Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c44: Chapter XXXI: Council of Ministers (contd.): Government

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c44

Language
English

Chapter XXXI: Council of Ministers (contd.): Government

c44.1

Council of Ministers (*contd.*)

c44.3

§ 311. The duty of the Ministry is summed up in these terms: "If the State, the People, the Strength, the Exchequer, and lastly Proper Monarchism (*su-nṛipatvam*) do not grow, or the Enemy is not broken through the policy of the ministry, the ministers do not justify their existence (lit., 'of what use are they' ?)."¹

c44.4

¹ *Śukra-nītisāra*, II 83.

c44.5

In connection with 'Proper Monarchism' I would quote the principle from the same authority which is embodied in the preceding verses. "The Monarch is not controlled, therefore ministers have to be." "For," says the Nīti in the next verse, "if the king could not be kept in check by ministers, is national prosperity possible by such ministers ?" In the latter case they would cease to be real ministers and would be no better than ornaments.² The *Su-nṛipatva* or 'proper monarchy,' therefore, is a 'controlled monarchy'.

c44.6

² *Ibid.*, 81, 82

c44.7

The minister is the *Rāja-rāshṭra-bhṛit*³ or 'the bearer of the responsibility of the king and the state.' The king was consequently bound, as observed already, to follow the dictates of the Council, otherwise in the eye of the constitutional law he

c44.8

³ *Ibid.*, II, 74.

c44.9

राज्यं प्रजा बलं कोशः सुनृपत्वं न वर्द्धितम् ।
अमित्रतोद्भिन्नमक्षैर्मन्त्रिभिः किं प्रयोजनम् ॥

c44.10

रोधनं न भवेद्राज्ञाक्रूरो यः सुमन्यिभिः ॥
न विनैति नृपो यैश्चतैरनर्थायै राज्यवर्द्धनम् ।
यथात्वलङ्कारवस्त्राद्यैः स्त्रियो मुख्यास्तथा हि ते ॥

c44.11

would cease to be the king.¹ As the Mahā-Bhārata put it, he was always under the control of others (Ministers).²

c44.12

¹ Quotation in Nītivākyāmṛita, X—स खल्वसौ राजा यो मन्त्रिणोऽतिक्रम्य वर्त्तते ।

c44.13

² Śānti, (Kumb.) ch. 320, 139-140, परतन्त्रः सदा राजा ‥ सन्धि-विग्रहयोगेन न कृतो यन्त्रः स्वतन्त्रता…कथं चामात्यसविते कृतयंत्रस्य स्वतन्त्रता ॥

c44.14

§ 312. We have seen that extraordinary business was decided, according to the Arthaśāstra, in a full meeting of the Council. This implies that ordinary business went through only ministerial offices. That would have required written notes. There is evidence that written notes as a matter of fact were used. Aśoka in his inscriptions speaks of his oral orders³ which implies that the orders were generally written orders. The Arthaśāstra also says that the ministers who were not in attendance wrote notes for the King.⁴ We have not yet discovered any document which passed through the offices of the ministers. There is, however, on the point a very valuable piece of detail furnished by the Śukranīti. The detail evidently belongs to the early centuries of the Christian era as the official designation *Dūta*, which is superseded in later (Gupta) times by *Sāndhi-Vigrahika*, indicates. It is highly important from the constitutional point of view. The procedure it depicts of a matter going through the offices and then reaching the king and becoming a resolution of the ministry, is as follows:

c44.15

³ Rock Series VI, यं किं चा किंचि मुखते आनपयामि हवं दायिकं वा सावकं वा etc. (Kalsi).

c44.16

⁴ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. I. ch. 15; 11 (p. 29), अनासन्नैः सह पत्रसम्प्रेषणेन मन्त्रयेत ।

c44.17

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 Law, and 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 s e a l at the end of his note. Finally the K i n g wrote ‘*Accepted*’ and set his s e a l. 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 s i g n e d b y a l l t h e m i n i s t e r s as the C o u n c i l (*gaṇa*) and s e a l e d with the seal of the council. Finally it was once more presented to the king who ‘w i t h o u t d e l a y’ wrote ‘*S e e n*’ as he h a d not the ‘c a p a c i t y’ to criticise it.¹

c44.18

¹ *Śukranītisāra*, II. 362-369. कार्यान्तराकुलतयान्तः न मन्यते । युवराजादिभिस्तैस्तैस्तदनेन च दर्शितम् ।। ३६८ ससृष्टं विविधेर्युग्यैः सर्वैरभिमतंमतः । राजा दृष्टमिति लिखेत् द्राक् सम्बन्धैर्नामकैः ।। ३६६ 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. (JBORS., IV, pp. 257—65). The Divyāvadāna (pp. 404 and 429) also uses the word *gana* to denote the cabinet or council of ministers (*amātya-gana*).

c44.19

§ 313. The in c a p a c i t y referred to here was the constitutional incapacity. We have already seen that the king had no option to veto a measure decided by the majority of the council (*Arthaśāstra*). In an ordinary matter for which the king did not call a general Council and which went through the Ministry only, when it had been discussed and finally signed and sealed as a resolution by the Ministry as Council it really became a resolution of the Council and the King was truly, as the Śukranīti says, *akshama* or incapable of criticising it. The first submission to the king from the ministers in their individual capacity seems to be an opportunity given to the king to discuss the matter and to make his suggestions.

c44.20

लेखयित्वाग्रतो राजा ह्यथं विचार्य च ॥
मन्त्री च प्राङ्‌विवाकश्च पण्डितो दूतसंज्ञकः।
स्वाभिप्रेतं लिखित्वाेदं लिखेयुः प्रथमं त्विमे ॥ ३६२
अमात्यः साधु लिखितमथवा संप्रचिन्तितम्‌।
सम्यग्विचारितमिति सुमन्त्रो विलिखेत्ततः ॥ ३६३
सत्यं यथार्थमिति च प्रधानश्च लिखेत्ततः।
अङ्गीकर्तुं योग्यमिति स्वतः प्रतिनिधिर्लिखेत् ॥ ३६४
अङ्गीकर्तव्यमिति च युवराज्ञो लिखेन्मुखम्‌ ।
लेख्यं स्वाभिमतं चेतदितिलिखेत् पुरोहितः ॥ ३६५
असंसृष्टाविचिन्तितं न नृपाज्ञां कृपु देव हि ।
अङ्गीकृतमिति लिखेन्मुद्रयेच्च ततो नृपः ॥ ३६७

c44.21

§ 314. The document became the resolution of the state with the fiat of the king. And in the eye of the constitutional law that document became 'the king'. To quote the language of the Śukranīti:¹ "The document signed and sealed by the king is *the king and not the king himself.*" The officers could not obey any unwritten 'order' of the king. For the signed and sealed order of the king, which as a matter of fact was an order of the Council, being the real king, any one who obeyed an actual order of the king in flesh and blood was regarded in the eye of the constitutional law as obeying an outsider, or, in the language of the Śukranīti, a 'thief': obeying an outsider or 'thief':

c44.22

¹ *Śukranītisāra*, II. 292, नृपसञ्चिह्नितं लेख्यं नृपस्तन्न नृपो नृपः ।

c44.23

"A king or an officer who orders or does a business of State without a *lekhya* (official document) are both thieves at all times".²

c44.24

² *Ibid.* : 291. अलेख्यमाज्ञापयति ह्यलेख्यं यत्करोति यः । राजकृत्यमुभौ चोरौ तौ भृत्यनृपती सदा ॥

c44.25

§ 315. As a written *lekhya* became really the order of the Ministry on account of the routine, a king who wanted his personal orders to be observed must take recourse to oral commands and requests. And when an oral command was issued, according to the constitution implied here, the officers had to deal with the command of a thief in law, and to the anointed king in flesh and blood trouble was a certain consequence. We have, thanks to the inscriptions of Aśoka, an immortal evidence of this trouble. Aśoka issued orders regarding his proclamations and sermons (Sāvakaṁ) and gifts (*dāpakaṁ*), and the ‘Parisā́’ (Council) discussed the ‘orders’ and ‘shelved’ them. The angry monarch orders that he should be informed when his oral orders are rejected.¹

c44.26

¹ *I A.*, 1913, p. 282.

c44.27

§ 316. The essence of the constitution as sketched in the Śukranīti is that the king had actually no power in his own and sole hand. All administrative functions were vested in the Council.²

c44.28

² This is supported by the *M. Bh.* cited in § 311.

c44.29

The account of India left by Megasthenes are to be gleaned from fragments. The fragments as we find them indicate that the actual government did vest in the Cabinet or Council, that the Council was very much respected, and that it had a high character and tradition of wisdom behind it. It deliberated on public affairs and it ‘chose’ and appointed governors, chiefs of provinces, deputy governors, superintendents (or ‘adhyakshas’) of treasury, generals of the army and admirals of the navy, and high officers to superintend agriculture.

