History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.243.2

v4.c62.243.2

7 last verse) says ‘kingship is possible only with (the aid of) assistants, a single wheel cannot work (a chariot); therefore the king should appoint ministers and listen to their opinions’. Manu (VII. 55 = Śukra II. 1) says ‘it is difficult for a person single-handed to accomplish even an easy task; how can government particularly, which has great good as its aim, be accomplished without helpers’? The Matsya-purāṇa (215. 2) prescribes ‘the king, while his head is still wet with the waters of coronation, if he wants to supervise his State, should choose his helpers, as in the latter the kingdom secures stability’. Matsya 215. 3 is the same as Manu VII. 55. Vide Viṣṇudharmottara II. 24. 2-3 which are the same as Matsya 215. 2-3; also Śānti 106. 11 and Rājanītiprakāśa p. 174. From Arthaśāstra I. 7 and 8, Manu VII. 54 and 60, Kām. IV. 25, 27, XIII. 24 and 64 it appears that they use the words saciva and amātya as synonyms. Rudradāman in his Junāgadh Inscription¹³⁴ (E. I. vol. VIII. p. 36 at p. 44) states that his great enterprise to repair the Sudarśana lake was disapproved of by his advisory (mati-saciva) and executive councillors (karma-saciva) who were all endowed with the qualities required in amātyas and yet who were averse to the project and had no enthusiasm for it, since the breach to be repaired was very great.