Dear Friend,
It is not so. Please go through Constitution of India and then come out to comment on this very important topic.
The founding fathers of the constitution were very wise and talented persons, who created the present system of government by enshrining the best possible alternatives for the country. India, electing to be a democratic republic union needed, and needs even today, a duly elected Stfigure head to represent Indian State and a dully elected Prime Minister to run the Government. They envisaged checks and balances by defining the roles of all the three organs of the Government i.e. executive, legislature and judiciary and that is why indian democracy survives and thrives even today whereas in so many other countries iwhich became democracies around the same time, dictatorships took roots by dethroning the democracies. Yes, if some flaws have crept in, the Parliament elected on the universal franchise in the country is competent enough to rectify the same. But none could abolish the basic structure of our constitution as has been made amply clear by the hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Could you cite one example from the countries of the world where post of the Head of State does not exist whether he/she be a monarch or President. Then why and how we can say such type of things.
Comments based on logical facts on the post are invited.
Thanks and regards,
Mr, Rajpal please do not mind, I HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH THE CONSTITUTION once, BUT SEVERAL TIMES, i HAD POL SCIENCE TILL GRADUATION, THAN DID LAW, I am law practitioner for last more than 30 yaers, Had been JT Director legal in Delhi and had long association with constitution experts, even when I was drafting The present NCC Act and Rules, I had to discuss various provisions of this holy book, Since my first master was in History, so I have seen the provisions of the constitution from that angle also. I can say with my full conviction that the people who drafted the constitution were wise or unwise but the system/provisions are unsuitable, constitutions of five countries were copied, merged and drafted blindly with biased mind with out any thought/consideration to our requirements/suitability. Neither the constitution drafting committee had representatives from all areas/sections of our society nor they were capable or free to choose by themselves the provisions/system, even free discussions in parliament/assembly on the constitution were not allowed by Nehru and co.
However, I am not against the post of the president nor the topic of the post say so, Please donot be under wrong impression about constitution, I think, you need to read again with careful and analytic eyes, also donot make the book as a shield/weapon to force your views, Also the topic is different please, discuss the toppic. regards
Last edited: