The Book Parliamentary Government in India is intended to highlight the fact that, inspite of the repeated assertions made by the official spokesmen, in the process of the constitution-making, that they were making a constitution analogous, in all its essential traits, to the British yet the law of the constitution that they put into the statute-book projected one much different from the British.

The author is of the opinion that there is no gainsaying the fact that there are certain blemishes in the constitution which have to be wiped out but the immediate problem before the nation, which need to be given top priority, is the eradication of rampant corruption and criminalisation of politics, which are eating into the vital of the parliamentary system. A public debate is called forth on these diabolical issues and viable solutions have to be found. It would be an exercise in futility and betrayal to the nation if only some changes, here and there, are made in the constitution but the real malady is not cured.

B.P. Pandya holds M.A. Degrees in History and Political Science. He was awarded Ph.D. Degree in Political Science by Lucknow University in 1968 and is the recipient of the Silver Jubilee Gold Medal.

He has authored a book on The Role of Governor and Article 356 (1998) and has published articles on (i) Election Reforms in India and (ii) Role of Governor in the Journal of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies. The Research Projects completed by him under the auspices of ICSSR, New Delhi include (1) Emergency Declarations made in Uttar Pradesh under Article 356, (2) Role and Strategy of Rajya Sabha after the Accession of Janata Party to Power and (3) Role of Opposition in Parliament during Janata Regime.

He retired as Head, Department of Political Science, Y.D. (Postgraduate) College, Lakhimpur-Kheri, Uttar Pradesh.

The book is intended to highlight the fact that, inspite of the repeated assertions made by the official Spokesmen, in the process of the constitution-making, that they were making a constitution analogous, in all its essential traits, to the British yet the law of the constitution that they put into the statute book projected one much different from the British. It seems reason to believe that the compulsions of federalism, which formed the basic postulate of the constitution, made them to deviate, radically, from the prototype lest the inherent contradictions between parliamentarism and federalism should wreck the whole system. However in the law of the constitution they eliminated the contradictions and harmonised the system yet gave misleading statements because somebody in the centre of power, for his personal aggrandisement, wanted a wrong message to be sent to the nation to believe that the constitution was exactly of the British model. Those coming at the helm of affairs though posed themselves to be committed to the parliamentary system yet, conveniently, flouted the norms and conventions attached with the system. It evinces beyond any quintessence of doubt that they were committed neither to the system nor to any philosophy rather were committed to pursue power politics without any holdbars.

There is a dichotomy, pervading althrough, between the law of the constitution and the statement of intentions given by official spokesmen on different occasions on the floor of the House. The compulsions of the federal system, which was sought to be fused with the parliamentary, the constitution makers, though fully appreciated the fact that mutatis mutandis adoption of the British model would be just putting a square peg in a round hole, made a constitution very much different from the British yet for reasons that they were dictated by someone, who happened to occupy the Prime Ministerial chair and wanted to continue occupying the same office under the new dispensation, made statements which illaccord with the law of the constitution. Since federalism and parliamentarism are incompatible with each other and needed legal ingenuity and acumen to eliminate all the contradictions our constitution-makers, by providing necessary poises and counter-poises, did their job very well. Inspite of it they confounded the matter by giving statements, cutting at the very roots of the letter and spirit of the constitution which is really baffling. Once a decision about the basic structure of the constitution was taken they had no alternative but to frame a constitution free from ambiguities and incongruities lest they should contract a stigma of being unworthy of the task. Their hands were tied once after it was decided that the parliamentary system had to work under the imperatives of the federal system and they were left with no liberty to depart from the moorings. They did their job well by producting a constitution which evenly balanced the two elements and scrupulously stood guard against making a tilt in favour of one against the other.

**Contents and Sample Pages**