Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Public Administration in Ancient India c11: Chapter VIII: Assemblies and Councils

Public Administration in Ancient India c11

Language
English

Chapter VIII: Assemblies and Councils

c11.2

THE system of conducting public administration by means of an Assembly of the people prevailed in India in the early Vedic times. Hymn 191 of Mandala X. of the Rig-Veda is addressed to Saṃjñāna (agreement in assembly) and runs thus:

c11.3

Assemble, speak together: let your minds be all of one accord,
As ancient gods unanimous sit down to their appointed share.
The place is common, common the assembly, common the mind, so be your thoughts united.
A common purpose do I lay before you, and worship with your general oblation.
One and the same be your resolve, and be your minds of one accord.
United be the thoughts of all that all may happily agree." ¹

c11.4

¹ Rig-Veda (Griffith's trans.).

c11.5

The following hymn of the Atharva-Veda also relates to the work of the Assembly:

c11.6

(Be) all the quarters (disah) like-minded, concordant: let the Assembly (samiti) here suit (klp) thee fixed.²

c11.7

² Atharva-Veda (Whitney). Many other hymns of the Atharva-Veda relate to the work of the Assembly; one such hymn is: "Fixed (dhruva),

c11.8

The Assembly was of two descriptions,—the Samiti and the Sabhā. The Samiti appears to have been a general assembly of the people convened on an important occasion, such as the election of a king.¹ The less formal, and more commonly convened, Assembly was the Sabhā. The Assembly deliberated upon State business of all kinds, executive, judicial, and military.

c11.9

¹ Vide Griffith’s Rig-Veda, footnote to Bk. X. Hymn 191.

c11.10

The popular assembly was a regular institution in the early years of the Buddhistic Age. When Ajāta-satru, wishing to destroy the Vrijjikas, sent his Prime Minister, Varshakāra, to the Buddha, the Buddha asked his chief disciple, “Have you heard, Ānanda, that the Vajjians hold full and frequent assemblies?” “Lord, so I have heard,” replied he. “So long,

c11.11

with a fixed oblation, do we lead down Soma, that Indra may make the clans (viśaḥ) like-minded, wholly ours.” VII. 94.

c11.12

According to Ludwig, the ‘Sabhā’ was an assembly not of all the people, but of the Brāhmanas and Maghavans (rich patrons), while the ‘Samiti’ included the entire people, primarily, the viśaḥ. In Zimmer’s opinion the ‘Sabhā’ was the village assembly. Prof. Macdonell is unable to accept either view, and agrees with Hillebrandt in holding that the Sabhā and the Samiti cannot be distinguished. Vedic Index, II. pp. 427-430.

c11.13

Prof. Macdonell adds: “The King went to the assembly just as he went to the Sabhā. That he was elected there, as Zimmer thinks, is as uncertain as whether he was elected at all. But there are clear signs that concord between King and assembly was essential for his prosperity.” P. 431.

c11.14

E. W. Hopkins says: “The earliest assembly for adjusting political affairs in Āryan India was the clan-assembly called sabhā (compare German Sippe)... In the Epic we find the Sabhā to be an assembly of any sort. It may be a judicial one, or court of law; it may be a royal one, the King’s court; it may be a social gathering for pleasure; and finally it may, in its older meaning, be a political assembly.” Journal of the American Oriental Society.

c11.15

Ānanda,” rejoined the Blessed One, “as the Vajjians hold full and frequent assemblies, so long may they be expected not to decline but to prosper.”¹ And the Buddha added the following other conditions which would ensure the welfare of the Vajjian confederacy. “So long, Ānanda, as the Vajjians meet together in concord, and rise in concord, and carry out their undertakings in concord, so long as they enact nothing not already established, abrogate nothing that has been established, and act in accordance with the ancient institutions of the Vajjians as established in former days—so long as they honour and esteem and revere and support the Vajjian elders and hold it a point of duty to hearken to their words . . . so long may the Vajjians be expected not to decline but to prosper.”²

c11.16

¹ Mahā-parinibbāna Suttanta (Rhys Davids and Carpenter’s Dīgha-Nikāya), I. 4; also Rhys Davids, Buddhist Suttas.

c11.17

² Ibid.

c11.18

How the deliberations of these assemblies were conducted, and whether the proposals were submitted to votes, or the decisions were in accordance with the general sense of the assembly, we do not exactly know. But as the rule of majority was not unknown, it is probable that the decisions of the majority prevailed.³ Nor do we know in what manner the president of such an assembly was appointed. But there is no doubt that the appointment was made in view of his age, attainments, and character.

