State and Government in Ancient India c15.105

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