If a copy of a Constitution is placed in the hands of a law student, it is sure that he will ask two questions. Firstly, what is the form of Government that is envisaged in the Constitution; and secondly what is the form of the Constitution? Form of the proposed Government is parliamentary. Form of the Draft Constitution is federal in as much as it establishes what may be called a Dual policy. This dual policy under the proposed Constitution will consist of the Union at the centre and the states at the periphery each endowed with sovereign powers to be exercised in the field assigned to them respectively by the Constitution. Some critics have taken objection to the description of India in Article 1 of the Constitution as a Union of States. It is said that the correct phraseology should be federation of States. It is true that South Africa, which is a unitary State, is described as a Union. But Canada, which is a federation is also called a Union. Thus, the description of India as a Union, though its Constitution is federal does no violence to usage. But what is important is that the use of the word union is deliberate. As Dr. Ambedkar has said, "I do not know why the word 'Union' was used in the Canadian Constitution. But I can tell you why the Drafting Committee has used it in context of India. The Drafting Committee wanted to make it clear that though India was to be a federation, the federation was not the result of an agreement by the States to join in a federation and that federation not being the result of an agreement, no state has the right to secede from it. The Federation is a Union because it is indestructible. Though the country and the people may be divided into different states for convenience of administration the country is one integral whole, its people a single people living under a single imperium derived from a single source. The Americans had to wage a civil war to establish that the states have no right of secession and that their federation was indestructible. The Drafting committee thought that it was better to make it clear at the outset rather than to leave it to speculation or to dispute.