Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Public Administration in Ancient India c12: Chapter IX: The Ministers

Public Administration in Ancient India c12

Language
English

Chapter IX: The Ministers

c12.2

THE Central Administration was conducted by the King with the assistance of a number of Ministers or Chief Officers-of-State. "Government," says Kautilya, "can be carried on only with the assistance of others. A single wheel does not move (the car of administration). Therefore, the King should appoint ministers, and act according to their advice." ¹ Manu says: "Even an undertaking easy (in itself) is (sometimes) hard to be accomplished by a single man; how much (harder is it for a King), especially (if he has) no assistant (to govern) a kingdom which yields great revenues." ²

c12.3

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. I. ch. 7.

c12.4

² Manu, VII. 55.

c12.5

Great importance was attached in ancient days to the proper selection of Ministers. A Minister was chosen not only in view of his capacity and character, but also of his family connections. The fittest person to be a Minister was he who was "a native of the country; born of a high family; influential; learned in the arts and sciences; possessed of wisdom and foresight; endowed with a good memory; capable; eloquent; intelligent; possessed of enthusiasm, endurance, dignity and grandeur; pure in character, devotedly attached (to the interests of the State); endowed with excellent conduct, strength, health, and boldness; devoid of procrastination and fickleness of mind; of a loving nature; and not of a disposition to excite enmity.”¹ This was the ideal measure of the qualities of a Minister, and one who made a close approximation to this ideal was considered as a Minister belonging to the highest class. A Minister whose qualifications fell short of the ideal measure by a quarter was of the middling type; while he who possessed only one-half of the qualifications, belonged to the inferior class.² The Mahābhārata also lays down a very high standard of ministerial qualifications. “The person,” says the great Epic, “who achieves celebrity, who observes all restraints, who never feels jealous of others, who never does

c12.6

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. I. ch. 9.

c12.7

² Ibid. “According to Vishnu, men should be selected as ministers who are honest, devoid of greed, careful, and possessed of capacity.” Ch. III. The Nītivākyāmṛita also discusses the qualifications of ministers (Chs. X. and XI.). Manu says: “Let him appoint seven or eight ministers whose ancestors have been royal servants, who are versed in the sciences, heroes skilled in the use of weapons and descended from good families who have been tried.” VII. 54. The Kural says:

c12.8

“The King, since counsellors are monarch’s eyes,
Should counsellors select with counsel wise.”
Pope’s trans. Bk. II. ch. 45.

c12.9

And again :

c12.10

“A minister must greatness own of guardian power, determined mind,
Learn’d wisdom, manly effort with the former five combined.”

c12.11

an evil act, who never abandons righteousness through lust, or fear, or covetousness, or wrath, who is clever in the transaction of business, and who is possessed of wise and weighty speech, should be the foremost of Ministers . . . Persons well-born, and possessed of good behaviour, who are liberal and never indulge in brag, who are brave and respectable, learned and full of resources, should be appointed as subordinate Ministers in charge of the different departments.” ¹

c12.12

¹ Sānti Parva, Sec. 80, sls. 25-27. Cf. Plato’s conception of the character of the guardians of the State: “Truth was his leader whom he followed, always and in all things, and his other virtues were courage, magnificence, apprehension, and memory.” Republic, Bk. VI. Cf. also Aristotle: “These are the qualifications required in those who have to fill the highest offices—(1) first of all, loyalty to the established constitution; (2) the greatest administrative quality; (3) virtue and justice of the kind proper to each form of government.” Politics, V. 9.

c12.13

Ministers were, as a rule, selected from the ranks of learned Brāhmaṇas who, according to Megasthenes, formed a separate class and who advised the King or magistrates of self-governed cities in the management of public affairs. “In point of numbers,” says the Greek writer, “it is a small class, but it is distinguished by superior wisdom and justice, and hence enjoys the prerogative of choosing governors, chiefs of provinces, deputy governors, superintendents of the treasury, generals of the army, admirals of the navy, controllers, and commissioners who superintend agriculture.” ²

c12.14

² McCrindle, p. 212.

