Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

State and Government in Ancient India c15: Chapter VIII: Ministry

State and Government in Ancient India c15

Language
English

Chapter VIII: Ministry

c15.2

In modern times, the machinery of the Central Government consists of the King or the President, the Central Legislature, Ministers usually selected from the latter, Heads of the Departments, and the Central Secretariat. In chapters V-VII we have already discussed the position and functions of the king, the Executive of the Republican States and the Central Assembly. In this and the next chapter we shall proceed to consider the Ministry, the Departmental Heads and the Secretariat; this will complete the survey of the central government.

c15.4

Ministry or a Council of Advisers has been regarded by ancient Indian political thinkers as a very vital organ of the body politic. The *Mahābhārata* observes in one place that the king is as vitally dependent upon ministers as animals are upon clouds, Brāhmaṇas on the Vedas and women upon their husbands (V. 37. 38). The *Arthaśāstra* reminds the king that he can succeed only if assisted by competent councillors; one wheel alone does not move the carriage.¹ Manu points out that even a simple thing appears as difficult if one is to do it single-handed; why then attempt to run the complex machinery of the administration without the assistance of ministers²? Śukra observes that even an all-round king cannot know everything; different persons have different aptitudes. The king therefore should enlist the help of competent ministers. Otherwise he will ensure the destruction of himself and his kingdom.¹ Hindu political thinkers, it is thus clear, always regarded ministry as indispensable for the king.

c15.5

¹ सहायसाध्यं राजत्वं चक्रमेकं न वर्तते । कुर्वीत सचिवांस्तस्मात्तेषां च शृणुयान्मतम् । Bk. I. Chap. 3

c15.6

² अपि यत्सुकरं कर्म तदप्येकेन दुष्करम् । विशेषतोऽसहायेन किंनु राज्यं महोदयम् ॥ VII. 53

c15.7

¹ पुरुषे पुरुषे भिन्नं दृश्यते बुद्धिवैभवम् । आप्तवाक्यैरनुभवैरागमैरनुमानतः ॥ 5. न हि तत्सकलं ज्ञातुं नरेणैकेन शक्यते । अतः सहायान्वरयेद्राजा राज्याभिवृद्धये ॥ 7 विना प्रकृतिसंमंत्राद्राज्यनाशो भवेद् ध्रुवम् । रोधनं न भवेत्तस्माद्राज्ञस्ते स्युः सुमंत्रिणः ॥ *Śukra*, Chap. II.

c15.8

Let us now see whether such was actually the case in practice. In the *Ṛigveda* and the *Atharvaveda* we find no mention of king’s ministers, probably because there was no occasion to refer to them. The *saṁhitas* of the *Yajurveda* and the Brāhmaṇa literature, however, mention in several places some high functionaries, known as *ratnins*, (jewels), who probably formed the king’s council.² The list of these ‘jewels’, however, is not the same in the different sources, nor are we yet in a position to interpret with confidence the functions of all of them. It is, however possible to state in a general way that the *ratnins* consisted of royal relatives, departmental heads and courtiers. To the first of these categories belong the Crowned Queen and the Favourite Queen, who are invariably mentioned by all our authorities. This would suggest that queens in the Vedic age were not merely the consorts of kings, but played some part in the administration. The heir-apparent may have been included in the council of the king; he does not figure among the *ratnins*, because at the time of a coronation, the king’s eldest son is not likley to be old enough to take active part in the administration.

c15.9

² *P. Br.*, XIX. 1. 4 calls them *vīras* or heroes.

c15.10

Purohita, the royal chaplain, figures in all the lists of *ratnins* and naturally. Gods, it was believed, would not accept the oblations of a king, who had no competent chaplain; the presence of this personage in the ministry was indispensable in an age which believed that victories on the battlefield depended largely upon the favour of gods to be secured through proper sacrifices,

c15.11

Among the departmental heads included in the list of the *ratnins* figure *senānī*, *sūta*, *grāmaṇī*, *saṅgrahītā* and *bhāgadhuk*. Of these *senānī* is the commander-in-chief. *Sūta* was probably the commander of the chariot corps of the royal army, who might have also acted as the honorary charioteer to the king. *Grāmaṇī* in a small state may have been the most prominent among the village headmen of the kingdom, who might have been selected to serve on the council of the *ratnins*. One text expressly calls him Vaiśya ; he seems to have usually belonged to that class. *Bhāgadhuk* was obviously the tax-collector or the finance member and *saṅgrahītā* the treasurer.

c15.12

*Kshattā, akshāvāpa* and *pālāgala*, included among the *ratnins*, seem to have belonged to the class of courtiers. *Kshattā* was probably the Royal Chamberlain.¹ *Akshāvāpa* was the king’s companion at the game table and *Pālāgala* was probably the king’s bosom companion, corresponding to the *vidūshaka* of the later period. It has also been suggested that he might have been the ambassador of the neighbouring state,² but this seems improbable. Some texts³ add *govikartana* or *govyachha, takshā* and *rathakāra* to the list of the *ratnins*. Wealth in the Vedic age consisted mostly of cows, and *govikartana* might have been some high officer connected with the royal herd of cattle. *Takshā* means the carpenter and *rathakāra* the chariot-maker. Chariots played as important part in the Vedic warfare as the aeroplanes do in the modern one. It is therefore not unlikely that the chief of the guild of the carpenters or the chariot-makers might also have been represented on the council of the *ratnins*.

c15.13

¹ This is the sense of the word in later literature. Dr. Ghoshal, however, suggests that *kshattā* may have been food-distributor ; *History of the Hindu Public Life*, I. p. 109. Whether there was such an office in the Vedic period may well be doubted.

c15.14

² Ap. Ś. S. XVII. 10. 26

c15.15

³ Ś. Br., V. 3. 1. 1. ; K. S., XV. 4

c15.16

The council of the *ratnins* of the Vedic age thus appears to have consisted of (*a*) king’s relations like the queens and perhaps the crown-prince (*rājanya*), (*b*) king’s courtiers like the chamberlain, his bosom companion and his playmate at the game table and (*c*) important officers of the state like the commander-in-chief, the commander of the chariot corps, the chief tax-gatherer, the treasurer, the principal officer in charge of the royal stable, the principal village headman and the head of the carpenters' guild.

c15.17

The status of the *ratnins* was fairly high; at the time of the Vājapeya sacrifice, the king had to repair to their houses and not they to his palace in order to offer the so-called *ratnin* oblations. They are in one place expressly described as bestowes of kingdom upon the king.¹ *Samiti* in the Vedic age was a powerful body, and it is not unlikely that the *ratnins* might have been selected from among its members; but we have no positive evidence to support this probable conjecture. Nor do we know how they functioned; whether they met as a council to advise the king or whether the latter consulted them in their individual capacity.

c15.18

¹ एते वै राष्ट्रस्य प्रदातारः । *T. Br.* I. 7. 3

c15.19

With the gradual disappearance of the Vedic sacrifices, the conception of *ratnins* also faded away from society. We occasionally get references to the *ratnas* of the king, but they do not denote only his advisers. Thus, for instance, the *Vāyupurāṇa* divides the *ratnas* of the emperor into two categories animate and inanimate. To the former group belong not only the queen, the *purohita*, the commander-in-chief, the charioteer and the councillcr but also the horse and the elephant, and to the latter class the *maṇi* (amulet), the sword, the bow, the lance, the jewels the banner and the treasure.² It is clear that the nature of the *ratnins* was clearly misunderstood in the later period; their council had ceased to function as a part of the administration.

c15.20

² Chap. 57. vv. 68-71.

c15.21

The evidence of the Dharmaśāstra and the Nītiśāstra, however, shows that the *ratnins* did not disappear without leaving a more effective body to discharge their functions; this was the council of ministers, variously described as *mantrins*, *sachivas* and *amātyas*.³ We have shown already how the ministry was regarded as indispensable for good government by our constitutional thinkers and the available evidence shows that it functioned in historic times in most of our states. In the earliest historical dynasty of Magadha, Vassakāra figures as the premier of Ajātaśatru;¹ his contemporary in Kośsala, king Prasenajit, relied upon the advice of his ministers Mṛigadhara and Śrīvṛidha in carrying out important schemes.² The Jātakas frequently refer to ministers.³ The Mauryas and the Śuṅgas had a regular council of ministers known as *Mantri-parishad*, which figures both in inscriptions and literature.⁴ The Śaka rulers of Western India ruled with the assistance of a council of *mati-sachivas* (councillors) and *karma-sachivas* (administrative heads of departments)⁵. *Mantrins* (ministers) figure frequently in the Gupta inscriptions. The ministers under the Maukharis wielded great power, for it was their council which offered the Maukhari crown to Harsha, when the last Maukhari king died suddenly without leaving an issue.⁶ Ministry was a regular feature of the medieval Hindu dynasties as well. Mahāpradhāna (prime - minister) Purushottamadeva figures in one record of the Paramāra king Yaśovarman.⁷ Mahāmātyas (chief ministers) figure in almost all land grants of the Chaulukyas of Gujarat, and *mantrins* (ministers) in those of the Gāhadawālas of U. P. Mahāmātya (chief minister) usually heads the list of the officers mentioned in the grants of the Chāhamānas of Nadol⁸. Several ministerial families are mentioned in the records of the Chandellas of Mahobā.⁹ The *Rājatarangiṇī* shows how ministers played a very important part in the administration of Kashmir. The same was the case with the Rāshtrakūṭa, the Chālukya and the Śilāhāra adminstrations of the Deccan, as shown by a number of their records. One Yādava grant states how it was made by the king after previous consultation wth the ministry.¹ The Deccan records further show that ministers often enjoyed the status of the feudatories and were granted the coveted title of *mahāsāmantas* and *mahā-maṇḍaleśvaras*.

c15.22

³ The connotation of these terms was not uniform. The *Rāmāyaṇa* sometimes identifies *mantri* with *sachiva* (II 112. 7) and sometimes differentiates between them (I. 7. 3 and I. 8. 4.). The *Amarakosha* states that the *amātya*, who is a *dhīsachiva*, is called a *mantrin*; others are mere *karmasachivas*. According to Kautilya *mantrins* were to be selected from among *amātyas* (I. 8).

c15.23

¹ *Dialogues of the Buddha*, II, p. 78

c15.24

² *Uvasagadasao*, II, Appendix p. 56

c15.25

³ Nos. 528, 533

c15.26

⁴ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. I. Chap. 15; *Aśoka rock-edicts*, Nos. 3 and 6; *Mālavikāgnimitra*, Act V

c15.27

⁵ Junagad inscription of Rudradāman I,. *E. I.* VIII. p. 42

c15.28

⁶ Watters, *On Yuan Chwang*, I. p. 343

c15.29

⁷ *I. A.*, XIX, p. 349

c15.30

⁸ *E. I.* XI, p. 308

c15.31

⁹ *E. I.* I. p. 157; p. 208

c15.32

¹ श्रीसेउणारव्येन नृपेण प्रधानयुक्तेन विचार्यं हट्टद्वयं दत्तम् । *I. A.*, XII. p. 127

c15.33

Ministry was regarded as so very essential for good government that crown-princes and viceroys used to have their own councils of ministers in their own courts. Under the Mauryas, the viceroys at Taxila had their own ministers. Agnimitra, the crown prince and viceroy of Mālwā under Pushyamitra, had his own council of ministers (*c.* 150 B. C.). *Yuvarājapadīya Kumārāmātyas* constituted the ministry of the crown-prince under the Guptas.² Jaitugi, the crown-prince of the Yādava ruler Bhillama V (1190-1210 A. D.), had his own ministry. The same was the case with Tikkamadevarasa, the viceroy of the south, under the Yādava ruler Rāmachandra.³ The Yuvarājas and viceroys had the status of feudatary rulers and it was, therefore, but natural that they should have had a ministry of their own, as was the case at the imperial court.

c15.34

² *A. S. I., A. R.*, 1953-4, p. 107

c15.35

³ *S. I. I.*, IX. Nos. 367 and 387

c15.36

Let us now see what was the strength of the ministry. Manu holds that the ministry should consist of 7 or 8 members ;⁴ the latter number is prescribed by the *Mahābhārata*.⁵ The *Arthaśāstra* quotes different views on the topic, from which we learn that the Mānava, the Bārhaspatya and the Auśanasa schools were in favour of a ministry of 12, 16 and 20 respectively.⁶ The *Śukranīti* recommends a ministry of ten,⁷ but also refers to another view which was in favour of a smaller body of 7 or 8 persons ; the view was shared by the *Mānasollāsa* of Someśvara and adopted by Shivaji in 1674. The *Nītivākyāmṛita* is in favour of a smaller ministry consisting of 3, 5, or 7 members only.

