The Westminster model, characterized by parliamentary sovereignty, a responsible executive (Cabinet) accountable to the legislature, collective responsibility, a strong opposition, and the rule of law, was adopted by India post-independence. While it has provided a stable democratic framework, its philosophy has often found itself at odds with certain deeply ingrained aspects of India's diverse and complex political culture.

One significant point of friction lies in the principle of collective responsibility. In the Westminster system, the Cabinet acts as a united front, and ministers are collectively accountable to Parliament. However, India's multi-party system, characterized by coalition governments and regional parties, often leads to internal dissent, factionalism, and a struggle to maintain a unified stance, thereby challenging the spirit of collective responsibility. Ministers from different parties within a coalition may prioritize their party's agenda or regional interests over a common government policy.

Furthermore, the ideal of a strong and constructive opposition, crucial for holding the government accountable, has often been diluted in India. The opposition is frequently fragmented, leading to a less effective check on the executive. Debates can sometimes devolve into disruptions rather than substantive policy discussions, hindering the parliamentary process envisioned by the Westminster model.

India's political culture is also heavily influenced by identity politics, including caste, religion, and regional affiliations, which often overshadow meritocratic principles and ideological considerations in electoral processes and policy-making. This contrasts with the Westminster ideal of a more ideologically driven political discourse. The prevalence of patronage, clientelism, and corruption further undermines the Westminster principles of rule of law, transparency, and impartial administration, as personal loyalties and illicit gains can sometimes take precedence over public service.

Moreover, the personality cult around strong leaders, a feature of Indian politics, can sometimes overshadow institutional norms and processes, concentrating power and potentially weakening the checks and balances inherent in the Westminster system. While the Westminster model emphasizes parliamentary supremacy, India's judicial activism has also carved out a significant role for the judiciary, sometimes leading to tensions between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

Despite these points of divergence, it is crucial to acknowledge that the Westminster model has also shown remarkable resilience and adaptability in India. Regular elections, peaceful transfers of power, and robust democratic institutions have largely sustained the system. India's political culture has not entirely rejected the model but has rather adapted and modified it, creating a unique blend where Westminster principles coexist and sometimes clash with indigenous political realities. Thus, while there are clear points of tension, the model has been absorbed and transformed within the Indian context rather than being completely incompatible.