c44.30

(*a*) “The seventh caste consists of the *Councillors* and “*Assessors*—of those who deliberate on public affairs. It is “the smallest class looking to number, but the most respected, on “account of the high character and wisdom of its members.”³

c44.31

³ Epitome of Megasthenes, Diodorus, II. 41; Mc Crindle, *Megasthenes*, p. 43.

c44.32

(*b*) “The seventh class consists of the *Councillors and Assessors* “of the king. To them belong the highest posts of “Government, the tribunals of justice, and the general “administration of public affairs.”⁴

c44.33

⁴ Strabo, XV. 48, Mc Crindle, *Megasthenes*, p. 85.

c44.34

(*c*) “In point of numbers this 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."¹

c44.35

¹ Arrian, XII; Mc Crindle, *Megasthenes*, p. 212.

c44.36

§ 317. This description of the constitutional powers has the direct support in home records. Bhāradvāja, a famous authority on Hindu Politics quoted both in the Mahā-Bhārata and in Kauṭilya's Artha-Sāstra, sums up the jurisdiction of ministers in these words:

c44.37

"Between degeneration of the king and the degeneration "of the ministers, that of the ministers is more serious. "(1) Deliberation on the policy of state (*mantra*), "(2) realization of the result of that policy, "(3) execution of business, (4) the business "concerning Income and Expenditure, (5) army "and (6) its leading, (7) providing against "enemy and wild tribes (*aṭavī*), (8) maintenance "of government, (9) providing against (national) "degeneration, (10) protection of the princes and "their consecration to offices are vested in the "Ministers."²

c44.38

² मन्त्रिराजव्यसनयोर्मन्त्रिण्यसनं गरीय इति। मन्त्रो मन्त्रफलावाप्तिः कर्मानुष्ठानमायव्ययकर्म दण्डप्रणयनममित्र्राटवीप्रतिषेधो राज्यरक्षणं व्यसन-प्रतीकारः कुमाररक्षणमभिषेकश्च कुमाराणा-मायत्तमामात्येषु। Quotation in Kauṭilya, VIII. 1. 127, p. 320. This jurisdiction is not controverted by Kauṭilya who says that as the 'Board of Ministers' and the Departments are designed by the king, and he stops degeneration in them, that the king is more important. Mr. Shama Sastry has missed the meaning of *āyatta*. Its technical meaning as in law-books is given here (see § 323).

c44.39

(1) Policy or *mantra* of Bhāradvāja corresponds to the '*deliberation on public affairs*' of Megasthenes, (2), (3) and (8) of Bhāradvāja correspond to the '*general administration of public affairs*' of Megasthenes, (5), (6) and (7) to '*choosing generals, and admirals*' of Megasthenes, (11) to Megasthenes' '*choosing governors, chiefs of provinces*', and (4) to '*choosing superintendents of the treasury*' and controllers of agriculture.

c44.40

The 'Assessors' are either the 'Tīrthas' or the junior ministers (§§ 309-10), while councillors are the members of the Mantri-Council.

c44.41

Thus the jurisdiction of the Ministry or Council is known. The constitutional law noticed above is borne out by that defined jurisdiction.

c44.42

§ 318. Under such a constitution if a king had despotic tendencies the result would be a revolution: either the king would be made to mend his method or the constitution would be subverted and the ministers (council) put in prison or assigned to the executioner. But the ministers had the Paura and the Jānapada behind them and the law and tradition of the country to support them¹. Hindu institutions did not easily change, and constitutional laws once established and made sacred by the Śāstras could not be deviated from with impunity. We have the recorded instance of the pious despotism developed by Aśoka, and what was the result? Was the Ministry overthrown and the constitutional laws set at naught? Or was the despot deprived, if not of his throne, of his sovereignty? There is the combined evidence of Aśoka's inscription and the Divyāvadāna, both of which are adverse statements against interest and therefore entitled to perfect credence.

c44.43

¹ On the power of the people to depose a king and set up another in his place see *M. Bh.*, *Anu.*, IV, 8-11.

c44.44

As the inscription referred to is one of the most important documents of the constitutional history of Hindu India I propose to give it here in extenso, omitting the last lines which are not relevant. It has remained a puzzle and an object of whimsical treatment to the translators of Aśoka's inscriptions, who never thought for once that there could be anything else but religious matter in the 'Edicts' of Aśoka. If no violence is done to the natural sense of the words the meaning is clear. Early interpreters (to whom India must be thankful for the first interpretations of Aśoka's proclamations) have grasped the letter, not the spirit, of the Proclamation¹ under discussion, *viz.*, that Aśoka made the officers called Rājūkas 'independent.' But the circumstances under which the independence in question was granted, and its nature, have been missed. The text is as follows:

c44.45

¹ Pillar Proclamations IV, (Delhi—Sivalak); *cf.* Divyāv., p. 430.

c44.46

देवानं पिये पियदसि लाज हेवं आहा सडुवीसतिवस
अभिसितेन मे इयं धंमलिपि लिखापिता लजूका मे
बहूसु पानसतसहसेसु जनसि आयता तेसं ये अभिहाले वा
दंडे वा अतपतिये मे कटे किं ति लजूका अस्वथ अभीता
कंमानि पवतयेवू जनस जानपदसा हितसुखं उपदहेवू
अनुगहिनेवु चा सुखीयना दुखीयनाम् जानिसंति धंमयुतेन च
वियोवदिसंति जनं जानपदं किंति हिदतं च पालतं च
आलाधयेवू ति लजूका पि सघंति पटिचलितवे
मं पुलिसानि पि मे छंदंनानि पटिचलिसंति ते पि
चकानि वियोवदिसंति येन मं लजूका
चघंति आलाधयितवे अथा हि पजं वियताये धांतिये निसिजितु
अस्वथे होति वियतधाति चघति मे पजं सुखं परिहृत्वेति
हेव ममा लजूका कटा जानपदस हितसुखाये येन एते अभीता
अस्वथ संतं अविमना कंमानि पवतयेवृति एतेन मे लजूकानं
अभीहाले व दंडे वा अतपतिये कटे इच्छितविये हि एसा किति
वियोहालसमता च सिय दंडसमता चा अव इते पि च मे आवुति²

c44.47

² The *āvuti* is:

c44.48

It means:

c44.49

"'Devānāṁpriya [His Fortunate Majesty] King Priyadarśin [another name of Aśoka] thus says: ['thus says'—a style in royal documents to denote '*Proclamations*' Artha-Śāstra, p. 71]:—
" 'In the year twenty-six (elapsed) of my coronation this document of law was caused by me to be recorded [or 'dictated by me']:

c44.50

बंधनबधानं मुनिसानं तीलितदंडानं पतबधानं तीनि दिवसानि मे योते दिने नातिका व कानि
निझपयिसंति जीवितार्ये तानं नासंतं व निझपयिताने दानं दाहंति पालतिकं उपवासं व कछंति इछा हि मे हेवं
निलुधसि पि कालसि पालतं आलाधयेवू ति जनस च वढति विविध धंमचलने सयमे दानसंविभागेति।
Mathia version, *EI.*, II, 253.

c44.51

"The Rājūkas¹ of mine have jurisdiction over the People who are numerous (hundreds of thousands). Those Rājūkas who are either over [the departments] of Abhihāra [War] or Daṇḍa [Home Administration] are made [declared] by me to be Protectors by themselves ['of sovereign jurisdiction,' *ātmapatiye*]. Why so? So that the Rājūkas without agitation and with peace of mind [*lit.*, without apprehension] may carry on the business, may render themselves agreeable and satisfactory to the Body Jānapada and may grant them anugrahas.

c44.52

¹ See § 304.

c44.53

"They will know the satisfied as well as those who are in difficulty and distress. They will also get the Body Jānapada advised by the Ecclesiastical Service. Thereby they (the Rājūkas) may secure this world and the world beyond.

c44.54

"And the Rājūkas disregard (*laghanti*=*laṅghanti*) my proclamations, while my (own) subordinate officers [*purushas*, Cf. Artha-Śāstra, p. 245] will promulgate my opinion and orders [*chhandam anāni*: Cf. *āṇam*, Jātaka 1.398]. And they [Rājūkas] will advise the Provinces [*Chakāni*]² which wish to serve the Rājūkas, not me.³ Therefore let me indeed, consign the (Child) Subject [*Pajam*, a pun on the word] to the *viyatā* Nurse [a pun on the word, 'anxious' 'exerting' 'with open arms', and 'separating herself', *i.e.*, from me]. The anxious Nurse becomes tranquil; she wants to defend well my Prājā [pun on *sukham palihaṭave*, 'comfortably to snatch away my Child'].