c12.15

Cāṇakya, in his Arthaśāstra, gives an interesting summary of the discussions of the older teachers in regard to the question, namely, what sort of persons should be made ministers. We give a translation of this passage below :

c12.16

“ The King,” says Bharadvāja, “ should employ his fellow-students as his Ministers, for they can be trusted by him inasmuch as he has personal knowledge of their honesty and capacity.” “ No,” says Visālāksha, “ for, as they have been his playmates, they would disregard him. But he should employ as ministers those whose secrets are known to him.” Parāsara says, “ The fear of betrayal is common to both, and under the fear of the betrayal of his own secrets, the King may follow his Ministers in their good and bad acts. Hence he should employ as Ministers those who have proved faithful to him under difficult circumstances.” “ No,” says Pisuna, “ for this is devotion but not intellectual capacity. He should appoint as ministers those who, when employed in financial work, show as much as, or more than, the usual revenue, and are of tried ability.” Kaunapadanta says: “ That would not do; for such persons are devoid of other ministerial qualifications; he should employ as Ministers men whose fathers and grandfathers have been Ministers; such persons, because of their knowledge of past events and of a long-standing relationship with the King, will, though offended, never desert him.” “ No,” says Vātavyādhi, “ for such persons, having acquired complete dominion over the King, usurp the King’s powers. He should, therefore, appoint such new men as are proficient in political science.” “No,” says the son of Bāhudanti, “for a man possessing only a theoretical knowledge of the science and having no experience of practical politics is likely to commit serious blunders when employed in the work of actual administration. Hence he should employ as ministers, men who are born of a high family, and are possessed of wisdom, purity of purpose, bravery and loyalty. Ministerial appointments should depend only on qualifications.” Chānakya gives his own view in those words: “There is an element of reasonableness in each of these opinions; the fitness of a Minister should be considered in view of the work he is called upon to undertake.” 1

c12.17

The general duties of Ministers, according to the Agni Purāna, consisted in “deliberating upon the measures of the State, taking steps for the success of undertakings, preparing for all future contingencies, supervising the royal exchequer, drafting civil and criminal laws for the realm, checking encroachment by any Foreign Power, taking steps for arresting the progress of disturbances, and protecting the King and the country.” 2

c12.18

The number of Ministers depended upon the needs of the State. Chānakya is in favour of a small cabinet. “He (the King) shall consult,” says Chānakya, “three or four Ministers. The advice of a single Minister does not lead to satisfactory results in complicated cases. (Besides,) a single Minister proceeds wilfully and without restraint. If the King has two Ministers, he may be overpowered by their combined action, or imperilled by their mutual dissensions. But with three or four Ministers, he will never come to any serious grief, and will always arrive at satisfactory conclusions. With Ministers more than four in number, he will come to a decision only after a great deal of trouble, and it will be very difficult to maintain secrecy of counsel.”¹ According to Manu, the number of Ministers was to be seven or eight.² The Nītivākyāmrita is of opinion that there should be three, five, or seven ministers; “unanimity of opinion being difficult to obtain, the number should be uneven.”³

c12.19

¹ Arthasāstra, Bk. I. ch. 8. The Nitivākyāmrita also discusses this matter in Ch. 18.

c12.20

² Agni Purāna, CCXLI. sls. 16-17.

c12.21

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. I. ch. 15. Cf. also Nītivākyāmrita.

c12.22

² Manu, VII. 54.

c12.23

³ Ch. X. Somadeva Sūri adds: “A large number of Ministers, by the combined effect of their separate abilities, increase the efficiency of the government. When, however, one Minister possesses all the faculties necessary for the proper administration of the kingdom, there is no harm in having only one or two Ministers.” Ch. X.

c12.24

The Sukranīti mentions ten chief Ministers, namely, Purodhas (Priest), Pratinidhi (Regent), Pradhāna (Premier), Sachiva (Minister of Finance), Mantri (Councillor), Prāḍvivāka (Chief Judge), Paṇḍita (Legal Minister), Sumantraka (Minister of Peace and War), Amātya (Secretary of State), and Dūta (Ambassador).¹ In Milinda-panha, we find mention of six chief Officers-of-State, namely, the Commander-in-Chief, the Prime Minister, the Chief Judge, the High Treasurer, the Bearer of the Sunshade of State, and the State Sword-bearer.²

c12.25

¹ Sukranīti, Ch. 1. ² “And again, O King, just as there are a hundred or two of officers under the King, but only six of them are reckoned as Officers-of-State—the Commander-in-Chief, the Prime Minister, the Chief Judge, the High Treasurer, the Bearer of the Sunshade of State, and the State Sword-bearer. And why? Because of their royal prerogatives.” Questions of King Milinda (Rhys Davids), IV. 1, 36. ³ The term ‘Sabbatthaka’ (Minister in general) occurs in Questions of Milinda, IV. 8, 26; it correctly indicates the nature of the work of the Prime Minister. ⁴ This term is found in the Rājataraṅginī. ⁵ The term ‘agrāmātya’ occurs in a Ceylon inscription. ⁶ In the Mahāparinibbāna-suttanta, Vassakāra is described as ‘Magadha-mahāmatta.’ ⁷ Kautilya uses the word ‘Mantri’ in the sense of ‘Prime Minister.’ ⁸ The passage may be freely translated thus: “A King who has a learned Brāhmana as his Purohita and Protector of the State, makes alliances

c12.26

The Prime Minister (Pradhāna, Sarvārthaka,³ Sarvādhikāra,⁴ Agrāmātya,⁵ Mahāmātya,⁶ or simply Mantri ⁷) was the highest Officer-of-State and the real Head of the Executive. He was in general charge of the affairs of the State, and sometimes he undertook in addition the duties of a particular department, such as the Foreign Office. Another important Minister was the Purohita (the High Priest), who was always held in the highest regard. In the Aitareya Brāhmana, the Purohita is called the “Protector of the State” (rāṣṭra-gopa).⁸ Chānakya says:

c12.27

“As a disciple follows his preceptor, as a son obeys his father, as a servant obeys his master, so should the King obey the Purohita.”¹ The Nītivākyāmrita says: “The Prime Minister and the Purohita are the father and mother of the King.” Sometimes, these two offices were combined in the person of one minister.

c12.28

¹ Cf. Bodhāyana, I. 10, 8, “Tasya śāsane varteta.”

c12.29

The other chief Officers-of-State (Amātya, Sachiva, or Mahāmātra) were in charge of particular departments.² Of these, the most important were the Collector-general (Samāhartā) and the Treasurer-general (sannidhātā). It was the duty of the former to collect the revenues of the State from various sources, such as the taxes levied on lands, the income from mines, forests, pasture lands, and fishing, and the tolls received from the trade-routes.³ The Treasurer-general was the custodian of the moneys of the State. He received into the treasury the King’s revenues, and had custody of the precious metals, jewellery, and valuable property of all other kinds.

c12.30

² Chānakya says: “Having divided the spheres of their respective powers in view of the different kinds of work to be performed, and the time and place of their performance, such persons should be appointed as Officers-of-State and not (merely) as Councillors.” Arthasāstra, Bk. II. Ch. 8. The term ‘mahāmātra’ occurs in the Arthasāstra as well as in Asoka’s Edicts.

c12.31

³ Arthasāstra, Bk. II. ch. 6.

c12.32

with foreign Kings, destroys his enemies, conquers Kshatriyas with the help of Kshatriyas, and enjoys power with the assistance of an army; the people (visah) become favourable to him, and give their unanimous support to him.” Ch. XI.

c12.33

It was also his duty to see to it that no part of the income of the State was misappropriated by the officers of any of the departments.¹ Another important officer was the Minister of War and Peace, whose duty it was to maintain communications with Foreign Powers and to decide which of the expedients of foreign politics was the most suitable at any particular moment.² The Chief Judge presided over the Royal Court and was also a sort of Minister of Justice. The Commander-in-Chief, it seems, held the position of a Minister, although the Nītivākyāmrita objects to his being a Councillor,³ and the Sukranīti omits him from the list of Ministers. Sometimes a separate Minister was appointed to have charge of the Royal Seal,⁴ and the fact that the concurrence of the Keeper of the Seal was essential in all important matters of State made his position one of great dignity and importance.

c12.34

¹ Arthasāstra, Bk. II. ch. 5.

c12.35

² Agni Purāna, Ch. 220.