c15.37

⁴ सचिबान्सप्त चाष्टौ वा कुर्वीत सुपरीक्षितान् । VII. 54 The *Mānasollāsa* adopted this verse, only changing the last word into मतिमान्नृपः । II.2.57

c15.38

⁵ अष्टानां मंत्रिणां मध्ये मंत्रं राजोपधारयेत् ॥ XII. 85

c15.39

⁶ Bk. I. Chap. 15

c15.40

⁷ II. 70

c15.41

It is clear that this difference of opinion on the question is due to the differing needs of the different states which our writers had in their mind. Manu¹ and Kauṭilya² agree with each other in stating that the actual number of ministers should depend upon the needs of the situation in the state concerned. If the state was a small one or if its activities were limited in their scope, a small ministry of 4 or 5 would suffice. Such, for instance, was the case under the Śilāhāras, whose kingdom was a small one.³ In the age of the Jātakas, when the activities of the state were limited, we find that the ministry usually consisted of 5 members only.⁴ But in big empires the number of ministers was large. The foreign office itself had several ministers in charge of its different sections. Thus in the Śilāhāra administration, there was one chief foreign minister along with another minister in charge of the foreign affairs of Karnatak only, having also the full ministerial status.⁵ If a small kingdom like that of the Śilāhāras had two foreign ministers, larger states like the Maurya, Gupta, and Rāshtrakūṭa empires must have had several. The traditional number of ministers, however, seems to have been eight ; if more persons were necessary to discharge the duties properly, they must have been usually appointed as secretaries to the ministers concerned, as recommended by Śukra.⁶

c15.42

¹ *Manu*, VII. 61

c15.43

² यथासामर्थ्यमिति कौटिल्यः। Bk. I. Chap. 15

c15.44

³ *I. A.*, V. p. 278 ; IX p. 35

c15.45

⁴ *Jātaka* No. 528

c15.46

⁵ *I. A.* V. 277

c15.47

⁶ II. 109-110

c15.48

To ensure despatch and secrecy, there often used to be a smaller cabinet of important ministers consisting of three or four members only. When Rāma exhorts Bharata to decide his policy after consulting three or four ministers (II. 100. 71) or Kauṭilya or Bhīshma lay down that the king should hold consultation with three or four ministers,⁷ it is clear that the smaller cabinet of the ministry is being referred to.

c15.49

⁷ मंत्रिभिस्त्रिभिश्चतुर्भिर्वा सह मंत्रयेत्। I. 15

c15.50

It appears that in addition to the ministry of eight or ten, the members of which were usually called *mantrins*, there was also a large body of advisers corresponding to the modern Privy Council, the members of which were usually known as *amātyas*. The council of 36 *amātyas* referred to by the *Mahābhārata*¹ seems to have corresponded to such a Privy Council rather than to the ministry. The *Arthaśāstra* also shows that the *amātyas* were no doubt high officials and departmental heads but inferior in status to and much larger in numbers than *mantrins*.² They were however, summoned for consultation on grave occasions along with the ministers.

c15.51

¹ XII. 85. 7-8.

c15.52

² *Mantrins* had a salary of 48000 a year ; the *amātyas* received only 12,000. A person qualified to become an *amātya* was not regarded as necessarily fit to become a *mantrin*.

c15.53

The scope of the work of the ministry included the whole administration. It was to enunciate new policies, to ensure their successful working, to remove any difficulties that may crop up, to supervise and direct the state policy regarding taxation and expenditure, to take steps for the proper education and training of the princes, to participate in their coronation, and to direct the foreign policy, both with reference to internal feudatory kings and external independent states.³

c15.54

³ मंत्रो मंत्रफलावाप्तिः कर्मानुष्ठानमायव्ययकर्म कुमाररक्षणमभिषेकश्च कुमाराणां आयत्तममात्येषु । *Artha.* Book VII. Chap. I See also Book I. Chap. 6. *Jātaka* No. 257 shows that the ministers would often exercise their discretion in deciding when the heir-apparent should be invested with ruling powers.

c15.55

It is but natural that this work should have been divided among themselves by the ministers, each one taking one department. Our early writers, however, do not enlighten us about the different portfolios assigned to the members of the ministry. It is only Śukra, a writer of about the 11th century A. D., who gives us some idea of their portfolios. According to him, the ministry, whose strength was to be 10, was to consist of (1) *Purohita*, (2) *Pratinidhi*, (3) *Pradhāna*, (4) *Sachiva*, (5) *Mantrin*, (6) *Prāḍvivāka*, (7) *Paṇḍita*, (8) *Sumantra*, (9) *Amātya* and (10) *Dūta*. The status and pay of each succeeding minister were lower than those of the preceeding one.⁴

c15.56

⁴ II. 70-72.

c15.57

विभज्यामात्यविभवं देशकालौ च कर्म च ।
अमात्याः सर्व एवैते कार्याः स्युर्नंतु मंत्रिणः ॥ I.8.

c15.58

Though earlier authorities do not mention the names of the different portfolios, we may take it that ministers usually divided the departments on the lines suggested by Śukra ; for many of the ministers mentioned by him figure in inscriptions, either with the same or equivalent titles. We shall now briefly survey the duties and functions of the different ministers.

c15.59

*Purohita* or the Royal Chaplain figured prominently in the council of *ratnins* of the Vedic period, and he continued to be a member of the ministry for several centuries. He stood in the relation of a spiritual preceptor (*guru*) to the king. He was to protect the nation by counteracting the magical charms of the enemy and ensuring its prosperity by performing the requisite rituals (*purohitikarmas*) recommended in the *Atharvaveda*.¹ He consecrated the war elephants and horses of the state army in order to enhance their military efficiency,² and even accompanied the king to the battlefield in the Vedic times in order to ensure his victory by his prayers, sacrifices, charms and incantations.³ He was expected to be well-versed both in *śastra* (military art) and *śāstra* (religious rituals), as also in the political science. When the king, consecrated for a long sacrificial session, could not direct the administration, it was the *purohita* who deputised for him.⁴ The *Rāmāyaṇa* shows that when the monarchy was in abeyance owing to the absence of a suitable heir to ascend the throne, it was the *purohita* Vasishṭha, who carried on the administration. Among the ministers, *purohita* alone enjoys the distinction of having a ritual prescribed for his installation ; it was known as *Bṛihaspatisava*, and was in vogue in the Vedic age.

c15.60

¹ पुरोहितं षडंगे वेदे दैवे निमित्ते अभिविनीतमापदां दैवमानुषीणामथर्वभिरुपायैश्च प्रतिकर्तारं कुर्वीत । तमाचार्यं शिष्यः पितरं पुत्रो भृत्यः स्वामिनमिवानुवर्तेत । *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. I, Chap. 9

c15.61

² *Susīma Jātaka*.