c44.55

² Bühler, *Cha-kāni*, in the sense of 'some ones.' The corrected reading is indicated by Prof. Rāmāvatāra Śarmā, (*Piyadarśi-praśastayaḥ*, p. 33).

c44.56

³ *तेनं मं लघुकं चघंति चालापयितवे*। (Mathia). Former reading: *तेनं मं लघुकं* etc. The last word has been taken as *lajūkā*. The Mathia plate (*E.I.*, II p. 250) suggests an *anusvāra*. Without the *anusvāra* the meaning would be slightly changed: 'and they will advise the provinces, they the Rājūkas; who do not wish to serve me.'

c44.57

"In this manner my Rājūkas have acted for the satisfaction and good of the Jānapada.

c44.58

"So that they may with peace of mind, with-
"out agitation and without any feeling of
"hostility (*avimanā*) carry on business, I do
"make hereby my Rājūkas independent in War
"and Peace administrations.

"This indeed I desire, *viz.*: that the sameness of civil and
"criminal justice should remain. And though fallen from
"position (*avaïte=ava-rita*¹) my prayer² is that (*etc.*).."

c44.59

¹ Cf. the same formation in the *Vājasaneyī Saṃhitā*. Bühler, in utter disregard of philology, renders as 'even so far' (goes my order)!

c44.60

² *Āvritti* in this sense occurs in the Vedic as well as later literature, Monier-Williams, Dict., 1899, p. 156, *ā*—*vṛi*.

c44.61

The rule for the maintenance of which the emperor prays is about allowing religious service to prisoners under sentence of death. It is significant that the king now 'prays' and does not 'command' as in other documents. In the next regnal year, probably a few months after signing this document, the king composed a retrospect of his reign up to the year of signing the Rājūka decree. Evidently he then regarded the period of his rule as a past chapter and as distinct from the period of mere reign thereafter.

c44.62

The passages in the Divyāvadāna we have already seen. They clearly say that the Ministers including the Yuvarāja deprived the Maurya Emperor of his authority.

c44.63

The *Jānapada*, as distinct from the *Prajā* and *loka* 'the people' (as in Pillar proclamations IV and VII), are mentioned, and it was for their benefit that the Rājūkas wanted independence. The Jānapada evidently supported the ministers. The Buddhist monks might well cry at the fate that deprived the Emperor of India of his *aiśvaryya* or sovereign authority. But they do not, as they could not, call the Ministers sinful for that. The Emperor bowed to the authority of the laws of his country. The politicians under the leadership of the polite but firm Rādha-gupta³ and the Pauras according to the Divyāvadāna, listened to the sarcasms of the Emperor—a feature in the Emperor's language even in the inscription—and they let the otherwise great Emperor continue in the enjoyment of his throne and title and preach his 'sublime nonsense.' But the political writers do not seem to have let the license of monkish professions pass unnoticed. 'The dharma 'of the king indeed is the suppression of the evil and the 'rearing-up of the good and not the shaving of the head '[becoming a Buddhist monk] or the growing of matted hair.'¹

c44.64

³ Probably a descendant of Vishnu-gupta (Kauṭilya).

c44.65

¹ 'राज्ञो हि दुष्टनिग्रहः शिष्टपरिपालनञ्च धर्मो न पुनः शिरोमुण्डनं जटाधारणं वा।— Quotation in *Nītivākyāmṛita*, ch. V.

c44.66

§ 319. Before we close this brief survey of Hindu Ministry let us note a few more details about their composition. Each minister had two junior ministers or Under-Secretaries.² The chief of the three was distinguished by the title *Mahā-mātra*, 'Of great measure'.

c44.67

² *Śukranītisāra*, II. 109–10.

c44.68

In the inscriptions of the Gupta period the same offices are distinguished by *Mahā*-and *Kumāra*-, *e.g.* *Daṇḍanāyaka*, *Mahā-Daṇḍanāyaka*, and *Daṇḍanāyaka-kumārāmātya*. The simple *Daṇḍanāyaka* would be one of the two junior ministers to the MahāDaṇḍanāyaka, and the *Kumārāmātya*—(the 'young-minister)' *Daṇḍanāyaka* would be the juniormost. The second minister might have been called Mahā-Kumārāmātya *i.e.*, the senior under-secretary. This interpretation may be also considered with reference to various designations of the classes in the inscriptions of the Gupta times where *Mahā-Pradhāna*, *Mahā-Sāndhi-vigrahika*, *Mahā-Daṇḍa-nāyaka*, etc., figure.³

c44.69

³ See Fleet., *Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum*, Vol. III. *Passim*. Cf. SNS., II. 111-13.

