Vol. 13 · pages 481–485

from the Members of the Executive, sitting in Parliament, it would be very difficult for Members of Parliament to carry on the work of the Legislature. The functioning of the members of the Executive along with Members of Parliament in a debate on legislative measures has undoubtedly this advantage, that the Members of the legislature can receive the necessary guidance on complicated matters and I personally therefore, do not think that there is any very great loss that is likely to occur if we do not adopt the American method of separating the Executive from the Legislature. With regard to the question of separating the Executive from the judiciary, as I said, there is no difference of opinion and that proposition, in my judgment, does not depend at all on the question whether we have a presidential form of government or a parliamentary form of government, because even under the parliamentary form of Government the separation of the judiciary from the Executive is an accepted proposition, to which we ourselves are committed by the article that we have passed, and which is now forming part of the Directive Principles. I, therefore, think that it is not possible for me to accept this amendment. [Prof. Shaha’s amendment was negatived.] ***** ARTICLE 41 *Mr. Vice-President : You need not give the reasons for Dr. Ambedkar’s action. Shri H. V. Kamath : I just wanted to put forward the reasons that might have actuated Dr. Ambedkar and put forward my own point of view. So I would like to know from Dr. Ambedkar, in view of the article as passed by the Assembly last year unanimously, why he and his colleagues of the Drafting Committee have sought to delete this word ‘Rashtrapati’ from the article as it appears in the Draft Constitution. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. VicePresident, Sir, before I take up the points raised by Prof. K. T. Shah in moving his amendment, I would like to dispose of what I might say, a minor criticism which was made by Mr. Kamath. Mr. Kamath took the Drafting Committee to task for having without any warrant altered the *CAD, Vol. VII, 10th December 1948, pp. 973-74. 448 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

language of the report made by the committee dealing with the Union Constitution. If I understood him correctly, he accused the Drafting Committee for having dropped the word “Rashtrapati” which is included in the brackets after the word President, in paragraph 1 of that committee’s report. Now, Sir, this action of the Drafting Committee has nothing to do with any kind of prejudice against the word “Rashtrapati” or against using any Hindi term in the Constitution. The reason why we omitted it is this. We were told that simultaneously with the Drafting Committee, the President of the Constituent Assembly had appointed another committee, or rather two committees, to draft the Constitution in Hindi as well as in Hindustani. We, therefore, felt that since there was to be a Draft of the Constitution in Hindi and another in Hindustani, it might be as well that we should leave this word “Rashtrapati” to be adopted by the members of those committees, as the word “Rashtrapati” was not an English term and we were drafting the Constitution in English. Now my friend asked me whether I was not aware of the fact that this term “Rashtrapati” has been in current use for a number of years in the Congress parlance. I know it is quite true and I have read it in many places that this word “Rashtrapati” is used, there is no doubt about it. But whether it has become a technical term, I am not quite sure. Therefore before rising to reply, I just thought of consulting the two Draft Constitutions, one prepared in Hindi and the other prepared in Hindustani. Now, I should like to draw the attention of my friend Mr. Kamath to the language that has been used by these two committees. I am reading from the draft in Hindustani, and it says :— “HIND KA EK P RESIDENT HOGA.............. ” The word “Rashtrapati” is not used there. Then, taking the draft prepared by the Hindi Committee, in article 41 there, the word used is w]ckd (PRADHAN). There is no “Rashtrapati” there either. Shri H. V. Kamath : But, Sir, the point I raised was that the article as adopted by this House had word “Rashtrapati” incorporated in it. The reports of the Hindi or Hindustani Committees are not before the House, and all that I wanted was that this word should find a place in the Draft Constitution now being considered here. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: And I am just now informed that in the Urdu Draft, the word used is “Sardar” ( Laughter). 449DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Now, Sir, I come to the question which has been raised substantially by the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. His amendment, if I understood him correctly, is fundamentally different from the whole scheme as has been adopted in this Draft Constitution. Prof. K. T. Shah uses the word “Chief Executive and the Head of the State”. I have no doubt about it that what he means by the introduction of these words is to introduce the American presidential form of executive and not the parliamentary form of executive which is contained in this Draft Constitution. If my friend Prof. Shah were to turn to the report of the Union Constitution Committee, he will see that the Drafting Committee has followed the proposals set out in the report of that Committee. The report of that Committee says that while the President is to be the head of the executive, he is to be guided by a Council of Ministers whose advice shall be binding upon him in all actions that he is supposed to take under the power given to him by the Constitution. He is not to be the absolute supreme head, uncontrolled by the advice of anybody, and that is the parliamentary form of government. In the United States undoubtedly, there are various Secretaries of State in charge of the various departments of the administration of the United States, and they carry on the administration, and I have no doubt about it, that they can also and do as a matter of fact, tender advice to the President with regard to matters arising under their administration. All the same, in theory, the President is not bound to accept the advice of the Secretaries of State. That is why the United States President is described as the Chief Head of the Executive. We have not adopted that system. We have adopted the parliamentary system, and therefore my submission at this stage is that this matter which has been raised by Prof. K. T. Shah cannot really be disposed of unless we first dispose of article 61 of the Draft Constitution which makes it obligatory upon the President to act upon the advice of the Council of Ministers. Do we want to say it or not, that the President shall be bound by the advice of his Ministers 7 That is the whole question. If we decide that the President shall not be bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers, then, of course, it would be possible for this House to accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. But my submission is that at this stage, the matter is absolutely premature. If we accept the deletion of article 61 then I agree that we would be in a position to make such 450 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

