Because the two words promise two different things, and the Constitution makers wanted both. ‘Democratic’ promises that the people will choose the government. ‘Republic’ promises that the highest office in the country will never be inherited. A country can keep the first promise while breaking the second — the chapter’s own example is the UK.
The comparison the chapter draws.
| India | The UK | |
|---|---|---|
| Who elects the representatives? | The people | The people — “People in both India and the UK elect their representatives” |
| Is the government answerable to parliament? | Yes | Yes — “the government is accountable to parliament” |
| Who is head of state? | An elected president — “elected… not directly by the people, but by a group of elected representatives” | “The British… have had a monarch (a king or a queen) as the head of state for centuries” |
| So the country is … | A democracy and a republic | A democracy but not a republic |
The historical reason. “British rule in India persisted for nearly two centuries. When India got Independence, she did not blindly adopt the British parliamentary system. Among the many discussions and debates that took place during the making of our Constitution, one was on the type of parliamentary democracy that India should have.” India kept what worked — elected representatives and a government answerable to parliament — and changed what it did not want, which was a hereditary head of state.