c44.70

§ 320. The ministers were transferred from one portfolio to another.⁴ The transfers were made every three years, or after every five,

c44.71

⁴ *Śukranītisāra*, II. 107-13.

c44.72

एकस्मिन्नधिकारे तु पुरुषाणां त्रयं सदा ।
नियुञ्जीत प्राज्ञतमं मुख्यमेकं तु तेषु वै ॥
द्वौ दर्शकौ तु तत्कार्य्ये

c44.73

परिवर्त्य नृपो ह्येतान्युञ्ज्यादन्येष्वकर्मसु ।

c44.74

seven or ten years.¹ For "authority should "not be given in one's hand for a long "time. A capable minister should be put "in charge of another work [department], and "a new competent man should step into his shoes." The rules of three-yearly transfer and of five-yearly transfer are referred to as 'dharma' or law by Aśoka in his inscriptions at Dhauli and Jauga&迎接;a (Separate Proclamations). The whole Council (*varga*) of Ministers (*mahāmātras*) went out or rather were 'made to go out', to quote the language of the Emperor, every three or five years. The process is officially called *anusaṃyāna*, that is, 'regular departure' which may be compared with the word *anugata* in the above quotation from the Śukranīti and with *anusaṃyāntu* in the Rāmāyaṇa.² In the Rāmāyaṇa it comes in connection with the '*going out*' of guards to the passes on the route which Bharata was shortly to use.

c44.75

¹ *Ibid.*, 110,

c44.76

² II. 79. 13; Konow, *A S I*, 1913-14, p. 113;

c44.77

§ 321. As in other matters, *e.g.* in the coronation, so in the exercise of the executive power each of the four divisions of the Hindu society was represented. The coronation details given by Nīlakaṇṭha and Mitra Miśra show that ministers were taken from all the varṇas up to the last days of Hindu régime. The Mahābhārata gives a list of thirty-seven Ministers recruited on the principle of representation from each varṇa: Four Brahmins, eight Kshatriyas, twenty-one

c44.78

नाधिकारं चिरं दद्याद्यस्मैकस्मै सदा नृपः।
\* \* \* \*
अतः कार्यक्षमं दृष्ट्वा कार्येऽन्यं तं नियोजयेत्।
तत्कार्ये कुशलं चान्यं तत्पदानुगतं परम्॥
—ह्यन्यनैस्तन्निवर्तयेत्। त्रिविधो पञ्चविधोपि समभिरंशेनैव वा॥

c44.79

वने वन्यैश्चरं दुर्गे रामो राजा भविष्यति। १२
क्रियतां शिल्पिभिः पन्थाः समाने विषमंणि च।
रक्षिणश्चानुसंयान्तु पथि दुर्गविचारकाः।

c44.80

†'Let the guards go out (after the *śilpin*) who know the passes on the way.'

c44.81

Vaiśyas and three Sūdras, and finally one Sūta who was of the mixed caste. The remarkable point is that the largest class (Vaiśya) had the largest number in the Ministry. The Śūdra and the Brahmin are almost equally divided. The real ministry, as it says, was composed of eight members only.¹

c44.82

¹ MBh., Kumb. Santi, ch. 85. 7-11.

c44.83

§ 322. The designations of the ministers in Gupta times changed. We have already seen the *Sāndhivigrahika* superseding the old term *Dūta*. This was evidently necessary to avoid confusion and distinguish the *Minister of Diplomacy* from the *Ambassador*. We do not find *Mantrin* used in the inscriptions of the period. Here again a desire to use an unambiguous expression seems to have operated. For, the minister *Daṇḍanāyaka* or rather *Mahā-Daṇḍanāyaka* appears to have taken its place. In Manu (XI. 100), *Daṇḍanētṛitva* is distinguished from *Senāpatya* and means the leadership of the administration, which in view of Manu's definition of *Amātya*'s jurisdiction (*amātye daṇḍa āyattaḥ*-Manu, VII. 56) means the authority of the Prime-Minister. *Mahā-Daṇḍanāyaka*, therefore, 'vested *with the leadership of daṇḍa* (or administration)', would signify the minister in charge of administration or the Prime-Minister. This appears to be the more natural interpretation as against the one given by Fleet *i.e.*, 'the leader of the forces' (*C.I.I.*, III. p. 16. *n.*), for the ministers who bear that title in the inscriptions were civilian officers as proved by their other titles. Further, in that period the military minister seems to be designated *Balādhikṛit* (*Ibid.*, p. 210) and *Mahā-Balādhikṛit* (p. 109).

