Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Administrative Institutions c8.s3: Sec. iii. The Royal Council

Hindu Administrative Institutions c8.s3

Language
English

Sec. iii. The Royal Council

c8.s3.1

The council is an important limb of the central organization and its origin can be traced to very early times. In the Vedic period the business of the council was more complex in character. Professors Macdonell and Keith remark: ‘The business of the council was general deliberation of the policy of all kinds, legislation so far as the Vedic Indian cared to legislate, and judicial work.’¹ But the council of the later days abstained from legislative and judicial work. It became purely a consultative Council, Cabinet to use a modern expression. This distinctive feature of the cabinet assumed shape at least prior to the days of Kauṭalya as can be seen from the learned discussion on the subject in the *Arthaśāstra*.²

c8.s3.2

¹ *Vedic Index*, vol. ii, p. 431.

c8.s3.3

² Bk. i, Sec. 15.

c8.s3.4

In the chamber in which council meetings were usually held absolute secrecy had to be ensured and the cabinet therefore met in appointed places. The chamber was to be inaccessible not only to man but also to birds and beasts. Kauṭalya gives a categorical list of birds and animals which should not be allowed to frequent the environs of this special chamber. It was feared that news would leak out even through them. This may no doubt be an exaggeration, but still it demonstrates the extreme need of secrecy in the council. Among the birds and animals mentioned are parrots, dogs and deer.³ These are endowed with certain instinct by means of which they are capable of betraying the secrets. Cases upon cases in illustration can be quoted from the epics. In the *Mahābhārata* it is the dog of Ekalavya which took the Pāṇḍavās to his master by means of visible signs. In the *Rāmāyaṇa* one of the animals which indicated the path through which Rāvaṇa carried Sīta was the deer. Again in the *Araṇyaka Parvan*, Yudhiṣṭhira abandoned the forest because the deer at that place indicated to him that that forest was not worthy of his living there. Besides according to the sage Nārada and the *Chandogya Upaniṣad* there have been in ancient India masters versed in the language of animals (वाकोवाक्यं) and also of plants.

c8.s3.5

³ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. i, Sec. 15.

c8.s3.6

The same ideas are repeated in the *Manava Dharma Sastra*. On the top of a hill, the solitary chamber of the palace, or lonely forests where even birds cannot penetrate, deliberation could be carried on by the king. The idiot, the dwarf, the deaf and the dumb, the limbless, the old, the eunuch, the lunatic, *mlechchas*, the sick and the defective-limbed, were not allowed to be present on any of the four sides of the hall,¹ for through them the secrets might escape. The author of the *Arthasastra* is practical in his recommendations. He asks, granting the above precautions are taken, yet is there not any possibility of the information leaking out from the members who sit in deliberation. ‘Yes,’ says Kauṭalya, and remarks that any shrewd man could form possible opinions by observing the physical features and gestures of the person or persons consulted. This is evident from the *Rāmāyaṇa* also. When the question of entertaining Vibhīṣaṇa as an ally came up, Hanumān speaks in these terms:

c8.s3.7

¹ नरात्रौ मन्त्रयेद्विद्वान् च कैश्चिदुपासितः । प्रासादाग्रे शिलाग्रे वा बिशाले विजनेपि वा । समन्तात्तत्र पश्यद्भिः सहातैरेव मन्त्रयेत् । नैव संवेशयेत्तत्र मन्त्रवेश्मनि शारिकाम् । शुकान्वा शारिका वापि बालमूर्खजडानपि । प्रविष्टानपि निर्वास्य मन्त्रयेद्धार्मिकैर्द्विजैः । *Mahābhārata*, *Ādi Parvan*, cliii. 87-89; cf. *Śānti Parvan*, lxxxiii. 56-57; *Āśrama*, vi. 22; *Śukra* i. 11. 484-99; *Manu*, vii. 147-9; *Yāj*., i. 342.

c8.s3.8

आकारच्छायमानोऽपि न शक्यो विनिंगूहितुं
बलाद्विवृणोत्येव भावमन्तर्गतं नृणाम् । (Yuddha, ch. xvii. 63.)

c8.s3.9

Again in the *Nīti Sāra*:

c8.s3.10

आकारेणैवचतुराः तर्कयन्ति परेरितम् ।
गर्भस्थं केतकोपलं आमोदेनैव षट्पदाः ॥

c8.s3.11

Other ways by which secrets might be discovered are carelessness, intoxication, talking in sleep, lust, and other evil habits of the councillors themselves. Hence the *Kauṭalīya* warns that such councillors should be kept under proper guard until the council proceedings should reach a consummation.¹

c8.s3.12

¹ आकृतिग्रहणमाकारः । तस्य संवरणं आयुक्तपुरुषरक्षणमाकार्यकालादिति । तेषां हि प्रमादमदसुप्तप्रलपकामादिर्वृत्सेकः । प्रच्छन्नोऽवमतो वा मन्त्रं भिनत्ति । तस्माद्रक्षेन्मन्त्रम् । (*Arthaśāstra*, Bk. i, Sec. 15.)

c8.s3.13

The term *mantripariṣad* (मंत्रिपरिषत्) means a definitely organized council of ministers who were concerned with the political affairs of the realm. The distinction came to be maintained in later Sanskrit literature especially in the *Dharmaśāstras* and the *Arthaśāstras*.² The *Kauṭalīya* mentions this term³ and refers it to the *Dharmaśāstras* of Bṛhaspati, Manu and Uśanas. This *mantripariṣad* was a cabinet of ministers. From early Vedic literature there is evidence to demonstrate that the king in ancient India was no autocrat exercising authority in an irresponsible manner. The *Rājakṛts* and the *Ratnins* of the *Brāhmaṇa* literature go to show that some constitutional check was placed on the institution of kingship. Further we hear of the Sabhās, Samiti and Pariṣad where the king took an active part.

c8.s3.14

² Vasiṣṭha, iii. 20.

c8.s3.15

³ Bk. i, Sec. xv.

c8.s3.16

The Pariṣad of the *Jātakas* is the same as the Pariṣad of the *Arthaśāstra* literature. The term also appears in the rock-cut inscriptions of Aśoka.⁴ Further the Vedic term *Rājakartāraḥ* continued in the same meaning both in the Pāli canon and in the epics. In the *Rāmāyaṇa*¹ on the arrival of Bharata from his uncle's house the *Rājakartāraḥ* presented themselves before him to crown him. It is not unreasonable to assume that these functionaries were the chief ministers of the state and had a place in the *mantri-pariṣad*. The law-givers such as Manu, Yājñavalkya and Kātyāyana assign a fitting place to this assembly which the king was bound to consult before he could enter upon any undertaking, or give his verdict on a suit.² Even in matters of urgent public importance the king could not and must not act on his own initiative. He must summon all his councillors and decide on the expert advice of his best men.³

c8.s3.17

⁴ The Shāhbāzgaṛhi Rock and the Mānsehrā Rock, III and IV.

c8.s3.18

¹ ततः प्रभातसमये दिवसे च चतुर्दशे । समेत्य राजाकर्तारो भरतं वाक्यमब्रुवन् ॥ (*Ayodhya Kāṇḍa*, lxxix. 1.)

c8.s3.19

² Manu, vii. 30-31; Yāj., i. 311.

c8.s3.20

³ यद्भूयिष्ठाः कार्यसिद्धिकरं वा ब्रूयुः तत्कुर्यात् । (*Arthaśāstra*, Bk. i, Sec. xv.)

c8.s3.21

Here the word ‘भूयिष्ठाः’ has been interpreted by all scholars as the ‘majority opinion’. It is open to doubt whether this construction could be placed upon this term. For we know, taking the *Rāmāyaṇa* for our illustration, that two important councils were held one on the eve of entertaining Vibhīṣaṇa as an ally, and the second by Rāvaṇa on the eve of Rāma-Rāvana-Yuddha. Rāma certainly pursued the way ordained in the *Dharma-śāstras*. Manu lays down that the ministers must be consulted individually and then jointly. (Cf. Kāmand., xi. 68.) This means full discussion was allowed in the council. Every member is entitled to have his say for or against a certain proposition.

c8.s3.22

In the councils under question decision was ultimately arrived at by the president of the council-assembly Rāma and Rāvaṇa respectively. It was therefore for the President to convert the opposition to his side and thus act on the unanimous decision. This is what happened when Vibhīṣaṇa was taken by Rāma to his side. What we wish to point out that it is doubtful whether the majority and minority ideas were in existence in very early times.

c8.s3.23

The earliest literature of the Hindus, the *Rig Veda*, contains unmistakable evidence as to the practice by which a question was generally decided unanimously.¹ In the *Mahābhārata*, ‘When the question arises as to which of two sides should be adopted, you should not abandon the many for adopting the side of one. When however that one person cancels the many by virtue of his possessing many accomplishments, then you should for that one forsake the many.’² Who is this superior personage is defined by the succeeding *ślokas*.³ ‘Full of prowess and valour, disciplined, respectful and respecting, impartial, *dharmic*, and devoid of *kāma*, *krodha* and *lobha*, humble, and truthful, and self-controlled, tested and tried in all situations, coming of a respected family, associated with the ruling nobles, grateful, is the superior man fit to be consulted, and whose opinion deserves to be acted upon.’ Thus the majority rule is not a hard and fast one. In practice it was not acted upon. The words of the superior always carried weight and prevailed upon those of the councillors who were finally brought round to acquiesce in his view. Thus it was unanimity that was aimed at and often realized. Hence the council itself is defined as the ‘act of effecting unity of opinion on the part of persons conforming to a master mind.’⁴ Unanimity is the best council, majority the middle, and indecisiveness the worst.¹

c8.s3.24

¹ x. 191.

c8.s3.25

² नेकमिक्छेद्बहुं हित्वा स्याच्चेद‌न्यतरग्रहः । यस्त्वेको बहुभिः श्रेयान्कामं तेन गणं त्यजेत् ॥ (M. N. Dutt Trans. *Śanti Parvan*, lxxxiii. 12.)

c8.s3.26

³ *Ibid.*, 13-16.

c8.s3.27

⁴ स्वामिचित्तानुवृत्तिभिर्यैव्यकारकमेव मन्त्रम् ॥ (*Br. Nīti*, ii. 41.)

c8.s3.28

¹ > ऐकमत्येन दण्डनोतिनेतेण घोरैर्मन्त्रभिर्यो मन्त्रः स उत्तमः ।

c8.s3.29

The duty of this council of ministers became probably widened in course of time. Kāmandaka speaks of five characteristics of deliberation proper (the *mantra*)—mantrins, debate, division of time and place, and remedy against dangers. The functions allotted to each is then elaborately described.² According to Kauṭalya the council took cognizance of four things. These are commencing new works, completing works already begun, improving works already accomplished, and carrying out resolutions precisely.³

c8.s3.30

² xii. 36-40.

c8.s3.31

³ अकृतारम्भा, आरब्धानुष्ठाना, अनुष्ठितविशेष and नियोगसंपत् । (*Arthaśāstra*, Bk. i, Sec. 5.)

c8.s3.32

In the *Śukranīti*, its functions seem to have been enlarged. It was held responsible for all affairs affecting the state or its subjects in point of arms, finance, sound government and the rooting out of the enemies.⁴ On the procedure of this assembly the *Śukranīti* has interesting observations of which Jayaswal gives us a summary: ‘Without a written document no business of state was done. A matter was endorsed first by the home minister, the lord chief-justice, the minister of

c8.s3.33

⁴ > राज्यं प्रजा बलं कोशः सुन्नृपत्वं न वर्धितम् ।

c8.s3.34

पूर्वं बहुबुद्धयः पश्चादेकमतयो भवन्ति यत्र समध्यमः ।
यत्र कलहम्भत्सनं च एकस्य धर्म एकस्यार्थे स्त्रोबालवृद्धैः सह एकस्य
रुदितमेकस्य क्रोधो यस्मिन् सोधमः ॥ (*Ibid.*, iv. 34-36.)

c8.s3.35

यन्मन्त्रतोऽरिनाशस्तैर्मन्त्रिभिः किं प्रयोजनम् ॥ (ii. 83.)

c8.s3.36

Law, the minister of diplomacy with the fixed style: "This is not opposed to us" i.e., their departments had no objection. The minister of Revenue and Agriculture endorsed with the remark "The note is all right." The minister of finance: "Well considered"; then the president of the council inscribed in his own hand, "Really proper." Next the *pratinidhi* wrote: "Fit to be accepted": the *yuvarāja* following with "Should be accepted", in his own hand. The ecclesiastical minister endorsed "This is agreeable to me". Every minister affixed his seal at the end of his note. Finally the king wrote "Accepted", and set his seal. He was supposed to be unable to go through the document carefully and the *yuvarāja* or some one else was to make this endorsement for him which was shown to him. After this first stage was over the minute was signed by all the ministers as the council (*gaṇa*) and sealed with the seal of the council. Finally it was once more presented to the king who "without delay" wrote "seen" as he had not the "capacity" to criticize it.¹ On this Jayaswal remarks very pertinently: "The set endorsements are all in Sanskrit. This implies that the procedure belongs to the period of the Sanskrit revival which is now to be dated in the light of the history of the Śuṅga revolution between 150 B.C. and 100 A.C."²

c8.s3.37

¹ *Hindu Polity*, part ii, pp. 138-39; Śukra, ii. 362-69.

c8.s3.38

² Cf. J.B.O.R.S., iv, pp. 257-65 : Kāmand, xi. 60-64 ; Yāj., i. 312 ; *Bṛ. Niti*, iv. 34. 44 : *Hindu Polity*, part ii, p. 140 (foot-note).

c8.s3.39

To this procedure Kauṭalya adds that if some members are to absent themselves being away from the city or otherwise, their opinions too must be taken by the use of special writs.³ This is surely not vote by proxy as some would suggest. But the point is that they might offer some useful counsel. Their opinions would be discussed as those of others who were present and a unanimous decision was arrived at.

c8.s3.40

³ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. i, Sec. 15.

c8.s3.41

It would be interesting to compare it with what is found in the great epic. The king shall deliberate with not less than three councillors and ponder over their respective views in the first day. On the next day he must speak out the results of his own deliberation over their views to the cabinet. The conclusion arrived at on this day must again be submitted for the approval of the purohita. If it should win his approval,¹ the thing is taken for granted to all intents

c8.s3.42

¹ संविनोयमदक्रोधौ मानमोष्र्या च निर्वृताः । नित्यं पञ्चोपधातोतैर्मन्त्रयेत्सह मन्त्रिभिः ॥ तेषां त्रयाणां त्रिविधं विमर्शं विबुध्य चित्तं विनिवेश्य तत्र । स्वनिश्चयं तं परनिश्चयं च निदर्शयेदुत्तर मन्त्रकाले ॥ धर्मार्थकामज्ञमुपेत्यपृच्छेद्युक्तो गुरुं ब्राह्मणमुत्तरार्थं । निष्ठाकृता तेन यदासहःस्यात्तं मन्त्रमार्गं प्रणयेदसक्तः ॥ Śanti Parvan, lxxxiii. 52-54 ; cf. Yāj., i. 310 and Manu, vii. 56-57.

c8.s3.43

In the verses quoted above it is said that such of the councillors who are admitted to the cabinet must be those who have completely satisfied the five tests (पञ्चोपधाः) The term उपधाः is of great constitutional importance in Kauṭalya's *Arthaśāstra*. Kauṭalya mentions only four kinds of *Upadhas* (उपधाभिश्चतुर्विधा). These are धर्मोपधाः; अर्थोपधाः; कामोपधाः, and भयोपधाः ॥ He recommends what the *Mahābhārata* recommends

c8.s3.44

सर्वोपधाशुद्धान् मन्त्रिनः कुर्यात् । (Bk. i, Sec. 10.)

c8.s3.45

While Kauṭalya speaks of only four *Upadhas* the *Mahābhārata* mentions five kinds. In this context the Kauṭalīya mentions another term and purposes. The results of the consultation are sent to the corporate bodies in the state and also the president¹ of such bodies severally and separately. For the end and aim of this mantra is to make the people at large contented.² Though the king is expected to favour the majority view of the cabinet still that the opinion of the superior prevailed ultimately is seen from the fact that the view is submitted to the purohita.

c8.s3.46

¹ *Ibid.*, lxxxv. 12.

c8.s3.47

² *Ibid.*, lxxxiii. 55. प्रज्ञासंग्रहणे समर्थः

c8.s3.48

This bears eloquent testimony to the form of constitutional monarchy in practice at least in the early centuries before the Christian era. The above procedure shows that the virtual ruler was the ‘royal writ’ rather than the king himself. Has the king no powers to make the procedure null and void? Personally he could not. But he could issue an appeal to the sovereign assembly of the realm which goes by different appellations of a sabhā, or a rāṣṭra, or a jānapada—all terms connoting one and the same institution of the assembly, where the people’s representatives sat and which it is the duty of the Pariṣad or the deliberative council to satisfy, lest it

c8.s3.49

पञ्चसंस्था: or the five institutes connected with the Intelligence Department. These are explained as the institute of fraudulent disciple (कापटिक:), of recluse (उदास्थित:), of a householder (गृहपतिक:), of a merchant (वैदेहक:), and of an ascetic (तापस:) Bk. i, Sec. 11.

c8.s3.50

Evidently the passage in question in the Mahābhārata refers to the पञ्चसंस्था and the four upadhas. Parimēḷalagar mentions the same four Upadhas as find mention in the Arthaśāstra in commenting on the following of Tirukural.

c8.s3.51

आंपोरुविन्बमुपुराच्च नान्किन
तिऱ्कतेरिन्द् तेरप्पयि (501)

c8.s3.52

should jeopardize its own position. In this and other directions the inscriptions of Aśoka throw welcome light.¹ ‘They (the ministers) should act in such a manner that they would be favoured by the approval of the Jānapada assembly.’

c8.s3.53

¹ ते सं ये अभिहालेव दंडेव अतपतिये मे कूटे किंति लजूक अखथ अभोतंकमानि पवतयेवूति जनस जानपदस हितसुखं उपदहेवु, अनुगहिनेवु च........ Lauriya-Ararat Pillar Edict IV.

c8.s3.54

This shows that the position of the ministers was secure so long as the sovereign assembly had confidence in them, and it would be jeopardizing their position if they acted otherwise. This is also evident from the Jungadh Inscription² where Chakra-Pālita, the minister of Skanda-Gupta, gives utterance to similar opinion.

c8.s3.55

² F.G.I., p. 61.

c8.s3.56

Besides the *mantri-pariṣad* which we have taken as the state-council, we find another institution of greater importance. This, we may characterize, as the secret council of the chief ministers more closely in the confidence of the ruling monarch. The *Arthaśāstra* assigns to this smaller but more influential body several functions of state. It was perhaps a purely deliberative body, the *mantri-pariṣad* being deprived of this power in course of time as it became a rather unwieldy body. We hear in the *Mahābhārata* that this latter assembly consisted of as many as thirty-seven members. According to the extreme political philosopher Kaṇika it is no matter for secrecy if the thing goes beyond six ears. Hence Kaṇika would not allow more than three persons to deliberate on the vital affairs of the state.³

c8.s3.57

³ बोरोपवर्णितात्तस्माद्धर्माभ्यामतथात्मना । एकेन वाथ विप्रेण ज्ञातबुद्धिविनिश्चयेत् ॥

c8.s3.58

But Kaṇika’s ruling was not the standard accepted in ancient India. Or rather, every political philosopher had his own reckoning as to the number of the councillors. Bharadvāja who is quoted by Kauṭalya allows the king to take counsel with himself alone; and hence his conception of sovereignty may be characterized as autocracy. Rightly Visālākṣa opposes this view-point, and according to him there must be one or more with whom the king must sit in council.¹ The Purāṇas agree in the main when they recommend, ‘Neither alone nor with many hold consultation’.² Kauṭalya allows from one to four councillors but not more. He is also of opinion that even in cases of extreme necessity the king could not act on his own initiative.³ According to Bhīṣma however the number of chief councillors who were eligible to sit in the *mantri-pariṣad* were only nine. But it is a moot point whether in Bhīṣma’s opinion the smaller body could consist of as many as nine, or a smaller number chosen from this nine, as Law suggests.⁴ But there is no warrant for the latter assumption. Perhaps on some occasions as many as nine councillors formed the deliberative body.⁵

c8.s3.59

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. i, Sec. 15.

c8.s3.60

² *Matsya*, ccxx. 37; *Agni*, ccxxv. 18-20; *Kalika*, lxxxiv. 104, 105; *Bṛhadaharma*, *Uttarakāṇḍa*, iii. 3.

c8.s3.61

³ आत्ययिके कार्ये मन्त्रिणो मन्त्रिपरिषदं चाहूय ब्रूयात् ॥ (Arthaśāstra, Bk. i, Sec. xv.)

c8.s3.62

⁴ *Aspects of Polity*, p. 36.

c8.s3.63

⁵ *Mbh.*, *Śānti Parvan*, lxxxv. 61.

c8.s3.64

तृतीयेन न चान्येन व्रजेन्निश्चयमात्मवान् ।
षट्कर्णश्छिद्यते मन्त्र इति नोतिषु पठ्यते ॥
(Adi Parvan, cliii. 91-92.)

c8.s3.65

The functions of the smaller council were five according to Kauṭalya. The following five points¹ occupied the major portion of their attention:—

c8.s3.66

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. i, Sec. xv; cf. Manu, vii. 56-57.

c8.s3.67

(1) कर्मणां आरम्भोपाय: Ways of beginning a work, (karma).

c8.s3.68

(2) पुरुषद्रव्यसंपत् Resources in men and material.

c8.s3.69

(3) देशकालविभाग: Judgment in regard to place and time.

c8.s3.70

(4) विनिपातप्रतीकार: Protection against possible dangers.

c8.s3.71

(5) कार्यसिद्धि: Final consummation.

c8.s3.72

Let us now proceed to the examination of the position occupied by these councils in the epoch of the epics. We already noticed the principal eight councillors and the thirty-seven ministers who composed the pariṣad. These thirty-seven members are mentioned as follows: Four Brahmans who are well read in the Veda, large-hearted, ripe in scholarship and hence pure; eight Kṣatriyas who are warriors wearing arms; twenty-one Vaiśyas who are wealthy and resourceful; three Śūdras well-disciplined, honest, and tested beforehand; one Sūta possessing the following eight qualities: of fifty years of age, large-hearted, devoid of jealousy, versed in Smṛti and Śruti, disciplined, impartial, capable of discussing acts and deeds, not covetous, and devoid of the seven terrible corruptions of the mind (vyasanas).²

c8.s3.73

² Śānti Parvan, lxxxv. 7-11. The commentator furnishes the following eight qualities: शुश्रूषा, श्रवणं, ग्रहणं, धारणं, ऊहनं, अपोहनं, विज्ञानं, तत्वज्ञानं : and the seven vyasanas: four as a result of kāma—hunting, dice, women and drinking, and three of anger: दण्डपातनं, वाक्पारुष्यं, अर्थदूषणं. It is

c8.s3.74

The next question is whether the king consulted all these thirty-seven ministers, and if so, would not the object of the *mantra*, namely, secrecy, be defeated? Political thinkers have given some thought to this question, and there is mention of a smaller number fit to be consulted. But this number was in no way fixed. For in one place it is said that the number must not be less than three¹ and in another five² and in a third, eight.³ The lawgiver Manu fixes the number at seven or eight.⁴ It is indeed refreshing to note that all the communities find representation on it thus falsifying the easy inference that these political organizations were devised with a view to the detriment of some and aggrandizement of other communities. The commentator defines the eight councillors to be four Brahmans, three Śūdras and one Sūta.⁵ Here is proof positive of the inclusion of the Śūdra community in the highest executive machinery of the state. And the inference is irresistible, that the Śūdras worked side by side with the Brahmans in guiding the ship of the state during the storm and stress which were a frequently occurring factor in ancient times. It may also be noted that the two communities—both the ruling and the wealthy ones, the Kṣatriyas and the Vaiśyas, and hence the aristocratic classes—were excluded from the *mantra*. We are not in a position to assign any definite reasons for the exclusion

c8.s3.75

¹ *Śānti Parvan*, lxxxiii. 47.

c8.s3.76

² *Ibid.*, 52.

c8.s3.77

³ *Ibid.*, lxxxv. 11.

c8.s3.78

⁴ सचिवान् सप्त चाष्टौ वा प्रकुर्वीत परीक्षितान् । (vii. 54.)

c8.s3.79

⁵ Cf. Śukra, ii, 333-36.

c8.s3.80

taken by some that one of the qualifications to be a member of the *Pariṣad* is to be aged at least fifty years from पञ्चाशद्वर्षवयसं of the *Mahābhārata*. (*Śānti Parvan* lxxxv. 9.) But this is wrong for this phrase is an adjective qualifying the noun ‘Sūta’ only. Hence the age restriction was only in the case of the Sūta and not other members of the *Pariṣad*.

