History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.248
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.248
- Language
- English
v4.c62.248.1
About the number of members in the council of ministers there has been a great divergence of views from ancient times. Kauṭ. I. 15 and Kām. XI. 67-68 state that according to the Mānava school the council (*pariṣad*) of ministers should be constituted of twelve amātyas, acc. to the Bārhaspatyas of 16, acc. to the Auśanasas of 20, but Kauṭilya's own opinion was that the number is determined by the power or exigencies of the State (*yathāsāmarthyam*). The Bālakāṇḍa (7. 2-3) states that Daśaratha had eight honest and devoted amātyas (who are then named). Manu VII. 54 and Mānasollāsa (II. 2. verse 57) require that the king should select seven or eight ministers who should be hereditary, versed in the śāstras, brave, born of high family and well-tested. This advice was followed by Shivaji, the founder of the Maratha empire, who had a council of eight ministers (*Pradhānas*). Vide Ranade's 'Rise of the Maratha Power' pp. 125-126 where he describes the functions of the eight ministers called 'Mukhya-pradhāna' (Prime minister)', Pant Amātya (Finance minister), Pant Sachiva (General Accountant and Auditor), Senāpati (Commander-in-chief), Mantri (in charge of king's private affairs), Sumanta (Foreign Secretary), Panditrao (in charge of the Ecclesiastical Department), Nyāyādhīsha (Chief Justice). This list was probably taken by Shivaji's advisers from the Śukranītisāra II. 71-72 where almost the same eight are said to be the ministers according to some.
v4.c62.248.2
Vide also Grant Duff's History of the Marathas, vol. I. p. 193, and Rao Bahadur Wad's selections of *sanads* and letters (in Marathi) published by Messrs. Mawajee and Parasnis in 1913, where the names of the eight ministers of Shivaji are stated and their duties are described (p. 123). In the Śāntiparva (85. 7-9) it is declared that the king should have 37 sacivas, of whom 4 should be learned and bold brāhmaṇas, 8 valiant kṣatriyas, 21 prosperous vaiśyas, 3 śūdras and one *sūta* versed in the Purāṇas, but verse 11 adds that the king should discuss and settle lines of policy in the midst of eight mantrins and Śānti 83. 47 says that mantrins should not be less than three. In the Rāmāyaṇa (II. 100. 71) Rāma whom Bharata came to meet in the former's exile asks him whether he held consultation with three or four mantrins and (in verse 18 = Sabhāparva 5. 30) Rāma hopes that Bharata did not settle his policies by himself alone or in consultation with too many ministers. Kauṭilya also (I. 15) lays down that the king should hold consultation with three or four mantrins. The Nītivākyāmṛta (mantrisamuddeśa pp. 127-128) holds that they should be three, five or seven, that unanimity is difficult to secure in a group of persons of different characters and that when there are many ministers they are jealous and try to carry out their own ideas.
v4.c62.248.3
These passages show that firstly there was to be a small cabinet of three or four ministers, secondly there was to be a council (*pariṣad*) of ministers who might be eight or more in number according to requirements and thirdly there was a large number of amātyās or sacivas (high functionaries concerned with various departments). The council is mentioned in the 3rd and 6th Rock Edicts of Aśoka (Corpus I. I. vol. I. p. 4 ‘parisā pi yute ājñāpayisati’) in the words ‘the council will order the officers called Yuktas’. The qualifications of ministers (amātyas) are laid down in several places e. g. in Kauṭilya I. 9, Manu VII. 54, Yāj. I. 312, Kām. IV. 25-30 (of which verses 28-30 are almost the same as the words of Kauṭilya), Śānti 118. 2-3 (14 qualities of mantrins are mentioned), Śānti 80. 25-28, Bālakāṇḍa 7. 7-14, Ayodhyākāṇḍa 100. 15, Medhātithi on Manu VII. 54, Agnipurāṇa 239. 11-15 (= Kām. IV. 25 and 28-31), Mānasollāsa II. 2, verses 52-59, Nītivākyāmṛta p. 108, Rājanītiratnākara pp. 13-14 (quoting Nārada and Hārīta), Rājanītiprakāśa pp. 174-178, Rājadharmakaustubha pp. 251-254, Budhabhūṣaṇa pp. 32, 57-58.
v4.c62.248.4
Only the qualities required by Kauṭilya in amātya are set out here: He must be a native of the country, born of high family, influential, well-trained in arts, far-sighted, wise, of good memory, vigilant, eloquent, bold, intelligent, endowed with enthusiasm and dignity, capable of endurance, pure (in mind and actions), well-disposed, firmly devoted (to the king), endowed with character, strength, health, spiritedness, free from arrogance and fickleness, affectionate, who would not have recourse to hatred (even when offended by the king). Kauṭilya states that amātyas are of three kinds, the best, middling and inferior, of which the first must be endowed in full with the qualities set out by him and the other two are deficient by one quarter and a half respectively. In Śānti 83. 35-40 the faults that disqualify a person for being a mantrin are stated and verses 41-46 set out the qualifications for a mantrin, one of which deserves special notice, viz. (verse 46) he should have secured the confidence of the pauras and jānapadas. Many works prescribe that the ministers were to be hereditary if the son was capable like his father, e. g. Manu VII. 54, Yāj. I. 312, Rāmāyaṇa II. 100. 26 (=Sabhāparva 5. 43), Agni. 220. 16-17, Śukra II. 114. The Matsya 215. 83-84 and Agnipurāṇa (220. 16-17) add the very sensible remark that such hereditary ministers should not be allowed to dispose of the cases of their *dāyādas* (agnates). The Viṣṇudharmottara (II. 24. 55-56) contains the same rule.
v4.c62.248.5
This hereditary character is borne out by many inscriptions. For example, in the Allahabad stone pillar ins. of Samudragupta, Hariṣeṇa is himself a Mahādaṇḍa-nāyaka whose father Dhruvabhūti was also a Mahādaṇḍanāyaka (Gupta Inscriptions pp. 10, 15) and in the Udayagiri cave Inscription of Candragupta II (ibid p. 34) Vīrasena is described as 'anvayaprāptasācivya' (who hereditarily obtained the post of *saciva*). The R. N. P. (p. 176) after quoting the Matsyapurāṇa expressly states that the hereditary principle was to be given up, if the son or grandson of a former minister had not the requisite qualifications, but that such a descendant was to be employed only in such state work as was suited to his¹⁸⁷ attainments. The mantrins should, according to most authorities, be chosen from among brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas, but not from śūdras, even if the latter be endowed with qualities (vide Śukra II. 426-427, Nītivākyāmṛta p. 108).137a The consultation with the council of ministers was to be in secret. Kauṭilya (I. 15) says 'All administrative undertakings must be preceded by consultation with ministers.
v4.c62.248.6
The place for consultation should be so secluded that the conversation going on inside will not be heard outside and that even birds cannot see it, for it is narrated that secret consultations were divulged by parrots, *mainas*, dogs and other lower animals'.¹³⁸ The Harṣacarita VI states that Nāgasena of the Nāga dynasty met destruction in Padmāvatī because his secret policy was divulged by a *mainā*, Śrutavarman lost his kingdom in Śrāvastī as his secret was disclosed by a parrot, and king Suvarṇacūḍa met his death in Mṛttikāvatī by babbling in a dream about his policy. Vide also Manu VII. 147-150, Yāj. I. 344, Kām. XI. 53, 65-66, Agnipurāṇa 225. 19, Mānasollāsa II. 9, verses 700-705 p. 92. Kauṭ. (I. 15) has a verse 'no outsider should know the king's secret policy which he desires to carry out. Only those who are to carry it out should know it only when it is begun or accomplished'. Vide for a similar rule Manu VII. 105 (=Śānti. 140. 24 which is also the last but one verse in Kauṭ. I. 15).¹³⁹ The king presided in the council, but if he was not present the chief minister presided (Manu VII. 141). In the Mālavikāgnimitra (V) the king's decision to make a *dvairājya* is conveyed to the council of ministers and then the amātya (who here means the chief minister or President of the council) informs the king that the council agreed with the king, whereupon the king asks the council to depute the commander-in-chief Vīrasena to carry out the proposal. Kauṭ. further says (I.
v4.c62.248.7
15) that all business was to be transacted in the presence of the ministers; but if any one was absent his opinion was to be elicited by despatching a letter. In matters of emergency (or great danger) the king is to call his cabinet ministers and the council of ministers and what the majority decide or what would lead to success is to be carried out by the king. Śukra I. 365 also refers to the view of the majority. It is the duty of the ministers, according to Kām. IV. 41-49, to prevent a king from pursuing an evil course, it is the duty of the king to listen to the advice of his ministers and such ministers are not merely his friends but are really his *gurus*.¹⁴⁰ Śukra (II. 82-83) asks 'How can the kingdom be brought to prosperity by those ministers whom the king is not afraid to offend? They are no better than ladies who are to be decked with ornaments and fine clothes. What is the use of those ministers, whose advice does not tend to the advancement of the kingdom, the people, the army, the treasury, good government and to the destruction of enemies? The ministers, however, must have found it difficult to please the king and also to placate the subjects. A well-known subhāṣita states that one who looks to the benefit of the king comes to be hated by the people and he who looks to the good of the people (only) is abandoned by the king; when there is this great conflict it is rare to find a person who can secure the aims of both the king and the people.140a Manu (VII.
v4.c62.248.8
56-59) prescribes the matters in which consultations are to be held with ministers and the procedure thereof, viz. peace and war, *sthāna* (i. e. army, treasury, capital and the country), sources of revenue, protection (of himself and of the country), the proper bestowal of the wealth obtained; the king is to ascertain the opinions of ministers separately and then jointly and then do what is beneficial; he is then to hold consultation on the most important affairs relating to the six means of policy with a wise brāhmaṇa who is the most distinguished of all ministers and always to rely upon him, to settle all lines of policy finally on his advice and then to act. Yāj. I. 312 also requires the king to consult his *mantrins*, then a brāhmaṇa (purohita) and thereafter to decide himself the course of action. The principal matters which mantrins have to concentrate themselves upon, acc. to Kām. XIII. 23-24 (= Agnipurāṇa 241. 16-18), are: *mantra*, securing the fruit of the line of policy adopted (such as conquering a country and protecting it), the carrying out of the business (of the State), predicting the good or evil effects (of an action taken), revenue and expenditure, government (i. e. punishing those who deserve punishment), subduing enemies, measures against calamities like famine, guarding the king and the kingdom.¹⁴¹ The Nītivākyāmṛta (p. 185) concisely puts the same by saying that amātyas have to concern themselves with revenue, expenditure, guarding the ruler (i. e.
v4.c62.248.9
his body, his dharma, wife and children), looking after the army in all its arms.