has been asked to treat it like a state so there is no difference. It neither makes it difficult nor makes it any easy. Whether he may conquer or he may not conquer the fact is that revenues emanate from growth. So if there is slow growth there will be slower revenue growth. Consequently there will be lesser amount kitty to share. Consequently everybody will get less money. So it's not what the finance commission chairman thinks of it. It is that there is a documented slowdown in the growth and as a consequence of that revenue shortfall will happen. Now for instance the issue today that the union budget in its own thing has estimated 20% growth. Now all the state 20% growth in revenues. Now all the states will go it on that basis and decide their budgets. When there is shortfall the states will suffer for no fault of theirs because the slowdown or centre has not managed the economy well or whatever. So there will be a slowdown there which will mean that all states will suffer the impact of the slowdown. So whether he likes it or not, whether he believes it or not the fact is that revenues are generated from growth and if the growth is slow it will impact the decision of the finance commission.