c11.19

³ Chānakya says that in case of a difference of opinion (dvaidhībhāve), the decision of the larger number of honest persons (bahavaḥ śuchayaḥ) shall prevail. This refers to the work village meetings for the arbitration of boundary disputes, but it is probable that this rule applied also to the decisions of other assemblies. Again, regarding the procedure of the King’s Council, Chānakya says that the decision of the majority should prevail.

c11.20

It was not only in republican States, but also in States in which the monarchical form of government prevailed, that the popular assemblies were important in ancient times. Gradually, however, their importance diminished, and they fell ultimately into disuse. Three causes seem to have combined to produce this result, namely, the increase of the territory of the State, the growth of the King’s power, and the stereotyping of the caste-system. When the size of the State grew large, it was found impossible to bring together the entire people; and as the representative system was unknown at the time, the meetings of the popular assemblies became more and more infrequent, until at last the assemblies ceased altogether to meet. The growth of the King’s authority led to the substitution of the Great Council (Rāja-sabhā, Rāja-samiti) and the Privy Council (Mantri-parishat) of the King for the ancient meetings of the folk. Lastly, the influence of the fully developed caste-system led to the break-up of the national assembly into many religious and caste associations, to which in course of time were added trade and guild unions (pūga, śreṇi, etc.).

c11.21

The Royal Assembly or the Great Council of the King sat every day. The chief business transacted in this Assembly was to receive and consider the petitions of the people in regard to their grievances.¹ It also discharged the functions of the Final Court of Appeal in the State.² Matters of general policy affecting the well-being of the State were also sometimes considered in this Assembly.³ The members of the Assembly were the Crown Prince, the Ministers and other high officials, the Commander-in-Chief, the King's relatives, the subject rulers, the nobles, and such other persons as were invited to attend.⁴ "The Members of the Royal Assembly," says Vishnu, "should be men who are well-born, possessed of capacity and devoted to the King's interest, who can look with an equal eye upon friend and foe, and who cannot be drawn away from the path of duty by desire, anger, fear, or greed."⁵

c11.22

¹ Vide ante, Chapter VII. Vide also Sukranīti, Ch. I. sl. 32.

c11.23

² Vide the chapter on the Administration of Justice.

c11.24

³ Vide Sukranīti, Ch. I. sl. 352. It was before a meeting of the Royal Assembly or Great Council that Dhritarāshtra placed his proposal for making peace with the Pāndavas, who had married the daughter of Drupada, king of the Pānchālas, and had been taking steps for the recovery of their lost kingdom. The description of this meeting and of the speeches made by the members of the Assembly for and against the proposal gives us an excellent idea of the procedure of the Royal Assembly.

c11.25

⁴ The Nītivākyāmrita says: "No one should enter (i.e. sit in) the Assembly who is not an officer or who has not been invited to attend." Ch. XXIV.

c11.26

⁵ Vishnu (Jolly's Sanskrit text), Ch. III.

c11.27

Members (Sabhācarāḥ, Sabhāsadaḥ) had their allotted seats in the Assembly Hall.⁶ Great importance was attached to decorous and courteous behaviour on the part of the members. Mutual conversations were forbidden, and no member was allowed to interrupt another in the midst of his speech.¹ As a rule, members spoke only when called upon to do so, but on an emergent occasion or in case of an impending danger to the State, a member was permitted to address the Assembly without a request from the King. “It is the duty of a member of the Assembly,” says Chānakya, “to offer the King the best advice. When his opinion is sought, he should express his views boldly and without regard to the opinions of the other members. He should always speak with due regard to the interests of the State, and in conformity with the principles of righteousness and expediency. He should never speak ill of the other members of the Assembly, nor ascribe any motives to their actions. He should never indulge in statements which are unworthy of a member of the Assembly, or of which he has no direct knowledge, or which are incredible or false.”² The Sukranīti advises members of the Assembly to use words “which are pleasant (priya), true (tathya), and conducive to the welfare of the State (pathya).”³

c11.28

⁶ Sukranīti, Ch. I. sl. 353, etc. The Mahābhārata gives an imaginary picture of the Assembly-halls of Indra, Yama, Varuna, Kubera and Brahmā in Sabhā Parva, Secs. VII.-XII.

c11.29

¹ ‘Vākyāpakṣepanam.’ Arthaśāstra, Bk. V. ch. 4.

