Sir, this innocent clause has covered a very wide and controversial field of debate and yet I think appetite of some of the speakers has not been satisfied. I thought that this would be passed without any debate. The principal amendment which has been suggested would cut at the root of the whole structure of the constitution. We have adopted the British parliamentary model-cabinet system–in this model provincial constitution. The Mover of the amendment contemplates a different model which would, if passed, probably, require us to reconsider the whole constitution. It has been suggested that during the last few years we have considerable experience of the present type of constitution. I do not know whether that is a correct statement of fact, because the constitution under which we were working was a complicated constitution in which the elective system, the services, the Governor’s powers, the checks and counter-checks provided in the constitution were such that when the constitution was passed, it was suggested in the debate that it was humanly impossible to work that constitution and even the angles would fail. In spite of that they worked that constitution. The difficulties experienced in the working of that constitution and the bitter experience which some of us had to go through was not due to this particular system of selection of ministers or the prime minister being authorised to select his ministers but to various other causes which need not detain us. I have no intention of touching upon those questions. Somehow or other, some speakers have touched on that question, but I do not propose to enter into that controversy. Election by proportional representation of ministers is, a system which is contrary to the whole framework of this constitution. It cuts at the very root of democracy and therefore does not fit in here. The experience which we would gain in the working of such a constitution would be much worse than the experience that we have gained in the working of the present constitution. Therefore, I suggest that it is a very dangerous innovation to introduce in this constitution and we should not have it here.
