India was in a pandemonium at the time of independence, centuries of colonial exploitation had sapped the economic vigour while integration of states in the Indian Union, maintaining the law and order and putting the country on path of economic progress and development called for a strong executive consistent with the democratic structure. The form of this executive had to be best suited for the peculiar problems that India was faced with.
Much deliberation was accorded to what form of executive would best suit India. The opinion of the Constituent Assembly was split between a parliamentary form of government to which it had partially become accustomed during the last 3 decades of the colonial rule or a presidential system modelled on lines of the USA.
Here it is pertinent to mention the essential difference between the two-a parliamentary government has linkage between the legislature, executive and the judiciary while the Presidential system has absolute seperaton of powers. Honorable B.R. Ambedkar described it as a choice between security of American system and Responsibility of the English system. Why, it was finally agreed by the Constituent Assembly to trade security for responsiblity makes for an interesting analysis.

The proponents of the presidential system hailed the absolute separation of powers necessary for protection of the civil liberties of the masses and upholding the due process of law. Legislature was painted as an institution influenced by “party reasons” rather than by “principles of reason”

Judiciary had to be safeguarded against any contamination by political prejudices to ensure absolute purity of justice.

The presidential system also completely separates executive and Legislature to inhibit the possibility of the executive misusing it’s power and bestowing gifts on the legislature in form of ministries, ambassadorships, etc. thus accumulating “camp followers” in the parliament.

Staunch critics of the Parliamentary system like Mr. Kazi Syed Karimuddin went a step further labeling it a hindrance to tranquility since opponents are practically crushed, neglected and ignored and ministers are a reduced to mere slaves of the legislature devoid of any independent judgement and discretion. To drive home their point, they threw light on the tragic events of Panjab-arson, murder, looting, it was claimed, were not contained due to the reluctance of the government to take up a strong attitude because of lack of will to go against popular frenzy.
The author believes that the sad situation of Panjab was a culmination  of various factors that manifested themselves in form of communal violence raising it’s ugly head, terming this as a lack of political will on part of the local leaders is grossly oversimplifying the ordeal that ensued after partition. A presidential form of government it was argued removes this scope of popular frenzy hence inhibiting communalism. The author holds contrary views, any democratically elected leader is bound to pay heed to the popular notion since it is imperative to garner support and accumulate votes.
Honourable B.R. Ambedkar, was probably the best man to critically appreciate the lacunae of the American political set up having pursued legal education in the USA. Alongside eminent jurist Shri Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyyer, Honourable Mr. Mahavir Tyagi, Honourable Sri K. Hanumanthaiya vouched for supremacy of parliamentary form.

The complete isolation of the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary was likened to a conflicting trinity, on instances where difference of opinion arises it is not uncommon for decisions to be stalled for 3-4 years till either the parliament is dissolved or a new President elected. That prosperity is a precursor to stability is common knowledge and these delaying tactics were extremely ill afforded in the Indian scenario, where it was pertinent to carry out development with impeccable alacrity.
A disputes between the three would prove fatal for the peace and prosperity of the nation especially since democracy was still in it’s infancy. Further obsession with painting judges as “paragons of virtue” and according a handful of judges precedence over 550 democratically elected members of the legislature was against the very ideals of democracy, since the legislature is answerable to the people in order to get re-elected which is not the case for judiciary. Independence of judiciary was not to be equated with supremacy of judiciary, these were mutually exclusive concepts.
One might ponder as to why the post of President was created if India adopted a parliamentary form of government.
The Indian president is a symbol of popular sovereignty and impartial dignity, being above party lines and devoid of any political biases of the government she can be considered a true representative of the minority whose political ideology the government of the day does not represent.

In author’s view the constituent assembly grasped the political realities of India, In a country with merely 9% literacy and widespread poverty, litigation is a luxury prone to misuse by the privileged, as was witnessed during the land reforms just after independence, when rich landowners in retaliation to government’s land reform policies aimed at reducing economic disparities resorted to litigation as a means to carry on with the subjugation on the plea that their “right to property” which was a fundamental right in the Constitution was being infringed detriment of the Union as a whole.

Parliament’s work in a geographically vast and populous country like India which has a unitary structure adding to the work load of the legislature mandates direct guidance  from Union executive ministers sitting in the Parliament for smooth transaction of business. Further, if rulers of provincial states were given supreme executive power, insuperable difficulties would’ve emerged for integration of the Indian Union.

Complete separation of powers is neither feasible nor achievable in real world, even the President of the United States have elected judges of the Supreme Court who resonate with their political ideologies on multiple occasions. Lastly, the executive does not have carte blanche in a parliamentary system, it is responsible to the legislature and the scope for judicial review, albeit limited and used sparingly, is not entirely ruled out.