c11.30

² ‘Asabhyam,’ ‘apratyakṣam,’ ‘aśraddheyam,’ ‘anṛtam.’ Arthaśāstra, Bk. V. ch. 4. According to Chānakya, a member is not justified in attacking other members even when he has himself been attacked.

c11.31

³ Sukranīti, Ch. I. sls. 121, 122.

c11.32

The procedure adopted at meetings of the Royal Assembly seems to have been somewhat different from that at other meetings. No votes were taken, but all matters were decided by the King, with the advice of the Ministers and in accordance with the general sense of the Assembly. On ceremonial occasions, Grand Assemblies were convened. Such a Grand Assembly was held by Yudhishthira on the occasion of his entry into the newly-built capital of Khandava-prastha, when all the renowned sages, the great Kings, and the powerful chiefs of India were invited to attend.¹

c11.33

¹ Mahābhārata, Sabhā Parva. The Mahāvagga mentions a grand Assembly of Bimbisāra, King of Magadha, attended by eighty thousand overseers of his township. Fifth Khandaka (Rhys Davids and Oldenburg).

c11.34

Before any important administrative step was taken, the matter was discussed and decided in the Council of Ministers (Mantri-parishat).² This Council was composed of the great Officers-of-State and a few other members who held no office. The size of the Council varied according to circumstances. The school of Brihaspati held that the number of Councillors should be sixteen, Usanas thought it should be twenty, while, in the opinion of Manu, twelve were sufficient. Chānakya was in favour of a fairly large Council,¹ but he thought that the actual number of members should depend upon the needs of the State.²

c11.35

² Arthasāstra, Bk. I. ch. 14. Somadeva Sūri uses almost identical words in his Nitivākyāmrita (Ch. IX.). In Kāmandaki the term ‘Mantra-man-dala’ is used for the Council. Hopkins says: “As the popular assembly became the Kingly ‘court’ (rājasamiti), so the duties of that assembly became transferred to the ‘councillors’ or private ministers of the King.” Journal of the American Oriental Society.

c11.36

¹ ‘Akṣudrapariṣatka’ is regarded by Chānakya as one of the great qualities of a King.

c11.37

² Arthaśāstra, Bk. I. ch. 14. Indra’s Council consisted of one thousand Rishis and, therefore, he was called “the thousand-eyed.” Abul Fazl, describing the Hindu system of government, says: “In affairs of moment, it is not advisable to consult with many, because that to be qualified to give advice on such occasions requires fidelity, liberality of sentiment, valour and circumspection, qualities that are seldom found united in one person . . . They (i.e. the ancient Hindu monarchs) found it the safest way to join with the prime minister a few wise and experienced men, and to require each to deliver his opinion in writing, to be separately canvassed and debated upon.” Ayeen-i-Akbery (Gladwin), pp. 493-494.

c11.38

The necessity for the meeting of the Council is briefly described by Visālāksha in the words, “the decision of a single mind can never lead to success.” Chānakya says: “The work of government relates to three kinds of things,—those that can be perceived, those that cannot be perceived, and those that can be inferred. To know what is not known, to make certain what is known, to clear away doubts regarding what is susceptible of two opinions, and to infer the whole from the part,—for all these purposes, deliberation with ministers is necessary. Therefore, the King should deliberate with men who are wise.”³

c11.39

³ Arthaśāstra, Bk. I. ch. 15. Somadeva Sūri in his Nītivākyāmṛita follows Chānakya and uses practically the same language.

c11.40

The subjects for discussion at a meeting of the Council included everything which affected the interests of the State. In particular, Chānakya mentions five subjects, namely, the measures to be taken to commence work, the command of men and things for carrying out an object, the appropriate time and place of action, the precautions to be taken against possible dangers, and the means by which final success is to be achieved.¹ The success of deliberation in Council, according to Somadeva, is “ the attainment of large results at small expense.”²

c11.41

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. I. ch. 15.

c11.42

² Nītivākyāmrita, Ch. X.

c11.43

Meetings of the Council were presided over by the King himself, and probably in his absence, by the Prime Minister.³ The procedure adopted at a meeting of the Council was this: First a measure was introduced by the president.⁴ Then the opinion of each member in order was heard.⁵ Lastly, a sort of general discussion took place. If the members were unanimous, well and good; if not, the decision of the majority prevailed.⁶ Brihaspati says: ‘That counsel is best which is taken unanimously, under the guidance of policy, by wise councillors. Where, at first of divers opinions, they are afterwards unanimous, that is middling. Where there is broiling and reproach, one being for right, one for interest, . . . tears on the one part, anger on the other, that is the worst.”¹ Ministers were required to observe the strictest secrecy in regard to the subjects of discussion as well as the decision of the Council, and every precaution was taken against the disclosure of secrets.² Debates in the Council were perhaps sometimes lengthy, but Chāṇakya expresses himself as opposed to prolonged discussions,³ and urges that no time should be lost in taking action after a decision has been arrived at in the Council.