c15.62

³ Viśvāmitra was with his king Sudās throughout the campaign against the 10 kings. It was at his prayer that the Vipāś and the Śutudru rivers agreed to reduce the depth in order to facilitate the movements of the king's armies (*R. V.*, II. 33).

c15.63

⁴ *Āp. Ś. S.* ; XX. 2. 12. 3. 1-3 ; *B. Ś. S.*, XV. 4

c15.64

*Purohita* must have wielded considerable influence during the period of the ascendancy of the Vedic sacrifices. When the popular faith in them declined with the rise of the Upanishadic, Jain and Buddhist movements, the influence of *purohita* must have declined. In the Jātakas, he is seen still occupying an important position; he is *sabbātthaka* minister or minister plenipotentiary. But later on, there is no doubt that his influence declined. Post-Gupta inscriptions usually distinguish him from ministers, showing that he was no longer a member of the ministry.¹ *Śukranīti* is probably following the old tradition, rather than reflecting the contemporary practice, when it places the *purohita* at the head of the ministry. It however admits that he had no place in that body according to the views of others (II. 72). Though *purohita*, generally speaking, ceased to be a member of the ministry from *c.* 200 A. D. he continued to exercise considerable moral influence upon the king; the frown of an ideal *purohita* was sufficient to keep the king on the path of virtue and rectitude.²

c15.65

¹ राजराज्ञीयवराजमंत्रिपुरोहितप्रतीहारसेनापति... in Gāhadawāla records. The Śilāhāra records also differentiate him from *Mantrins* and *Amātyas*. *E. I.* IX. p. 24.

c15.66

² यत्कोपभीत्या राजापि धर्मनीतिरतो भवेत् । Śukra, II. 99

c15.67

The second minister of Śukra is *pratinidhi*. It was his duty to deputise for the king when he was ill or absent on an expedition It is very likely that this duty must have devolved upon the Crown-prince, when he had become old enough to assume the reins of his office. The *uparājā* of the Jātakas seems to have corresponded with the *pratinidhi* of Śukra. It however appears that the portfolio of *pratinidhi* was not generally included in ministry; inscriptions do not refer to his office and Manu states that the premier should deputise for the king, and not the *pratinidhi*.³ In the Maratha cabinet also there was usually no Pratinidhi, but the post was created by king Rajaram when he had to leave Mahārāshṭra and take refuge in Jinjee.

c15.68

³ VII. 141

c15.69

*Pradhāna* or the Premier was the most important member of the ministry. According to Śukra, he was to be *sarvadarśī*⁴ *i. e.* the superintendent of the whole administration.⁵ Jiyanta, in who is called *sarvasya anushṭhātā*, the performer of everything, a 6th century record of the Kadamba dynasty,¹ Krishṇambhaṭṭa, who was a *mahāmātya* under king Dantivarman (*c.* 880 A. D.) of the Gujarat Rāshṭrakuṭa branch,² Babhiyaka, who is styled as *mahāpradhāna* in an 11th century Yādava record,³ *mantrīndra* Vatsarāja of the Chandella king Krishṇavarman, (*c.* 1090 A. D.),⁴ Sallakshapāla, who figures as a *mahāmantrin* of the Chāhamāna ruler Viśāladeva (*c.* 1160 A. D..), the *mahāmātyas* who figure in several Paramāra and almost all the Chaulukya grants,—these were all discharging the duties of the prime-minister. This office existed under Shivaji and its holder was known as Mahāpradhāna. The status of the premier was naturally very high; our epigraphs often state how the nails of their toes were brightened by the rays in the crowns of the feudatories. As in modern times so in ancient India, premiers used to take a particular portfolio as well; the premier of the Śilāhāra king Anantadeva was also the Lord High Tresurer in 1085.⁵

c15.70

⁴ सर्वदर्शी प्रधानस्तु । II. 89

c15.71

⁵ *I. A.*, VI. p. 24

c15.72

¹ *E. I.*, VI. p. 287

c15.73

² *E. I.* II. p. 225

c15.74

³ *I. A.*, XVIII. p. 238

c15.75

⁴ *I. A.*, XIX. p. 218

c15.76

⁵ *I. A.*, XII. p. 127

c15.77

The War-minister was the next important member of the ministry. The title *sachiva*, given to him in the *Śukranīti*, was, however, not the usual designation by which he was known. He was known as *senāpati* under the Mauryas and the Marathas. *Māhābalādhikṛita* under the Guptas,⁶ *Kampana* in Kahmir,⁷ and *Mahāprachaṇḍadaṇḍanāyaka* under the Yādavas. The *Nītivākyāmṛita* is opposed to the inclusion of the commander-in-chief in the ministry,⁸ but it seems that the normal practice was to include him in that body. The war minister was to be an expert in the theory and practice of war and well versed in the art of organisation. It was his duty to see that all forts were properly garrisoned and all the branches of the army were properly equipped and were kept at their highest efficiency.⁹

c15.78

⁶ *E. I.*, X. 71.

c15.79

⁷ *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, VII. 365

c15.80

⁸ Chap. X. 101-2

c15.81

⁹ *Śukranīti*, II. 95

c15.82

The Foreign Minister is the next important member of the ministry. He is designated as mantrin by Śukra, but the inscriptions give him the more significant title of *mahāsandhivigrahika*, 'the highest officer in charge of peace and war'. This minister was known as Sumanta (Sumantrin) under Shivaji. India was usually studded with a large number of states, some independent ansd some feudatories. Most of them used to entertain the secret hope to attain the imperial status one day. The work of the Foreign Minister was therefore both heavy and exacting. It was divided state-wise; even the small Śilāhāra kingdom of Chittarājadeva (*c.* 1025 A. D.) had one chief Foreign Minister and another Foreign Minister incharge of Karnatak affairs.¹ If such a small kingdom required two officials at the foreign office, both of the status of a minister, one can well conclude that the ministries of big kingdoms like those of the Mauryas, the Guptas, the Rāshtrakūtas and the Gurjara-Pratīhāras must have had several foreign ministers or secretaries working under the directions of a Chief Foreign Minister.

c15.83

¹ *I. A.*, V. p. 277.

