State and Government in Ancient India c15.161

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.