Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c8.s1: Sec. i. The Council and the Assembly

The Mauryan Polity c8.s1

Language
English

Contents

Sec. i. The Council and the Assembly

The council, an ancient institution

c8.s1.t1.1

The chapter entitled *mantrādhikāraḥ* in the *Arthaśāstra* helps us much to understand the details connected with the *mantripariṣad* or the royal council of the Mauryas.¹ The learned discussion as regards the number of councillors to form the council enables us to infer rightly that an institution of the kind was not an innovation of the Mauryan genius but an institution of much earlier times. In the discussion Kauṭalya incorporates the views of other political philosophers such as Viśālākṣa, Piśuna and Parāśara who were his predecessors, and who lived long prior to the inauguration of the Mauryan epoch.

c8.s1.t1.2

¹ Bk. I, Ch. 15.

The council chamber

c8.s1.t2.1

There was a council chamber. It was to be well guarded. It was a secret hall not easily accessible to man and beast. It was so constructed that any endeavour to overhear the proceedings would prove futile. Kauṭalya knows of cases where birds and beasts had disclosed the secrets of the council-business.² With necessary precautions the king was to enter the chamber lest the proceedings of the council should be divulged.

c8.s1.t2.2

² *Ibid.*

c8.s1.t2.3

Kauṭalya did not believe the members for they were liable to let out secrets through the unconscious channels of signs and gestures (*ingita* and *ākāra*). Hence according to the *Arthaśāstra* they should also be kept under some restraint until the resolution of the council was given effect to (*ayuktapuruṣarakṣaṇam ākāryakālāt*).

The composition of the council

c8.s1.t3.1

Next our discussion centres round the composition of the council, the number of members and their qualifications.¹ There are different schools of opinion on this question. Viśālākṣa discarded the *mantra* with a single member and advocated a number of men grown grey in wisdom, though young in age. In the opinion of Piśuna, only those who were experts in the special business to be undertaken were to be consulted if *mantra* had to fructify at all. He had made a distinction between ability to offer counsel (*mantrajñānam*) and ability to keep it secret (*mantrarakṣaṇam*). Kauṭalya did not subscribe to this view, for such a position is *anavasthā*. In other words, the number of works, their variety and nature are such that a consultation with experts in each and every business needs a number of heads, and to hold counsel with a good number is an impossibility and an impracticability. Hence three or four are generally to be consulted. The consultation with a single member would lead to no resolution. The minister would be all in all. Nor is consultation with two desirable. For if they happen to take two opposite views, the king has to favour one view against the other. He who is not in the good grace of the king will try to bring about the ruin of that undertaking. Hence three or four are recommended as the safest number. That would enable a king to decide a definite action (arthaniścaya).

c8.s1.t3.2

¹ *Ar. śās.*, Bk. I, Ch. 15.

Choice of councillors

c8.s1.t4.1

Much attention was bestowed on the appointment of councillors. The subjects dealt with by the council being varied and large in number, special care was taken in the choice of members to this all important institution. Just as the deserving few are fit to take part in the śrāddha of a śrotriya, so also the eminent few are considered fit to be members of a king’s learned council.¹ What qualifications were expected of these is mentioned in another chapter of the same book. They are to possess the following twenty-five qualities: being a native of the soil, coming of a noble family, self-controlled, versed in all arts and crafts, learned in the Arthaśāstra, wise, of retentive memory, clever, sweet in speech, generous, being a good debater, full of enthusiasm and energy, enduring, of tested honesty, of amicable nature, of unimpeachable loyalty, possessing good conduct, good physique, good health and courage, humble, of resolute nature, possessing an attractive personality, and being one who is ever for reconciliation. It may be pointed out here that the purohita was a member of the council,² and only a duly qualified man was appointed purohita.

c8.s1.t4.2

¹ Ar. śās., Bk. I, Ch. 15.

c8.s1.t4.3

² See Proceedings of the Third Oriental Conference, p. 615. It is refreshing to note that Dr. M. Winternitz has agreed with this viewpoint, see note on p. 34, Sir Asutosh Memo. Vol., Patna.

The king and the council

c8.s1.t5.1

The next question is whether the king who was of course the President of the Council was expected to act in administrative affairs with the previous consent of the council or he could act on his own initiative. As an answer to this Kauṭalya definitely lays down the significant statement¹ that the administration of the kingdom is learnt from personal knowledge (*pratyakṣa*), and from devoted friends (*parokṣa*), members of the cabinet to speak in modern political parlance. Kauṭalya is repeating this statement which he has already given in the chapter entitled *mantripurohitotpatti*.² In fact he seems to lay emphasis on this point with the implication that the king expected the assistance of *mantrins* and the *purohita* for all *rājakarmas*, *i.e.*, carrying on the government of the state.³ Again it is said that a government, which is carried on according to the injunctions of the *śāstras*, where the *purohita* plays a significant role, and where definite action is taken on the resolution of the council, attains unqualified success, without any resort to field engagements.⁴

c8.s1.t5.2

¹ pratyakṣaparokṣānumeyā hi rājavṛttiḥ|

c8.s1.t5.3

² Bk. I, Ch. 9.

c8.s1.t5.4

³ See commentary of Gaṇapati Śāstri: pratyakṣaparokṣeṭyādivākyena rājakarmaṇaḥ sarvasya sahāya-sāpekṣatvam mantripurohitotpattiprakaraṇoktam smārayati| Vol. I, p. 73.

c8.s1.t5.5

⁴ Bk. I, Ch. 9.

The interpretation of the term dharmavijaya in the Edicts

c8.s1.t6.1

This ideal government of the Kauṭaliya became actually realised under Aśoka. His *dharmavijaya*⁵ has been anticipated by Kauṭalya to a large extent. Besides this mere inference from an elaborate statement of the means enabling the *dharmavijaya*, Kauṭalya gives us elsewhere¹ three kinds of victories which depend on the nature and quality of the rulers for the time being.² These are *dharmavijaya* where the conquering king is satisfied with the mere acknowledgment of his suzerainty by the conquered, *lobhavijaya* where the aim of the conquering monarch is to covet the territory and treasure of the enemy and then continue him in his kingdom, and *asuravijaya* where the enemy is deprived of his kingdom, treasure, sons and wives, and is himself captured as a prisoner of war, or slain. In the light of these statements in the *Arthaśāstra*, it would be incorrect to give a new interpretation to the term *dharmavijaya* occurring in the Aśokan inscriptions. F. J. Monahan who followed the old interpretation of *dhammavijaya* has remarked as follows: "As to the precise nature and effects of this 'conquest' we are left in the dark; it is unfortunate that Greek records are silent on the subject. From the edict we gather that 'conquest' was made through envoys (*dūta*). They were sent to the various countries to preach, not Buddhism, but 'dhamma', and in Aśoka's view, as we know, 'dhamma' was compatible with adherence to various creeds. We may infer that the envoys were politely received."³

c8.s1.t6.2

⁵ R.E. XIII.

c8.s1.t6.3

¹ Bk. XII, Ch. 1.

c8.s1.t6.4

² Cf. *Mhb*. *Śānti*, Ch. 59, 38.

c8.s1.t6.5

³ Early History of Bengal, p. 219.

c8.s1.t6.6

The true position becomes intelligible in the light of the *Arthaśāstra*. What Aśoka aimed at was to make known to the conquered states, as well as to neighbouring states through ambassadors or special messengers (dūtas) that the king had given up lobhavijaya and asuravijaya in which he had indulged in the early part of his rule, and had taken his stand at the pedestal of dharmavijaya. In other words, the emperor informed his subjects and the kings of other states that he would be satisfied with mere obeisance from them and he expected them at the same time to follow the śāstraic injunctions without recourse to any rebellion or war.¹ Any other meaning will have no legs to stand on. No wonder the Buddhist tradition has utilised this material for its own purpose when it mentions the conversion of Caṇḍāśoka to Dharmāśoka, furnishing the occasion for untenable theories. This then forms an unimpeachable evidence to demolish the theory that Aśoka was a Buddhist. For, this term dharmavijaya has been a convenient peg with scholars to hang the Buddhist theory on.

c8.s1.t6.7

¹ śāstrānugamaśastritam.

c8.s1.t6.8

*King consulted the council even on emergencies*

c8.s1.t6.9

That the king could not by himself pledge to anything relating to the state, even in extraordinary cases urging immediate attention, and that the decision of the council was binding on him is testified to by a remarkable statement of the Kauṭalīya. Whenever urgent and unexpected occasions arose for prompt action, the king summoned his council and placed the matter before them for final decision. He was to act on the considered advice of the best men in the council.²

c8.s1.t6.10

² Ar. Śās., Bk. I, ch. 15: yadbūyiṣṭhāḥ kāryasiddhikaram vā brūyuḥ tat kuryāt|

c8.s1.t6.11

*Unanimity, no majority opinion*

c8.s1.t6.12

Here the term bhūyiṣṭhaḥ as has been elsewhere said,³ does not connote majority opinion but refers to the mature opinion of the highly learned members, if we interpret the term in the light of the expression *buddhivṛddhāḥ* in the same chapter. This does not mean that the voice of the other members was not heard. On the other hand there is evidence to show that a frank discussion was allowed in the council and every one including the absentee members had his say. For the absentees had to send their views for discussion in the council.¹ But final decision rested with the council as a whole. In other words the ministers were consulted individually and then jointly.² It was the onerous task of the king as the president to convert the opposition to his side and thus act on the unanimous decision.

c8.s1.t6.13

³ Hindu Adm. Inst., p. 139, note.

c8.s1.t6.14

¹ anāsannaissaha patrasaṃpreṣaṇena mantrayet|

c8.s1.t6.15

² Cp. *Kāmandaka*, XI, 68.

The Aśokan Pariṣad

c8.s1.t7.1

That such emergent matters were also debated upon even in the provincial *pariṣads* of Aśoka is evident from more than one inscription.³

c8.s1.t7.2

³ R. E. VI, *Corpus*, p. 34; Dhauli and Jaugaḍa VI, *Corpus*, pp. 88 and 106.

c8.s1.t7.3

The texts of these Edicts throw a considerable light on the procedure of the council meetings. The term *nijhati* in the Edicts is interpreted in different ways: ‘meditation,’ ‘reconsideration,’ ‘amendment,’ ‘adjournment,’ and ‘appeal’. Hultzsch renders it as ‘amendment’. This seems to fit in with the first part of the statement which says⁴ that sometimes the king sent oral orders to the *mahāmātras*, and these were discussed and generally agreed upon in the council. It might be that disputes arose on the point resulting in amendments. But such amendments were to be committed to the king wherever he was. This means that full weight was not attached to the oral orders, though the latter was in practice. This practice became quite discredited by the time of the *Śukranītisāra* where the king issuing an oral order is regarded as a thief in law.¹

c8.s1.t7.4

⁴ yaṃ pi ch [ākichi mukhate ānapayāmi] [hakaṃ dāpakaṃ vā sāvakaṃ vā ye vā punā mahāmate hi atiyāke ālopite ho(t)i tā(yeth)ā(ye) vivāde nijhati vā saṃtaṃ palis(ā)ye anaṃtaliyena paṭi. . . .viye me savatā savaṃ kālaṃ|

c8.s1.t7.5

¹ II.293 (Oppert ed.).

c8.s1.t7.6

*anusaṃyānam*

c8.s1.t7.7

The tenure of office for the ministers is not exactly given in the *Arthaśāstra*. Still it prescribes transfer of officers.² The tenure of office seems to have been restricted to five years in certain cities³ and three years in certain other places.⁴ The latter term of office was applicable to the ministers at Takṣaśīla and Ujjayini. The special Edicts—so are called the Kaliṅga Inscriptions by the Epigraphists—reaffirm this principle of retirement and transfer. The technical term for this process of retirement and transfer is *anusaṃyānam*.⁵ In the light of the *Arthaśāstra* it would be a far cry to take the term as meaning administrative tour. As it often happened that the provincial ministry arrogated to itself too many powers, which led to risings of the citizens, as for instance in Takṣaśīla. It is reasonable to assume that no permanent council was aimed at, and new ministers were appointed ordinarily every three or five years, to quote V. A. Smith ‘designed to prevent the abuses apt to arise when officials remain too long in a particular locality.’¹

c8.s1.t7.8

² Bk. II, sec. 9.

c8.s1.t7.9

³ Dhauli R. E. I and R. E. III.

c8.s1.t7.10

⁴ Kaliṅga Edicts II.

c8.s1.t7.11

⁵ *J.B.O.R.S.*, V.36ff. Smith, *Asoka*, p. 164. According to Hultzsch, Mookerjee and other scholars, the term has reference only to periodical administrative tours and not transfer of officers.

c8.s1.t7.12

¹ See also Woolner, *Aśoka Text and Glossary*, Pt. II, p. 62 and Samaddar, *Glories of Magadha*, pp. 88-91.

Functions of the council

c8.s1.t8.1

What were, then, the functions assigned to the council? From the fact that the king sought its advice on the administration of the land including home and foreign policy, and acted on it, the main functions of the council were executive in character. Enjoying the confidence of the king, as it did, the council was largely responsible in shaping the policy of the government. Among others the following five points engaged its attention. They were (1) means of undertaking works including expedition into the enemy’s territory (karmaṇām ārambhopāyaḥ); (2) gathering of resources in men and material in relation to the internal and external policy of the kingdom (puruṣadravya-sampaṭ); (3) use of discrimination in undertakings with reference to place and time (deśakālavibhāgaḥ); (4) means of averting possible dangers and calamities arising from his own state and from that of the enemy (vinipātapratīkāraḥ); and (5) results arising from such works undertaken (kāryasiddhi).²

c8.s1.t8.2

² *Ar. Śās.*, Bk. I, ch. 15. Cf. Kāmandaka, XII.36-40.

Other functions

c8.s1.t9.1

After a free and full discussion of the means, resources, and results in regard to a particular work or works, the council came to one of the following four decisions.³ They resolved, first, to undertake new works in their own country (akṛtārambhā), secondly, to complete works which had been already begun in their own state (ārabdhānuṣṭāna), thirdly, to improve works already executed (anuṣṭitaviśeṣa) with an eye to their importance and necessity, and lastly, to effect changes and improvements affecting the services of the state comprising both the civil and military departments (niyogasampat). The above functions allotted to this institution show its importance and paramount necessity of the mature deliberation on which the whole administrative edifice was allowed to rest.

c8.s1.t9.2

³ *Ibid.*

c8.s1.t9.3

*The council not a mere advisory body*

c8.s1.t9.4

It is not altogether correct to take a narrow view of the functions attributed to the council. It has been contended that the deliberation was of an advisory nature and the minister was all powerful, but not the council of ministers.¹ These statements are untenable for various reasons. First, if the council was merely an advisory body, and if the final voice rested with the king, what is then the force of the statement that even in matters of urgency the council should be summoned and the decision of its best men be adopted?² Secondly, there is another prescription of the Kauṭalīya which says that “all kinds of administrative measures are to be preceded by deliberations in a well-formed council”.³ Thirdly, there is the interesting statement, namely, kingship is possible through assistance. One wheel is useless by itself. Hence the king must appoint councillors and act up to their advice.⁴ Fourthly, there is the statement which we have already quoted that government is dependent not only on the personality of the king but also on the help of his friends, the councillors. Fifthly, even in the matter of appointing superintendents and heads of departments, it was done with the approval of the ministry including the Purohita.¹ It is thus evident that the council enjoyed executive powers, and that the king did not generally go against its wishes. Thus neither the minister alone nor the king alone could act, but the king with the body of ministers did act.

c8.s1.t9.5

¹ See *Glories of Magadha*, pp. 92-97.

c8.s1.t9.6

² *Ar. Śās.*, Bk. I, ch. 15.

c8.s1.t9.7

³ *Ibid.* See also Bk. VIII, ch. 1.

c8.s1.t9.8

⁴ Bk. I, ch. 7.

c8.s1.t9.9

¹ Bk. I, ch. 10.

Linked texts (7)