c15.84

The Foreign Minister was to be well versed in the fourfold policy of *sāma* (conciliation), *dāma* (appeasement), *daṇḍa* (war), and *bheda* (causing dissentions in the enemy's camp).² Numerous inscriptions show that he was also usually in charge of drafting the copper plate charters, granting lands and villages to Brāhmaṇas, temples and monasteries. This appears rather strange, but when we remember that the charters had usually to describe the genealogy of the dynasty with the exploits and achievements of each ruler, one can at once realise that the Foreign Minister was the best person to draft the texts of the grants. It is interesting to note that there is an agreement in this respect between the epigraphical practice and the dicta of contemporary Smṛitis; an anonymous text quoted in the *Mitāksharā*, expressly states that the *sandhivigrahakārī* should draft the copper-plate charters.³

c15.85

² *Śukra*, II. 95.

c15.86

³ संधिविग्रहकारी तु भवेद्यस्तस्य लेखकः। On *Yāj.*, I. 319

c15.87

The next minister *prāḍvivāka* was in charge of the judical department; he was also the chief-justice.¹ He was to be well-versed in the traditional and Smṛiti law, and an expert in evaluating evidence. He presided over the highest court of appeal in the absence of the king. He figures rather rarely in inscriptions.²

c15.88

¹ In the cabinet of Shivaji he was known as Nyāyādhīśa.

c15.89

² He is mentioned in the Sanjan Plates of Amoghavarsha I as the drafter of the record. *E. I.*, XVIII. 235

c15.90

The next minister *paṇḍita* was in charge of religion and morality. He was to be well-versed in Dharmaśāstra and to find out which religious views and practices were actually current and popular, which were prescribed in Śāstras but had become obsolete and which were opposed both to the dictates of the Śāstras and the practice of the people. It was his duty to take a wide and comprehensive view in the matter and advise the government upon its socio-religious policy. We have shown already how the state was to be the gaurdian of *dharma*. This, however, did not mean that it was to blindly enforce whatever was prescribed in antiquated texts. It was the duty of one of its ministers, *viz.* the *paṇḍita*, to find out which practices had become antiquated and to discourage and not enforce them. He was also to advise the government about suitable changes that could be introduced in consonance with the spirit of *dharma* and culture.³ One of Shivaji's ministers, bearing almost the same name, Panditrao, discharged similar functions. The *dharmamahāmātras* of Aśoka, the *śramaṇamahāmātras* under the Sātavāhanas,⁴ the *vinayasthitisthāpakas* under the Guptas,⁵ the *dharmāṅkuśas* under the Rāshṭrakūṭas⁶ and the *dharmapradhānas* under the Chedis, all seem to be the officers working under this department. Grants to temples and monas-

c15.91

³ वर्तमानाश्च प्राचीना धर्माः के लोकसंश्रिताः ।

c15.92

⁴ *E. I.*, VIII. p. 91

c15.93

⁵ *A. S. I.*, *A. R.*, 1904-5 p. 109

c15.94

⁶ *I. A.*, XVIII, p. 230

c15.95

शास्त्रेषु के समुद्दिष्टा विरुध्यन्ते च केऽधुना ॥
लोकशास्त्रविरुद्धाः के पण्डितस्तान्विचिन्त्य च ।
नृपं संबोधयेत्तैश्च परत्रेह सुखप्रदैः ॥ *Śukra*, II. 100

c15.96

steries, as also to schools and colleges, must have fallen primarily within the province of this department.

c15.97

The next minister mentioned by Śukra is Treasurer. He designates him as *sumantra*, but the Vedic term *saṁgrahītā* (collector) or the Kauṭiliyan expression *samāhartā* (bringer together) are more expressive. Inscriptions often describe him as *bhāṇḍāgārika*, the officer in charge of treasury and stores ;¹ this phrase correctly describes the duties of his office. It was his duty to find out what were the total collections and disbursements for the year, and what was the balance at its end.² Taxes were collected mostly in kind ; the duty of the treasurer was, therefore, an exacting one. He had to sell old corn and replace it by new one every now and then, lest it should become useless.

c15.98

¹ *I. A.*, IX. p. 33

c15.99

² इयच्च संचितं द्रव्यं वत्सरेस्मिंस्तृणादिकम् । व्ययीभूतमियच्चैव शेषं स्थावरजंगमम् । इयदस्तीति वै राज्ञे सुमंतो विनिवेदयेत् ॥ *Śukra*, II. 101

c15.100

The Treasurer was an important minister. In 1094 A. D. the Śilāhāra ruler Anantadeva had a small ministry of only three and yet the Treasurer was included in it. The *Mahābhārata* (XII. 130.35), *Kāmandakanītisāra* (XXXI. 33) and *Nītivākyāmṛita* (XXI. 5) declare that the treasury was the very root of the state and must be properly looked after. The Treasurer figures invariably among the officers mentioned in the Gāhadawāla copper plate grants ; his non-mention in other records may be regarded as purely accidental.

c15.101

The Revenue Minister now remains to be considered. He is called *amātya* by Śukra, and bore the same title in Shivaji's cabinet ; it was his duty to have a correct inventory of villages, towns, mines and forests in the country and of the income expected from them. His office also had an accurate account of the land under cultivation, and land lying fallow, as also of the expected produce from the different mines.³ He figures rather rarely in inscriptions.⁴

c15.102

³ *Śukra*, II. 103-5

c15.103

⁴ An 11th century Yādava record mentions him ; *E. I.* I. p. 225. The *mahāmātyas*, who figure in Chāulukya records, are Premiers.

c15.104

The salaries of ministers are given only by Kautilya. Purohita and Senāpati were to receive 48,000 Paṇas a year, Revenue and Treasury ministers were to receive 24,000 Paṇas, and the rest 12,000 Paṇas. It is quite possible that the salaries varied with the size and revenues of the state, but the data in the *Arthaśāstra* may perhaps indicate the relative importance of the different portfolios.

c15.105

It is unfortunate that we should possess no detailed evidence about the actual working of the ministry either from our constitutional writers or from inscriptions. Under normal conditions the king presided over the council and is advised not to lose his temper, if a different view is taken by his advisers.¹ The *Arthaśāstra* however refers to the President of the Council as a separate officer (I. 12). The Rock Edict VI of Aśoka records his order that a difference of opinion among the ministers should be at once reported to him. It is therefore clear that on some occasions not the king but one of his ministers presided over the cabinet meeting. Manu recommends (VII. 57) that the king should consult the ministers both jointly and separately. A minister may not choose to divulge his real views in the presence of others; hence individual consultation was also recommended. Śukra apprehended that the presence of the king in the council may often induce ministers not to express their real views, that may be unpalatable to the king; he therefore recommends that ministers on such occasions should be asked to send their views in separate memoranda, explaining fully the grounds for their advice.² Kauṭilya was in favour of joint consultation with three or four ministers, whose portfolios may have been connected with the matter.³ The *Rājataraṅgiṇī* shows that all these alternatives were followed by the Kashmirian kings as required by the particular situation.⁴