consequential changes as to bring it into line with the suggestion of Prof. Shah. But at this moment, I am quite certain that it is premature and should not be considered. Mr. Vice-President: I am now going to put the amendment to vote, amendment No. 1036, first part, standing in the name of Prof. K. T. Shah. The motion was negatived. Article 41 was adopted and added to the Constitution. ***** ARTICLE 42 *Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar (Madras : General) : Mr. VicePresident, Sir, Prof. Shah’s amendment, if it meets with the acceptance of the House, would mean that the House, for the reasons which Prof. Shah has assigned, is going back upon the decision reached by various Committees of this House as well as by the Constituent Assembly after considerable deliberation on previous occasions.... ***** ...An infant democracy cannot afford, under modern conditions, to take the risk of a perpetual cleavage, feud or conflict or threatened conflict between the Legislature and the Executive. The object of the present constitutional structure is to prevent a conflict between the Legislature and the Executive and to promote harmony between the different parts of the Governmental system. That is the main object of a Constitution. These then, are the reasons which influenced this Assembly as well as the various Committees in adopting the Cabinet system of Government in preference to the Presidential type. It is unnecessary to grow eloquent over the Cabinet system. In the terms in which Bagehot has put it, it is a hyphen between the Legislature and the Executive. In our country under modern conditions, it is necessary that there should be a close union between the Legislature and the Executive in the early stages of the democratic working of the machinery. It is for these reasons that the Union Constitution Committee and this Assembly have all adopted what may be called, the Cabinet System of Government, the Presidential system has worked splendidly in America due to historic reasons. The President no doubt certainly commands very great respect but it is not merely due to the Presidential *CAD. Vol. VII, 10th December 1948, p. 985. 451DRAFT CONSTITUTION

system but also to the way in which America has built up her riches. These are the reasons for which I would support the Constitution as it is and oppose the amendment of Prof. Shah. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am sorry I cannot accept any of the amendments that have been moved. So far as the general discussion of the clause is concerned, I do not think I can usefully add anything to what my friends Mr. Munshi and Shri Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar have said. Mr. Vice-Presient : I am putting the amendments one by one to vote. All 5 amendments were negatived. [Article 42 was added to the Constitution.} ARTICLE 43 *Mr. Vice-President : I am not putting amendment No. 1063 standing in the name of Dr. Ambedkar and others to vote, because it is identical with 1064 which has just been moved. Do you accept it, Dr. Ambedkar ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Yes, Sir. Mr. Vice-President : Then I will not put it to vote. An amendment to amendment No. 1064 standing in the name of Shri Gokulbhai Daulatram Bhatt was not moved as the Honourable Member is not in the House. I disallow, as merely verbal, amendments Nos. 1065 and 1066. Shri S. Nagappa (Madras : General) : I do not move amendment No. 1069, Sir. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President, I move : “That to article 43 the following explanation be added :— “Explanation.—In this and the next succeeding article, the expression “the Legislature of a State” means, where the Legislature is bi-cameral. the Lower House of the Legislature’.” It is desirable that this amendment should be made, because there may be two legislatures in a State and consequently if this amendment is not made it will be open also to the Member of the Upper Chamber to participate in the election of the President. That is not our intention. *CAD, Vol. VII, 10th December 1948, p. 994. 452 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES