Hindu Administrative Institutions c8.s3.23

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