c15.106

¹ मंत्रकाले न कोपयेत् । *Bārhaspatya-Arthaśāstra*, II. 53

c15.107

² रागाल्लोभाद्भयाद्राज्ञः स्युर्मूका इव मंत्रिणः। न ताननुमतान्विद्यान्नृपतिः स्वार्थसिद्धये । पृथक् पृथक् मतं तेषां लेखयित्वा ससाधनम् । विमृशेत्स्वमतेनैव यत्कुर्याद् बहुतसंमतम् ॥ I. 363-4

c15.108

³ Bk. I. Chap. 15

c15.109

⁴ At VII. 1043 and 1415, we find king Harsha having a joint consultation with all his ministers. King Jayasiṁha often preferred to consult only a few ministers (VIII. 3082-3)

c15.110

Under normal circumstances, we may, however, presume that the ministry acted in a body and was jointly consulted. A unanimous decision of the ministry arrived at after full discussion and in consonance with the dictates of the science of polity was highly valued.¹ Kauṭilya recommends that even on critical occasions, the king should usually accept the advice of the ministry or the view of its majority, though it was open for him to adopt a course which he thought to be most advantageous.²

c15.111

¹ ऐकमत्यमुपागम्य शास्त्रदृष्टेन चक्षुषा । मंत्रिणो यत्र निरतास्तमाहुर्मंत्रमुत्तमम् ॥ *Rāmāyaṇa*, VI. 12

c15.112

² तत्र यद्भूयिष्ठाः कार्यसिद्धिकरं वा ब्रूयुस्तत्कुर्युः । *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. I. Chap. 6

c15.113

Rock edicts III and VI of Aśoka throw further light upon the working of the council of ministers. The third edict shows that the council's orders were to be duly recorded and expounded to the public by local officers. The sixth edict discloses that the oral orders of the emperor, as well as the decisions of the departmental heads taken in urgent cases, were subject to review by the council of ministers. It was not merely a recording body, for very often it used to suggest amendments to the king's orders or even recommend their total reversal. Aśoka says that when such a contingency arose, or when the council was divided on any topic, the matter was to be at once reported to him.³ There can be no doubt that the emperor himself must have taken the final decision, but the fact that the council used to suggest revision of royal orders, necessitating their reconsideration by the king, shows that its powers were real and extensive.

c15.114

³ यं किंच मुखतो आणपयामि अहं दपक श्रवक व येन पन महामंत्रेण अचयिकं आरोपितं होति तये अथाये विवदे निझति वा संतं परिषयं अनंतरियेन पटिवेदितवो मे । Rock Edict VI-(Shahabazgarhi)

c15.115

The council of ministers continued to flourish under the Śuṅgas as well, even in the courts of their Crown-princes. Agnimitra had such a council to assist him in his provincial capital. The council could meet and transact business even in the absence of their Crown-prince ; its decisions were later communicated to him for final acceptance.¹

c15.116

¹ *Mālavikāgnimitra*, Act. V

c15.117

The ministerial council existed also under the Śakas of the Western India. The Junagad inscription of Rudradāman shows how important financial projects like the rebuilding of the Girinagar dam were first referred to it for consideration. It is a pity that we should have no information about its functioning in northern India in the Gupta and post-Gupta administrations. We have, however, already shown how ministers were integral parts of all these administrations. It is but natural to presume that they usually worked in a corporate capacity as a council and continued to exercise the same great influence upon the administration as under the Mauryas, the Śuṅgas and the Śakas. This inference is strengthened by what we know of the Chola administration of the 11th century. The records of this dynasty show that the ministry functioned under the Cholas in southern India exactly in the same way as it did under Aśoka 1300 years earlier in northern India. The oral orders of the Chola king were subject to review by his council, as was the case with the oral orders of Aśoka. It was only when they were thus scrutinised that they were entered into official registers.²

c15.118

² *S. I. I.*, III, No. 21; *E. C.*, X. Kolar No. 111

c15.119

Details of the routine working of the ministry can be gathered only from the *Śukranīti*. Though this is a late work, we may well presume that its account held good of the earlier periods as well. Śukra recommends that each minister should normally have two secretaries, but their number may be increased if the work of the department demands this step. Conversely if a department was very small, the secretary was often dispensed with.³ A secretary was often promoted to the position of the minister in due course, if he had proved his capacity by his work and achievements. Śukra recommends the occasional transfer of ministers from one portfolio to another. This was intended partly to offer scope to able ministers to get the charge of departments, more important than those to which they were originally appointed. That such changes in portfolioes were often taking place in practice is shown by the case of Pṛithivīsheṇa, who was first an ordinary minister, but was later promoted to the post of the War Minister¹ under Kumāragupta I.

c15.120

³ एकस्मिन्नधिकारे तु पुरुषाणां त्रयं सदा । नियुञ्जीत प्राज्ञतमं मुख्यमेकं तु तेषु वै । 109 द्वौ दर्शकौ तु तत्कार्ये हायनैस्तान्निवर्तयेत् । त्रिभिर्वा पंचभिर्वापि सप्तभिर्दशभिश्च वा ॥ 110 अधिकारिबलं दृष्टवा योजयेद्दर्शकान्बहून् । अधिकारिणमेकं वा योजयेद्दर्शकंविना ॥ 115 (Chap. II)

c15.121

¹ *E. I.*, X, p. 71

c15.122

Capable and ambitious ministers often held more than one portfolioes, a phenomenon not unknown in our own times. Thus in the cabinet of king Jayasiṁha of Kashmir, Sujji was both the Judicial and Military member. A little later Alaṁkāra was appointed to the post of both the Commander-in-Chief and Chief Justice.² It was, however, only in exceptional cases that the portfolioes were thus allowed to be combined ; normally each minister held the charge of one department only.

c15.123

² *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, VIII. 1582-4 ; 2925

c15.124

When a matter was decided, the minister to whose department it primarily belonged, used to write a minute, containing the decision, with a note at the end that it had his full approval. The minute was then sealed and sent to the king for his sanction. The king used to sign the final order in token of his approval or ask the Crown-prince to do so on his behalf. When the order thus received the royal approval, it was duly announced or sent to the department or officer concerned for execution.³

c15.125

³ *Śukra*, II. 363-7

c15.126

Let us now see what qualifications were expected in ministers. The *Arthaśāstra* and other works show that opinion was not unanimous upon the point. Some regarded ability and others loyalty as the most important criterion. Some held that the selection should be made from among the king's school-companions, others thought that the choice should be restricted to members of certain loyal and tested families. Kauṭilya opined that there was truth in each of the above views and recommended the selection of persons combining as many qualifications as possible.

