Sir, I listened with great respect to Prof. Shah’s argument about his amendment. I fear the new clause he has moved is completely out of tune with the constitutional structure which this House has proposed and the Drafting Committee has adumbrated. We in this House have given our approval to parliamentary system of government, and what Prof. Shah sponsors in his amendment is, I might say, the Presidential executive. Of course, we can argue about the merits and demerits of both the systems, but we have come to accept the Parliamentary system to be suitable to this country and for very good reasons that system seems to be better adapted to conditions in India than Presidential executive. I think instead of having a conflicting trinity it is better to have a harmonious governmental structure. If we, as he says, completely separate the executive, judiciary and the legislature, conflicts are bound to arise between these three Departments of Government. In any country or in any Government, conflicts are suicidal to the peace and progress of the country. The first and foremost foundation on which a Government or society can work is peace to begin with and if there is separation–not separation but Prof. Shah wants complete separation–then conflicts are sure to arise between these three Departments of Government. Therefore, I say that in a Governmental structure it is necessary to have what is called “harmony” and not this three-fold conflict.
