Administrative System of the Marathas c23.s1: 2. Council of Ministers

Administrative System of the Marathas c23.s1

Language: English

2. Council of Ministers

c23.s1.1

Before the foundation of the national monarchy, or as Sabhasad styles it, a ‘Maratha Padshahi,’ Maharashtra had been conquered by the Muhammadans. When Shivaji was enthroned at Raigad with all the pomp of a Hindu *abhisheka*, he positively committed himself not only to the policy of conservation of all the Hindu institutions that might still be in existence, but also to a policy of revival. The immediate result was the reorganisation of his cabinet or council, well-known as the Ashta Pradhan Council, and there is a tradition that he was guided in this work by the old Shastras in general and the Shukranitisara or the polity of Shukracharya in particular. But the Shukraniti is not the only work on polity to advocate the appointment of a council. The step has been commended by all political thinkers of old, though they were not quite unanimous about the number of councillors. Kautilya says, “According to the school of Manu the assembly of ministers shall be made to consist of twelve members; the school of Brihaspati say that it shall consist of sixteen members; the school of Ushanas say that it shall consist of twenty members." But Kautilya himself recommends that the number should be regulated by the needs of the State.¹ Bhishma² held that the king should always consult eight principal ministers, four of whom should be Brahmans, three Kshatriyas and one Suta. In the preceding chapter of the Mahabharata, he is made to say that the king should appoint at least three ministers. According to Manu there should be "seven or eight ministers, whose ancestors have been royal servants, who are versed in the sciences, heroes skilled in the use of weapons and descended from noble families and who have been tried."³ But although we get the number eight in the Mahabharata and the Manu-Samhita there is very good reason to believe that the tradition, we have already referred to, was not altogether without a basis. The author of the Shukraniti, it is true, recommends that there should be ten councillors in all,⁴ *vis.*, the Purodha or priest, Pratinidhi or viceroy, Pradhana, Sachiva, Mantri, Pandit, Pradvivaka or Chief Justice, Amatya, Sumantraka and Duta or envoy, but as Kautilya suggested there was perhaps no hard and fast rule about it for the Shukranitisara itself suggests a council of eight also. If we exclude the Pratinidhi from the second list of the Shukraniti and include in it the Commander-in-chief, we get the Ashta Pradhan Council of Shivaji that consisted of the Mukhya Pradhan or the Prime Minister, the Amatya, the Mantri, the Sumanta, the Sachiv, the Pandit-Rao or Royal Priest, the Senapati or Commander-in-chief and the Nyayadhish or the Chief Justice. The post of Pratinidhi was subsequently created by the second son of Shivaji and that minister had also a seat in the council and the council of eight was thus transformed into a council of nine within a few years of Shivaji's death.⁵

c23.s1.2

¹ Kautilya's Arthashastra, pp. 32 and 33.

c23.s1.3

² Mahabharata, Santi Parva, Ch. 85.

c23.s1.4

³ Manu, vii, 54; S. B. E., p. 224.

c23.s1.5

⁴ Shukra Niti; S. B. H., pp. 68-71.

c23.s1.6

⁵ I acknowledge my indebtedness to Mr. T. S. Shejaval Karve here for drawing my attention to the original text of the Shukranitisara.

c23.s1.7

Baji Rao Raghunath

c23.s1.8

This similarity in the number and designation of councillors is by no means the only evidence in favour of the tradition. In a *Kanu Jabta* drawn up in the year one of the *Rajyabhisheka* era (published by Rao Bahadur Kashinath Narayan Sane), we find that on every paper, letter, and sanad issued from a state department, these eight Pradhans had to put their signature to indicate their approval, and if we compare this regulation with the following in the Shukraniti, "the Mantri, Chief Justice, learned adviser as well as the ambassador should write: 'This document has been written with my consent'; the Amatya should write: 'Well written is this,' the Sumantra then should write: 'Well considered'; and the Priest is to write: 'Approved,'" ⁶ we have very little doubt that for this particular regulation at least Shivaji was indebted to the sage of the Shukranitisara. But it will be a mistake to suppose that Shivaji's Ashta Pradhan Council was nothing but an imitation of Shukracharya's institution. According to Shukra, "the priest is superior to all others—the mainstay of king and kingdom, the viceroy comes next, next the premier, then the Sachiva, then the minister, next the Justice, then the scholar, next comes Sumantra, then the Amatya, lastly the spy." ⁷ Nor was he by any means the only political thinker to allot the first place in the State to the priest, the author of the Mahabharata also upholds the same view and in support relates the story of king Muchukunda who inflicted a defeat on Kuvera, ⁸ the semi-divine king of the Yakshas, mainly by the magical powers of his family priest, the sage Vashishtha. But in Shivaji's Council the priest was relegated to the last place save one, while to the prime minister and the Senapati were allotted the first seats on the right and left of their sovereign. Nor was this the only difference. Although the same designations were retained by Shivaji, the duties assigned to his ministers were by no means identical with those appertaining to those very offices according to the Shukraniti. The Pradhan or prime minister had indeed like the Peshwa, a general supervision of all state affairs, but the Sachiva of the Shukraniti was the war minister, while the Sachiva of Shivaji was in charge of royal correspondence. Similarly the Amatya of Shivaji was his finance minister while his namesake of Shukracharya's time had the charge of land revenue. Shivaji's Sumanta held the portfolio of foreign affairs, while the old Sumantra was at the head of the finance department. Shivaji had not therefore revived the *Mantri Parisad* or council of the Hindu political philosophers in all its details. The tradition of such councils had perhaps survived in the courts of the semi-independent Maratha chiefs, for Maharashtra had never been thoroughly conquered by the Muhammadans. Or perhaps the institutions still existed in the small principalities of the south, the off-shoots of the once great Vijayanagar kingdom. What we regard as a revival might have been really a case of slow evolution for aught we know. The process came to a sudden stop when the East was brought into forced contact with the West.

Linked texts (4)

Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Bṛhaspatismṛti — Bṛhaspati, Sanskrit
Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit