Hindu Administrative Institutions c8.s3.58

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