c8.s3.81

of two powerful and important communities from the sphere of consultation. But it is reasonable to assume that the members of these aristocratic classes by virtue of the functions expected of them could not have satisfied all the qualifications which are expected of a true councillor. It also indicates the beginnings of a democratic system of Government.¹

c8.s3.82

¹ The greatness of Indian culture lies in having realized the principle of communalism. According to Western economic thought, the state, private property and competition are the three necessary conditions which guide the economic life and the activity of society. The consequence is a disordered equilibrium between labour and capital, or in other words incessant class conflicts. Ways and means have been suggested to avoid this phenomenon by great writers and thinkers. Socialism, communism, syndicalism, guild socialism and bolshevism are given their due consideration to ameliorate the present social and economic conditions. These would not bear fruit for the principles guiding these socialistic states are again appropriation and exploitation. But communalism with a decentralized policy as it was practised in ancient India is the remedy. The economic purpose was truly served by dividing the society into a number of castes or class groups. The liberty of the individual or parentalism of the state as we understand it to-day are not its necessary adjuncts. But social and political groups in towns and villages co-operated with the central state which resulted in creation and distribution as against the principles of appropriation and exploitation.

c8.s3.83

The following is the categorical list of persons who were not eligible for consultation.²

c8.s3.84

² Śānti Parvan, lxxxiii. 35-40.

c8.s3.85

He who does not speak the truth, though possessing all the other qualifications, who has intercourse with the enemies of the state, who has no interest in the progress of his own, who is not versed in the sciences, not pure, who is insensible (स्तब्ध), serves the enemies, a braggart, unfriendly, full of the passion of anger and unsatiated desire, an alien though fully qualified, whose father has been unjustly banished though recalled afterwards, and whose property has been confiscated for slight offences. The following is again the categorical list of those fit for consultation. He who is shrewd, with a good grasp and learned, a citizen of the land, pure, and honest of purpose, possessed of wisdom and intelligence, able to understand friends and foes, devoted to the king, truthful, well-behaved, of great dignity, sweet and soft, hereditary, he who is contented, agreeable, skilful, is afraid of *adharma*, versed in *mantra* and time and *nīti*, heroic, controlling the world by *sāma* and *dāna*, confided by the *paura* and the *jānapada* bodies.¹ These resemble in the main the ministerial qualifications given by law-givers like Manu and Yājñavalkya.²

c8.s3.86

¹ *Śānti Parvan*, lxxxiii, 41-47; cf. *Br. Nīti*, vi. 6.

c8.s3.87

² vii. 54 and Yāj., 1. 320. Also see Vyāsa quoted in Caṇḍeśvara's *Rājanīti Ratnākara*, p. 12.

c8.s3.88

The various restrictions placed on the process of consultation point to the fact that cabinet secrecy was an essential feature of the ancient administration and also the significant place assigned to the *mantra*.³ It is said that⁴ the progress of the state depends upon the roots of *mantra*, deliberated by the councillors. These should operate in such a manner that the weak spots of their state should not be disclosed whilst those of the enemy could be seen. This aspect of consultation is also noted by Kauṭalya.⁵ They should learn a truth from the tortoise which draws all its limbs within its shell. Counsels which are kept close by the counsellors form the armour of the king and the limbs, other subjects of the state. Hence the ministers must heartily co-operate with the king in carrying out the affairs of the state.¹

c8.s3.89

³ Yāj., i. 344.

c8.s3.90

⁴ मन्त्रिणां मन्त्रमूलं हि राज्ञो राष्ट्रं विवर्धते । (Śānti Parvan, lxxxiii, 48.)

c8.s3.91

⁵ नास्य गुह्यं परेविद्युः छिद्रं विद्यात्परस्य च । गूहेत्कूर्म इवाङ्गानि यस्याद्विवृतमात्मनः ॥ (Arthaśāstra, Bk. i, Sec. xv.) नास्यच्छिद्रं परः पश्येच्छिद्रेषु परमन्वियात् । गूहेत्कूर्म इवाङ्गानि रक्षेद्विवरमात्मनः ॥

c8.s3.92

¹ Śanti Parvan, lxxxiii. 48-51.

c8.s3.93

We also learn from the Ceylon inscriptions² that all administrative measures were issued by the king-in-council. In the Vevala Katuja inscription of Mahinda IV ‘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 institutions.’ The slab inscriptions of Queen Līlāvati shows the creation of a council of ministers, wise and loyal, who released the kingdom from all dangers.³ Thus whether it was in South India or in the North there was no administration which had not a consultative assembly or council which invariably guided the deliberations of the state.

c8.s3.94

² Epigraphica Zeylanica, vol. i, No. 21, quoted by P. Banerjee in Public Administration in Ancient India.

c8.s3.95

³ Epigraphic Zeylanica, vol. i, No. 14 and also vol. ii, No. 6.

Linked texts (20)