While I largely support the adoption of the Parliamentary system by independent India, considering the complex state and issues at hand post-independence, the story behind it has introduced me to some startling revelations which I think give a whole new life to the debate of a Presidential vs Parliamentary system in India.

The most astonishing discovery that I made while reading about the CAD regarding the adoption of the Presidential system was that the question of whether India should go for the Westminster model of Britain or opt for a Presidential form of government as in the US was never put to vote in the Constituent Assembly. Constitutional advisor, BN Rau compiled the reports of the various committees and prepared a draft constitution which was then presented to the drafting committee, to which every amendment moved in opposition was negatived in assembly, and the party members were issued whips to vote in favour of the draft under which the motion to adopt recommendations of Union constitution committee chaired by Nehru and the parliamentary system in large was easily passed. [ CAD, 24 July 1947].

What is even more surprising was that B.R Ambedkar who was a staunch opponent of the parliamentary system before the formation of the constituent assembly and drafting committee came to the terms of Nehru and Congress at large and became one of the chief proponents of the parliamentary system.

What changed a mind like Dr Ambedkar on such a significant subject is one big incident to revisit, why demands put forward by Patel in his provincial constitution committee report were not considered seriously?

And finally, Was our constitution-making, an inclusive process at all as per the popular belief? While I continue to explore relevant docs and constituent assembly debates, I'd like to see what other learned minds feel on this subject.