c11.44

³ On the death of Rājyavardhana, the Prime Minister Bhaṇḍi presided at the meeting convened for the purpose of selecting a new King. Vide Harshacharita.

c11.45

⁴ “Pūrvam svāminā kārya-nivedanam.” Brihaspati Sūtra, IV. 37 (ed. F. W. Thomas).

c11.46

⁵ “Yat punar yathākramam ekaikasya matam śrotavyam.” Ibid. IV. 40.

c11.47

⁶ “Yad bhūyiṣṭhā brūyus tat kuryāt.” Arthaśāstra, Bk. I. ch. 15.

c11.48

¹ Brihaspati Sūtra, IV. 34-36.

c11.49

² Kāmandaki, Ch. XXI. sls. 65-66. Mahābhārata, Āsramavāsa Parva, Sec. V., and Sukranīti, ch. I. sl. 351. The Nītivākyāmrita says: “No unauthorised person should be allowed to be present at meetings of the Council.”

c11.50

³ “Na dīrgham mantrayet.” Arthasāstra, Bk. I. ch. 15. The Nītivākyāmrita says: “Ministers must not quarrel among themselves nor indulge in mutual conversation.” Ch. X.

c11.51

The Council was the chief administrative authority in the kingdom. The King was supposed not to do anything without the consent of the Council.⁴ All ordinances were perhaps sanctioned by the Council. It possessed immense powers, and enjoyed a great deal of independence. In exceptional cases, it had even the power to elect the King.

c11.52

⁴ Cf. Chāṇakya-sūtra, “Mantra-sampadā hi rājyaṁ nīyate.”

c11.53

In treating of this subject we have so far confined our attention to Northern India. But it was not in that part of the country alone that the system of government by assemblies and councils prevailed. In the Kerala State in South India, during the first and second centuries of the Christian Era, there were five assemblies, namely, (1) the Assembly of the People, which consisted of representatives of the people summoned from various parts of the State, and which acted as a check on the King; (2) the Assembly of the Priests, which directed the religious ceremonies of the State; (3) the Assembly of Physicians, which acted as a sort of Board of Public Health; (4) the Assembly of the Astrologers, which fixed auspicious times for the public ceremonies; and (5) the Assembly of the Ministers, whose chief duties consisted in the collection and disbursement of revenue and the administration of justice.¹

c11.54

¹ Vide Chillapa Adikāram, and Mani-Mekalai, quoted by P. S. Rama-Krishna Iyer in his Polity and Social Life in Ancient Kerala.

c11.55

From the Ceylon inscriptions we learn that in that island all measures were enacted by the King-in-Council, and all orders were issued by, and under the authority of, the Council. In the Vevala-Katiya Inscription of Mahinda IV.,² for instance, we find the following: "... Goluggam Raksam Kudasenu, Meykappar Kuburgamu Lokohi, Katiri Agbohi, and Kundala Arayam; all these lords who sit in the Royal Council, and who have come (together) in accordance with the mandate delivered (by the King-in-Council), have promulgated these regulations." When any grant was made by the State to any individual or body, a Council Warrant of Immunity was issued. In the Madirigiriya Pillar inscription of Kassapa V. (980-990 A.D.),¹ we find the following passage: “Whereas it was (so) decreed by the Supreme Council, we, all of us, Officers-of-State, namely, . . . (five names) . . . have come . . . by Order and granted this Council Warrant of Immunity to the area . . .” Sometimes Pillars of Council Warranty ² were set up to inform people of the privileges granted to religious or other institutions. The appreciation of the importance of the Council by monarchs is shown by the Slab Inscription of Queen Līlāvatī ³ where she says: “By creating a Council of wise, brave, and faithful ministers, she has freed her own kingdom from the dangers (arising) from other kingdoms.”

c11.56

² Epigraphia Zeylanica, Vol. I. No. 21.

c11.57

¹ Epigraphia Zeylanica, Vol. II. No. 6.

c11.58

² Vide Pillar-inscription of Dappula V., Ep. 2. Vol. II. No. 8.

c11.59

³ Epigraphia Zeylanica, Vol. I. No. 14.

Cites (17)