c44.84

The rule of transfer noticed above is illustrated by the occurrence of the ministerial designations in the documents of the period. Harisheṇa, who, as the great inscription of Samudra-Gupta says (Fleet, *C.I.I.*, III. 10), was closely associated with the Emperor and who is described to have gained inspiration for his Kāvya from that association, was Mahā-Daṇḍanāyaka.

c44.85

He had been a Junior Minister of Diplomacy before. But at the time the Kāvya of Harisheṇa was actually inscribed he was no more Mahā-Daṇḍanāyaka. At that time the office was held by another learned gentleman, Tila-Bhaṭṭaka. Past ministers were allowed the courtesy of the employment of their late official designations in official documents, *e.g.*, the father of Harisheṇa who had been Mahā-Daṇḍanāyaka in former times is mentioned with that designation in Samudra Gupta's record.

c44.86

§ 323. Charters of grant made by kings in the Gupta period are countersigned by one of the ministers, the *Sāndhi-vigrahika*. According to Bṛihaspati a document of gift should obtain the endorsement *jñātammayā* or "noted by me" from the office of the Sāndhi-vigrahika. Bṛihaspati's law code was a work of the period and this provision is of importance. It shows that the charters which bear the name of that minister or his office were really noted by his department. This procedure throws light on the constitutional position of the ministers in that period. Even a humble gift had to be sanctioned by the ministry and it was sanctioned on their behalf by the Sāndhi-vigrahika who apparently had to consider whether the gift was right from the point of view of the foreign department. Donees might be outsiders come in the kingdom. They might be enemy spies; the foreign office, therefore, was the first authority to sanction or to reject the gift which would be passed as a matter of course by the other members of the government. The charters bear the countersignature of the officer or his assistant who passed it last. He is called Dūṭaka or 'despatcher'. The copper plate grant made by king Hastin¹ in the year corresponding to 510 A.C. is first sanctioned by Mahā-Sāndhi-vigrahika Vīdhudatta and finally passed by the senior minister of army, Mahābalā-

c44.87

¹ Quoted by *Vīramitrodaya*, p. 192,

c44.88

¹ *C.I.I.*, III. 108.

c44.89

ज्ञातं मयेति लिखितं सन्धिविग्रहलेखकः।

c44.90

dhikṛit, Nāgasiṃha, who signs as the Dūtaka. Another grant made by a contemporary of Hastin¹ is signed by a man who has no official title; it is not countersigned by any minister and it is recorded to have been made on the oral order of the ruler. The charter has no *dūtaka* either. It is evident that the grant did not pass through the Council as there was no written order of the ruler. It might have been made from the private lands of the donor.

c44.91

¹ *Ibid.*, p. 115.

c44.92

§ 324. It is a known fact that Ceylon had numerous institutions in common with India. In fact both had practically the same civilization, and from that point of view Ceylon was a part of India. A Ceylonese friend of mine has often told me that the history of India can never be complete without the history of Ceylon. It must be admitted that it is true. Here we have an illustration. In India while we lost our institutions under stress from outside and decay from within, they lived longer in the island girt by the great sea-moat. As late as the middle of the 10th century A.C. the orders issued by the king are orders of the Supreme Council or His Majesty-in-Council (*Sabhā*). All the members of the Council sign the document. See for instance the record of king Abhāsalamevan edited by my friend Mr. Wickramasinghe in *Epigraphia Zeylanica*, Volume II, p. 1, where the whole council conjointly makes the gift, the grant of privilege:

c44.93

"Whereas it was decreed by His Majesty-in-Council, we, "all of us, namely, Manitilā, Kiliyem and Gangulhusu Aga-"boyim . . . and Kavasilangā Gavayim have conjointly with "due inaugural ceremonies (*abhishekadi*) granted (the following "immunities to the village Itnarugama in the district of . . . ". . ." (p. 5).

Linked texts (14)