c15.127

According to him an ideal minister should be a native of the country, born of high family, influential, well-trained in arts, possessed of foresight, wise, strong in memory, bold, eloquent, skilful, intelligent, possessed of enthusiasm, dingnity and endurance, pure in character, affable, affectionate, firm in loyal devotion, endowed wtih excellent strength, health and bravery, free from procrastination and fickle-mindedness and such defects as excite hatred and enmity.¹ The picture of the ideal minister, according to other writers also, is almost the same.² In actual practice, all these qualities could not be ensured in every minister; it was, therefore, recommended that an effort should be made to make the selection in the light of the ideal. Manu and Kauṭilya (I. 10) lay down that before being appointed to the ministry, the king himself should test him to find out whether he was above the temptation of wealth, wine and women and possessed the minimum qualifications.

c15.128

¹ Bk. I, Chap. 5

c15.129

² Mbh., XII. Chaps. 82-5; *Kāmandakanītisāra*, IV. 25-31; *Śukranīti*, II. 52-64; *Kural*, Chaps. 51-2.

c15.130

Let us now see how far ministers conformed to this high standard in actual practice. When weak, vicious and fickleminded kings were on the throne, ministers selected by them were often worthless sycophants. Thus in Kashmir king Unmattāvanti is known to have selected his ministers from among musicians, and king Chakravarman from among the *dombas*, who were the relations of his newest love. Probably the same was the case under the rulers like Bṛihaspatimitra Maurya, Devabhūmi Śuṅga, Govinda IV Rāshtrakūṭa, and other rulers of their type who were weak, vicious and wicked. Such cases, however, were occasional and did not frequently disfigure the administration. A perusal of the epigraphical and literary evidence shows that effort was usually made to select capable persons, well-versed in the political science. Śāba, a minister of Chandragupta II, is expressly described as well grounded in the science of politics and reasoning.³ Nārāyaṇa, a minister of Rāshtrakūṭa king Kṛishṇa III, is known to have been a pastmaster in the political science.¹ Nāgarasa, the premier of the Yādava ruler Kṛishṇa, was a statesman whose intellect had become versatile owing to the study of various works on the science of polity.² We can well conclude that in normal cases ministers were appointed only when they were known to be well versed in the theory and practice of administration and political science.

c15.131

³ शब्दार्थन्यायनीतिज्ञः कविः पाटलिपुत्रकः । *C. I. I.*, III. 35

c15.132

¹ पारगो राजविद्यानां कविमुख्यः प्रियंवदः । *E. I.*, IV. p. 60

c15.133

² अनेकराजनीतिशास्त्रोक्तविवेकवर्धितबुद्धिकौशलः । *I. A.*, XII. p. 126

c15.134

The view of the Smṛiti writers that the sons or relations of a minister should, if possible, be selected while making new appointments to the ministry, was also very frequently given effect to. Under the Guptas, the families of Śāba and Pṛithvīsheṇa were holding different ministerial appointments for more than one generations³ In the Parivrājaka administration, Sūryadatta was a minister in 482 A. D. and his son Vibhudatta 28 years later.⁴ Under Uchchkalpa dynasty, Gallu was Foreign Minister in 496 and his brother Manoratha in 512 A. D.⁵ Under the Chandellas five generations of one family, Prabhāsa, his son Śivanāga, his son Mahīpāla, his son Ananta and his son Gadādhara, are known to have worked as ministers or prime-ministers under seven generations of the dynasty represented by Dhaṅga, his son Gaṇḍa, his son Vidyādhara, his son Vijayapāla, his son Devavarman, his brother Kīrtivarman, his sons Sallakahaṇavarman and Pṛithvīvarman and the former's son Jayavarman.⁶ A little later under the same dynasty, Lahaḍa was minister under Madanavarman and his son Sallakshaṇa and grandson Purushottama under Paramarddideva, the grandson of Madanavarman.⁷

c15.135

³ Śāba is described as अन्वयप्राप्तसाचिव्यः । Pṛithvīsheṇa was a minister under Kumāragupta I and his father Śikharasvāmin under the latter's father Chandragupta II. *E. I.*, X. p. 71

c15.136

⁴ *C. I. I.*, III, pp. 104-108

c15.137

⁵ *Ibid*, p. 128

c15.138

⁶ *E. I.*, I. p. 197

c15.139

⁷ *Ibid*, pp. 208-211

c15.140

It is thus clear that when the Smṛitis and Nītis recommend that ministers should be selected on the hereditary principle, they were enunciating a theory that was widely followed in actual practice. If, however, the son of a minister was incompetent, it is expressly laid down that he should not be appointed to the ministerial post ; he may be offered some inferior post.¹

c15.141

¹ यदि मौलाः कुलीना अपि तथा पितृपैतामहपदयोग्यगुणहीनास्तान् यथायोग्येषु कर्मसु नियुञ्जीत न तु तत्तत्पितृपैतामहपदेषु तत्र तत्र तेषामयोग्यत्वात् । *Rājanītiprakāśa*, p. 176

c15.142

Sometimes ministers were selected also from the members of the royal family. Thus king Harsha of Kashmir had appointed two sons of a former ruler as his ministers² and the premier of the Chāhamāna ruler Vīsaladeva was his own son Sallakshaṇapāla.³ Selection of ministers from the distant scions of the royal family could not, however, have been very common ; for there was also the danger in such cases that the minister may try to usurp the throne for himself.

c15.143

² *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, VIII. 874

c15.144

³ *I. A.*, XIX. p. 218

c15.145

Curiously enough Smṛiti and Nīti writers do not emphasise military leadership and ability in the minister.⁴ A perusal of the epigraphical evidence, however, shows that they were usually military leaders as well. Harisheṇa, the Foreign Minister of Samudragupta, was also a general (*mahābalādhikṛita*). Provincial governors under the Ikshvākus and the Vākāṭakas were military commanders, and the same was the case probably with many of their ministers. Chāmuṇḍarāya, the minister of the Gaṅga king Mārasiṁha, had won the battle of Gonur for his king.⁵ In 1024 A. D. the Minister of Records of the Later Chālukyas was a *mahāprachaṇḍadaṇḍanāyaka* ; clearly he was a high military officer as well. All the ministers of the Kalachuri king Bijjaladeva were *daṇḍanāyakas* or generals.⁶ One is surprised to find that even the minister Hemādri, who had spent so much of his time in writing about *vratas* and rituals, should also have been a general ; he was not only well aquainted with the theory and practice of training war-elephants, but had led a successful expedition against a rebel chief in Jhandi district¹. Nāgarasa, the premier of Yādava king Kṛishṇa, was as great a scholar as a soldier.²

c15.146

⁴ Kauṭilya, Kâmandaka and Somadeva passingly observe that ministers should be brave, but do not emphasise upon military qualifications and leadership.