c12.36

³ “Commanders of the army should not be members of Council (mantrā-dhikārinah), for each of these, viz. the favour of the King, membership of the Council, and the profession of arms is sufficient to turn a man’s head, not to speak of a combination.” Ch. X.

c12.37

⁴ “Just, O King, as an official who is anxious for the Seal (mudda-kāmo), and for the office and custody thereof, will exert himself to the attainment of the Seal by sacrificing everything in his house—property and corn, gold and silver . . .” Questions of Milinda (Rhys Davids), IV. 8, 9.

c12.38

Each Minister managed the affairs of his own department, and all the Ministers collectively formed a sort of Cabinet for purposes of combined action. But it seems that the responsibility of the Ministers was individual and not collective. Chāṇakya draws a distinction between the Cabinet (mantriṇaḥ) and the Council of Ministers (mantri-parishat). The Council thus seems to have been the Cabinet of Ministers enlarged by the addition of members who held no portfolios. Chāṇakya advises the King to consult both these bodies on important occasions. The King had also the power to consult the Ministers individually as well as collectively. To ensure that each Minister should become familiar with all kinds of work, and to prevent any Minister from growing too powerful, an interchange of places in the Ministry was ordered from time to time.

c12.39

The Ministers were, of course, directly responsible for the due performance of their duties to the King. But they had also a sort of indirect responsibility to the people. This is illustrated by the story told by Hiuen Tsiang about Vikramāditya, King of Srāvastī. This King was very charitably inclined, and he largely supplied the wants of the poor, the orphans, and the bereaved. One day he ordered his Ministers to distribute daily five lakhs of gold coins. On this, the treasurer, fearing that the resources of the State would soon be exhausted, said to the King: "Your treasury will thus be emptied, and then fresh imposts will have to be laid, until the resources of the land be also exhausted, then the voice of complaint will be heard and hostility be provoked. Your Majesty, indeed, will get credit for charity, but your Minister will lose the respect of all.”¹ The story current at Hiuen Tsiang’s time about Asoka’s Minister² refusing to comply with the King’s wish to give away all his possessions in charity, also shows that the Ministers recognised some responsibility to the people. And they were held responsible not only for their own actions but also for those of the King. This theory of Ministerial responsibility is clearly expressed in the following passage in the Sanskrit drama, Mudrā-Rākshasa: “When anything wrong is done by the King, the fault is of the Minister; (for) it is through the negligence of the driver that an elephant goes mad.”³ So, when Rājyavardhana was treacherously assassinated, the Ministers told Harshavardhana that they were to blame for the misfortune, for they ought not to have allowed Rājyavardhana to go to a foreign King’s camp unguarded.⁴

c12.40

¹ Buddhist Records (Beal), Bk. II. ² Hiuen Tsiang (Beal), Bk. VIII. ³ Act III. ⁴ Harshacharita, Ch. VI. ⁵ In the Satapatha Brāhmana some of the state officials are called ‘king-makers’ (rāja-kṛtaḥ). ⁶ Cf. the Vāyu and the other Purānas, “Chandraguptaṁ rājye Kauṭilyaḥ-sthāpayiṣyati.” See ante, Ch. I.

c12.41

The Ministers possessed great powers in the State even in normal times; but during the minority of a King or when the King happened to be a weak man, their powers were immense. When the throne fell vacant, they played the role of King-makers.⁵ Chānakya, for instance, placed Chandragupta on the throne of Magadha.⁶ From the poet-historian Bāna as well as from Hiuen Tsiang we know how a successor was appointed to Rājyavardhana, King of Kanauj. We are told that Bhandi, the Prime Minister, called a meeting of the Ministers and said to them: "The destiny of the nation is to be fixed to-day . . . Because he (Harsha) is attached to his family, the people will trust in him. I propose that he assume the royal authority. Let each one give his opinion on the matter, whatever he thinks." Then the chief Ministers exhorted Harsha to take authority, saying: "The opinion of the people as shown in their songs, proves their real submission to your qualities. Reign, then, with glory over the lands."¹ From the Ceylon inscriptions we learn that the Ministers elected Līlāvatī as Queen of Ceylon, and afterwards deposed her. In the temporary absence of a King, the Ministers ruled the country—as a rule, very wisely and well.²

c12.42

¹ Vide Hiuen Tsiang's Travels and Harshacharita.

