May I suggest that you read the classic  book "Patterns of Democracy," by Arend Lijphart? It's a good starting point for thinking about different types of democratic institutional structures. The choice between presidential and parliamentary is only one major institutional choice. Also relevant is the type of voting system, the independence of the national bank, whether the system is federal (as in India) or unitary, whether the judiciary is independent, whether you have a bicameral legislature (as in India), and other factors. But there are many combinations of these arrangements.

I mean presidential means - similar to US Presidential System. In India, we see that there is no effective law that combats corruption, black money and appeasement policies. There is existing need of policies  which can strengthen the common people and status of R&D in India along with  policies on population control and conservation of environment and resources. Change does not originate instantaneously, rather it seeks thought making processes from a long. Thinking and thought making is essential in democracy. However I condemn any action creating anarchy, disruption and instability. Any major/minor changes would be in accordance to the constitution as it is essential  for growth and sustainability.

Dr. Prabhat,

The presidential system is theoretically more democratic, but the potential for corruption is greater than in a parliamentary system especially in developing economies. The Philippines is an example of how the presidential political system facilitates the entry of corruption and then allows it to become entrenched. In short it has held back the Philippines from reaching its full economic potential. Similarly, principles of the presidential system were  included in Japan's constitutional after WWII, weakening the role of the prime minister. Similar to the US, Japan faces difficulties controlling spending. This is less a problem of corruption and more a problem of discipline, where the system prevents fiscal prudence. Other points:

During election campaigns, presidential election promises are difficult to keep, foreign policy is also a challenge, because agreements require a more independent legislative approval process.

On a positive note, the presidential model in theory forces the executive into negotiations with the legislature. This is often referred to as political gridlock, which imposes compromise and the protecting of minority interests. The presidential system works in the US, because it fits the values, culture, history and level of economic development per person of the people it represents. It can also do a great deal of harm if the culture does not fit the system. Once the decision is made to change political systems, the presidential system will make it particularly difficult to reform the system if it is found to do more harm than good.

A few links to consider:

http://www.manilatimes.net/congress-is-the-philippines-biggest-criminal-syndicate/31274/

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wesp/wesp_current/wesp2014.pdf

To answer briefly:  Of course, there are some important differences among presidential systems (e.g. France vis-a-vis the US) as well as among parliamentary systems (e.g. Germany vis-a-vis Sweden).  

But generally speaking, I would favor a parliamentary system for India because parliamentary forms of government tend to be more supportive of the development of multi-party (rather than two-party) political systems. Multi-party systems are capable of being more representative of the diversity and sensitive to the wide array of interests found in contemporary Indian political culture.

After reading the comments and hyper-linked information by Daryn Dyer, I realize that transparency and honesty begins from the grass roots. I am agree with Brian D. Silver that the combinations of arrangements depends on the need of a country. I think that development of S&T has given tremendous opportunities to the human  at one side; at another the gap within the society has widened, sometimes creating less opportunities to some people. I feel that governance should capacitate the potential of its citizens and minimize the gap of opportunities.

Just for a start. 1 - The answer implies the distinction berween formal democracy and substantial democracy. 2 - Dr. Prabat refers the case of India.

My idea is that in order to reach a credible answer (which of course may not be unanimous) and taking India as a case study, one must analyse the post-colonialism and the reflex peocess of Independence  had in different colonies where Democracy was implemented. Can we consciously say that all democracies existing in the world are equal or at the same level. This is a general question that must be answered first of all. If so, we may answer then Dr. Prabat's posting; if not me must question why "democracies" are different.     

What would be the desired outcome of a choice between Paliamentary or Presidential?

Generally, do you think society moves more towards order or conflict? (order versus conflict debate)

Because India is so heterogenous, there is a lot of space for different interests and sources of conflict. In order to allow the representation of These diverse interests you are faring quite well with the parliamentary System.   

India is diverse and heterogeneous socially, lingually and regionally. However, economic interests and issues are similar to each part of India. In parliamentary system too, prime minister can be elected directly by the people when the elections are held for the Parliament. In another case, ministers can be chosen from outside also/outside only than the Parliament. Other options are that the Members of  the Parliament should be representative of people on economical grounds also. As concerns of people at different economical strata are different. The society should maintain order and any conflicts should be solved in an order, and surely as provision of the Constitution. As any nation is successful only then, when each people have equal opportunity and could maintain a meaningful life standard. These are my my feelings.

Prabhat Ranjan here is a brief summary,

The main difference is executive control versus legislative control. In a British parliamentary system, the executive is able to make fast efficient decisions and has more influence over the legislative branch than in a presidential systems that have a stronger separation between branches of government. The problem with too much executive control is the centralisation of power that accompanies it, a bad prime minister can do many bad things. The US system was designed specifically to prevent this. Moreover, the theory behind Westminster parliamentary democracy is that parliament is able to overthrow a corrupt prime minister very quickly if necessary, because s/he is a member of the legislature and accountable to it. A president is elected separately and hence his or her mandate is independent of the legislature to a greater degree. If the president is corrupt in the US the impeachment process protects the integrity-separation of the executive, more so than a British parliament would.

Legislative branches that on balance are more powerful than the executive are more representative of the population that elects them. National decision making is slower but when decision are made through negotiation and compromise they are more likely to be accepted by the population because it represents their wishes. At the same time, laws that are popular but have a negative affect on society/economy are difficult to repeal once vested interests take hold. Note, grass roots corruption that finds entry points through legislative representatives is more likely to become systematic and entrenched versus corruption of a member of the executive whom can be removed instantly either by the party in power or the legislature. 

There are positives and negatives to both systems, the important point is to find the system that is representative of the political, economic, social/cultural needs/values of the country it works for.

I am agree with Daryn Dyer and also thank him for his informative comment. Any systems have pros and cons. Any system like India include political and economical systems/policies.

India is at lower strata in reference to status of corruption in different public departments. It bears mixed type of economical structure i.e. socialist and capitalist. It has more flexibility and therefore more space to corruption which is hindering the process of development and rise of life standards of common people in the country.

This question was asked to know the root causes and solutions for the same.

I thank all the respondents making me aware of different aspects of a system and request for further discussion throwing light to make such system more successful.

Check my article on Indian federalism at academia.edu

 I'd like to know what the opinion of the down voter is?