Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c6.134

c6.134

Every king must have a number of officers to assist him. "A king without a minister cannot govern his kingdom even for three days."³ Here the reference appears to be to the chief minister. Birth is not mentioned as a qualification for his post. In the Sabhāparva the Mahābhārata seems to prescribe seven principal officers—the commander of forces, the second in command, the governor of the citadel, the chief priest, judge, physician and astrologer. To the chief offices as a whole the Mahābhārata counsels the appointment of four Brāhmaṇas, three Kṣatriyas, twenty-one Vaiśyas, three Śūdras and one Sūta.⁴ It is remarkable that even the outcastes are not altogether unrepresented. It is significant that Śūdras, though consigned to the service of the superior caste, are admitted to high office. Perhaps it was felt that the Government must know their point of view. Perhaps their representation was necessary to win their loyalty. Their share in the higher counsels of the Government, however, was scanty. They must have formed a very large proportion of the population but they obtain only three out of the thirty-seven chief offices. Among the three higher castes, offices seem to be distributed more or less according to the numerical proportion. When possible the king should consult only one minister, lest secrets should be betrayed and responsibility should be undefined. The Sabhâparva, however, inculcates a different view. It forbids the king to consult only one person. The practice of putting offices in commission is discouraged. A single person should be appointed to one task. If more are appointed, they may disagree with one another or even refuse to tolerate one another.¹ All these officers must be men; women are barred from consultation on high matters of state, probably, because they are supposed to be incapable of keeping secrets.² The Mahâbhârta seems to indicate a circle of followers from among whom the officials were probably selected. The king, it is said, is surrounded by five kinds of men, those who have the same object, those devoted to him, those related to him by birth, those won over, and those who follow righteousness. The third and fourth classes of persons are never to be completely trusted. In any case, the king is never to be careless in keeping a watch over his friends, though he should always speak in soothing terms to all his servants.³ A feudatory chief always chafes at the prosperity of his overlord. A kinsman is always jealous of a kinsman's prosperity.⁴ If any servants become disloyal, their faults should be proved and they should be struck down one by one. For instance, a king of Kośala first got rid of his disloyal ministers and only then succeeded in subjugating the earth.¹ Only too often avarice and wrath produce hostility between the king and his nobles. They assail each other by means of espionage, stratagems, physical force, etc., or by gifts and arts of conciliation. They seek to weaken and devastate each other and ultimately both meet with destruction. All this should be avoided.² The higher officers should possess a variety of qualifications. Birth is one of them. The minister must have courage and intelligence—the two qualities which can conquer both the worlds.³ All ministers, counsellors and generals should be endowed with moral excellence and discipline, capacity and loyalty.⁴ Covetous men are not to be appointed to any offices.⁵ Every servant should be appointed to the job for which he is fit. If a dog is placed in a situation above his proper reach, he is intoxicated with pride. "A Śarabha should occupy the position of a Śarabha; a lion should swell with the might of a lion; a tiger should be placed in the position of a tiger; and a leopard should be placed as a leopard.⁶ In the selection of colleagues, the guiding principle is that of a similarity of dispositions. "A lion should always make a companion of a lion." Associated with a pack of dogs, a lion fails miserably in his duties.⁷