c12.43

² In the Mahāvamsa it is said that the ministers governed the Kingdom of Ceylon righteously for one year after the death of Vijaya, and on the arrival of his nephew from India, they invested him with the sovereignty of Lanka. Ch. IX. The Chānakya-sūtra contains the following passage: "If there are good ministers, the affairs of a State can be managed even without a King."

c12.44

Although every Minister occupied a responsible position, it was the Prime Minister who was mainly responsible for the good government of the country.³ Unless the King happened to be a man of exceptional ability, the Prime Minister was the real ruler of the State. “All activities,” says Chānakya, “depend upon the Prime Minister, such, for instance, as the accomplishment of the works of the people, the security of the Kingdom from foreign aggression and internal troubles, remedial measures against calamities, colonisation, improvement of the soil, maintenance of the army, and the collection and disbursement of the State revenue.”¹ According to Bharadvāja, the Prime Minister was the most important person in the State—even more important than the King himself, for, says Bharadvāja, “in the absence of the Prime Minister, the King is absolutely incapable of doing any work, like a bird deprived of its wings.” Chānakya, however, would place the Prime Minister as next to the King, for “the King appoints the Ministers, and he can replace a bad Minister by a good one.”²

c12.45

³ Abul Fazl, describing the Hindu system of government, says: "Him (the Prime Minister) he (the King) must consult on all occasions with implicit confidence, and intrust with the executive power." Ayeen-i-Akbery (Gladwin), p. 493.

c12.46

¹ Bk. VIII. ch. 1.

c12.47

² Arthaśāstra, Bk. VIII. ch. 1.

c12.48

The influence exercised by an able Prime Minister over a King is well illustrated by the relations between Chānakya and Chandragupta, as depicted in Mudrā-Rākshasa. The Emperor is there described as a person who is absolutely helpless without the guidance of the Prime Minister. He never undertakes any measure, great or small, without the advice of Chānakya. So great is the Emperor’s regard for his Minister that whenever the two meet, Chandragupta greets Chānakya by touching the latter’s feet.

c12.49

This great influence possessed by Ministers of old was doubtless, in a large measure, due to the selfless spirit in which many of them served the State. Though such Ministers controlled the destinies of large kingdoms and sometimes extensive empires, they, as a rule, led very simple lives,¹ and were renowned for their honesty, integrity, and nobility of character. Numerous examples of devotedness to duty on the part of Ministers, sometimes under very difficult and trying circumstances, are recorded in Indian history and literature.²

c12.50

¹ Chānakya says: “A Minister should never live in luxurious style.” Bk. V. ch. 6. In the Mudrā-Rākshasa, Kautilya himself is described as living in an old and dilapidated hut. Act III. With this picture may be compared Plato’s ideal picture of Guardians who “were not to have houses or lands or any other property; their pay was to be their food, which they were to receive from other citizens and they were to have no private expenses; for we intended them to preserve their true character of Guardians.” Republic, V.

c12.51

² In Bhāsa’s Pratimā-Nātaka and Svapna-Vāsavadatta, the Prime Minister is described as a man ready to undertake any risks for the sake of the King. The devotion with which Rākshasa sought to serve a fallen master’s family extorted the highest praise even from his bitter enemy Chānakya (Mudrā-Rākshasa, Act II.).

c12.52

But it would be a mistake to suppose that Ministers were invariably honest and free from vice. Some of them were greedy. “The Treasurer-general,” says Chānakya, “appropriates to himself the money which is paid into the treasury by others; the Collector-general fills his own pockets first, and then gathers revenue for the King, or destroys the revenue collected, and then takes other people’s property at his pleasure."¹ Some Ministers were cruel and oppressive, and often gave a wrong advice to the King. In the words of the poet:

c12.53

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. II.

c12.54

"'Tis thus that evil councillors impel
The heedless prince into the scorching flames
Of fierce iniquity and foul disgrace;
And countless victims perish by the guilt
Of treacherous ministers, who thus involve
Both prince and people in promiscuous ruin."²

c12.55

² Mṛichchhaṭikā (Wilson), Act IX.

Linked texts (20)