c15.147

⁵ *E. I.*, V. p. 173

c15.148

⁶ *I. A.*, XIV. p. 26

c15.149

¹ *J. R. A. S.*, V. p. 183

c15.150

² *I. A.*, XIV. p. 70

c15.151

Smṛitis prefer that ministerial appointments should normally go to Brāhmaṇas. How far such was actually the case, we do not know. Epigraphs do not refer to the castes of the ministers mentioned in them. It is, however, likely that most of the castes and interests were represented on the ministry. According to the *Mahābhārata*, the Privy Council of the king was to consist of only four Brāhmaṇas, but eight Kshattriyas, twenty one Vaiśyas and three Śūdras.³ Śukra states that it is only on the occasion of dinner and marriage that one should enquire about the caste, not when making appointments to the ministry.⁴ Somadeva recommends that the ministers should be selected from all the three regenerate castes⁵ and Śukra has no objection to the military portfolio being under a Śūdra, if he is capable and loyal.⁶ Majority of kings in ancient India were non-Brāhmaṇas, and it is very likely that the same was the case with the majority of their ministers, exspecially because they were also expected to be military leaders.

c15.152

³ > चतुरो ब्राह्मणान् वैद्यान्प्रगल्भांस्स्नातकान् शुचीन् ।

c15.153

⁴ > नैव जातिं न च कुलं केवलं लक्षयेदपि ।

c15.154

⁵ *Nītivākyāmṛita* p. 55

c15.155

⁶ > स्वधर्मनिरता नित्यं स्वामिभक्ता रिपुद्विषः ।

c15.156

Ministerial appointments were made by the king. We have shown already how there existed no popular Central Assembly in historic times to which ministers could have become res-

c15.157

क्षत्रियान् दश चाष्टौ च बलिनः शस्त्रपाणिनः ।।
वैश्यान्वित्तेन संपन्नानेकविंशतिसंख्यया ।
त्रींश्च शूद्रान्विनीतांश्च शुचीन्कर्मणि पूर्वके ।। XII. 85. 7-8

c15.158

No other writers give such a preponderence to Vaishyas; the specific inclusion of the Śūdras in the ministry is also unusual.

c15.159

कर्मशीलगुणाः पूज्यास्तथा जातिकुलेन च ।
न जात्या न कुलेनैव श्रेष्ठत्वं प्रतिपद्यते ।
विवाहे भोजने नित्यं कुलजातिविवेचनम् ।। II. 545

c15.160

शूद्रा वा क्षत्रिया वैश्या म्लेच्छाः संकरसंभवाः ।
सेनाधिपाः सैनिकाश्च कार्या राज्ञा जयार्थिना ।। II. 139

c15.161

ponsible. They were, therefore, directly responsible to the king and only indirectly to the public opinion. Influence of ministers, therefore, largely depended upon personal factors and not upon the constitutional backing of a popular assembly. When there was a powerful and self-willed ruler upon the throne, like Bimbisāra, he would dismiss some ministers for giving bad advice, degrade some for inefficiency and promote others for their good service.¹ The position of ministers under such rulers was difficult. They, like Rāvaṇa, expected their ministers to concur with them; if they offered unwelcome advice, they were often in the danger of being dismissed.² Sometimes they were even banished and their property confiscated for their daring to displease the king by their unwelcome advice.³ The other side of the picture comes before us when kings were weak and ministers ambitious to usurp the throne. Then also their mutual relations were strained; the ministers would conspire to multiply the difficulties and calamities for their rulers.⁴ The father of Satyavān, the husband of Sāvitrī, had lost his kingdom owing to the machinations of his ministers; the same was the case with the last ruler of the Śuṅga and the Later Chālukya dynasties in historic times.

c15.162

¹ *Chullavagga*, V. 1

c15.163

² संपृष्टेन तु वक्तव्यं सचिवेन विपश्चिता । वाक्यमप्रतिकूलं तु मृदुपूर्वं हितं शुभम् । सावमदं तु यद्वाक्यं मारीच हितमुच्यते । नाभिनंदति तद्राजा मानार्हो मानवर्जितम् । एतत्कार्यमवश्यं मे बलादपि करिष्यसि । *Rāmāyaṇa*, III 43. 9-10, 25

c15.164

³ *Rājatarāṅgiṇī*, II. 68; VI. 342

c15.165

⁴ सदैवआपद्गतो राजा भोग्यो भवति मंत्रिणाम् । अत एव हि वाञ्छंति मंत्रिणः सापदं नृपम् ॥ *Panchatantra*, p. 66

c15.166

Cases above referred to were, however, unusual. Normally kings had a high regard for their ministers and the latter were loyal to them; they also regarded themselves as trustees of the interest of the people. Ministers were the pillars of the state⁵ and normally the kings used to accept their advice, though the ultimate responsibility rested with the crown.¹ It was the first and foremost duty of the minister to control the king and to see that he did not follow the wrong path.² They are the real friends of the king, says Kāmandaka, who prevent him from following a dangerous path.³ Ministers, worth their name, must inspire the king with awe; they must devote themselves wholeheartedly to the proper performance of public duties and never think of pandering to the whims of the ruler.⁴ As ministers occupied so important a place in the body politic, it was but natural that some thinkers should have held that the ministerial debacle was the greatest calamity that could fall upon a kingdom.⁵

c15.167

⁵ अंतःसारैरकुटिलैरच्छिद्रैः सुपरीक्षितैः । मंत्रिभिर्धार्यते राज्यं सुस्तंभैरिव मंदिरम् ॥ *Panchantantra*, p. 66

c15.168

¹ तद्यद्भूयिष्ठाः कार्यसिद्धिकरं वा ब्रूयुः तत्कुर्यात् । *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. I. Chap. 15

c15.169

² ये एनमपायस्थानेभ्यो वारयेयुः । *Ibid*, Bk. I. Chap. 3

c15.170

³ नृपस्य त एव सुहृदस्त एव गुरवो मताः । य एनमुत्पथगतं वारयन्त्यनिवारितम् ॥ IV. 14

First 168 of 195 passages. Read on

Linked texts (54)