Administrative System of the Marathas c23.s1.8

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.