পাতা:বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্র (দ্বিতীয় খণ্ড).pdf/১১৩

86 বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্রঃ দ্বিতীয় খন্ড Suitability of Parliamentary Form: Discussed 3..... 7 In our opinion, we shall be running a grave risk in adopting the parliamentary form, either in its purity or with the modifications suggested, and we do not think that we can afford to take such a risk at the present stage. 38......... 39. It is not correct to say that we have been used to the British type of parliamentary form from a long time, for, prior to the coming into force of the Government of India Act, 1935, the government was in effect more of the presidential type. A certain amount of ministerial responsibility have, no doubt, been introduced in 1919, by what was known as Diarchy, in a few subjects of less importance, but even in those fields the Secretaries to Government, who were of the Secretary of State's Services, were given the right of audience with the Governor over the head of the minister whenever there was difference of opinion. When the Act of 1935 came into force in 1937, it brought in ministerial responsibility in the whole of the provincial field, but the Secretary of State's Services were still outside the control of the ministers. Governors in the provinces were given special powers and responsibilities with regard to these Services, while at the Centre the Viceroy remained supreme. Government of the parliamentary pattern was introduced only when independence was gained and how this system has not been worked successfully has already been explained in the first chapter. It is, therefore, in our opinion, idle to say that we have been so much used to the parliamentary type of government that we should continue to work it patiently, regardless of the fact that its immediate results will not be different from the recent ones. 40. As for the impression that this system has been a success in India, and, therefore, it ought to succeed here we can do no better than quote the following from The Approach to Self-Government by Sir Ivor Jennings”: "One of the reasons which enabled the British Constitution, suitably adapted, to work in India is that Indian politics are dominated by the Indian National Congress, a body which enjoys great prestige because it was the party of Mahatma Gandhi and is the party of Jawaherlal Nehru. What is more, it was the party which brought independence to India. During the struggles for that independence many Indian leaders obeyed the decisions of the Congress and suffered severely for their political views. It is a universal trait of human nature that one should feel greater loyalty to an institution for which one has had to make sacrifices than to one which has heaped honors on one's head in consequence of these factors, and in spite of all the conflicts of personality and power, which have been numerous since 1947, the Congress still dominate the Union and the great majority of the States. The absence of a strong Opposition is at this stage less relevant, though India may run into difficulties if the Congress either becomes corrupt or breaks up, because there is no Opposition ready to form a Government. 'pp 16-18