Firstly, let me deal with the form of Government. Dr. Ambedkar’s view is that the British parliamentary executive is preferable to the American non-parliamentary executive on the ground that the former is more responsible though less stable, while the latter is more stable but less responsible. I am inclined to think, Sir, that the advantages of the parliamentary executive have been exaggerated and its defects minimised. It is common knowledge – and from experience also we have found – that the responsible executive under which we have been working for the last two decades has pointedly brought to our attention the fact that a removable parliamentary executive is at the mercy of hostile groups in their own party. Very little time is left to the executive to achieve the programme which is before it. It is so unstable. It is always in fear of being turned out by no-confidence motions. Further, Sir, it is there that the seeds of corruption are sown. A corrupt party-man cannot be turned out by the electorate under the present Constitution or under the proposed Constitution. The Minister or Ministers have always to be very careful to satisfy the various elements in their party in all their legitimate and illegitimate demands. This is the opinion also, Sir, of the Commission that was sent out to India sometime ago, called the Simon-Attlee Commission. It was clearly said that the Ministry is so much engaged in cajoling, in satisfying its Parliament that there is hardly time to look after its administration or to put into effect its schemes. That is a very serious defect. Further, I have heard several members of the party saying: “Well, we cannot vote according to our conscience. There is the Party Whip. God save us from this party system”. This is what has been expressed by many honest legislators. Further, Sir, as I said, there is no stability at all.
