Harshacharita (socio-cultural Study)
by Mrs. Nandita Sarmah | 2014 | 67,792 words
This page relates ‘Part 2.3: Relation between the King and the Ministers’ of the English study on the Harshacharita: A Sanskrit (poetical work) which can be studied as a Historical book of Indian society during the 7th century. It was originally written by Banabhatta who based his Harsacarita on the life of the Gupta emperor Harshavardhana. This study researches the religion, philosophy, flora and fauna and society of ancient India as reflected in the Harsha-Charita.
Part 2.3: Relation between the King and the Ministers
The ministry is regarded as requisite for good government and is also a regular feature of dynasty. In ancient Indian polity, it was noticed that the king always entrusted all business, internal or external, to the ministers. The ministers also carried out all the heavy responsibilities of the government with full dignity. The ministers paid attention to all the affairs and, thus, they were the most trusted counsellors of the king. Kāmandaka describes the most beautiful relationship between the king and the minister. He describes the minister as hands or as the eyes of the king and a king without minister to a wingless bird.[1] In the Kirātārjunīyam, it is mentioned that without the good-relationship between the king and the ministers, one country cannot do progress.[2] This relation is expressed by king Probhākaravaradhana by heart and soul, which is found in his advices to his sons.[3]
There are two classes of ministers, amātya and mantrin. Kautilya recommends that the king should have the assistances of three or four mantrins, but the number of the amātya should depend upon the capacity to employ them.[4] Etymologically amātya and saciva mean associates and companions, and mantrī means one who is concerned with mantra or sacred counsel. Bāṇa also supports it.[5] In the Harṣacarita, ministers are known as saciva also.[6] Although, the Dharmaśāstras don’t recommended the military leadership and ability of the minister, but it is found in the Harṣacarita that the ministers serve as commanders, too. Such as Skaṇḍagupta was the commander of the elephant force of king Harṣa.[7] But the commander-in-chief is also called amātya in Manusaṃhitā.[8] Bāṇa also uses the terms amātya and mantrin as synonyms of minister in the Kādambarī.[9] Many good characters of the minister are mentioned by Bāṇa, as he goes to describe the character of Skaṇḍagupta.[10]
The Dharmaśāstras recommend the various qualities of minister. Manu recommends the appointment of brāhmaṇa as minister, particularly as the chief minister.[11] Bāṇabhaṭṭa says in his Kādambarī that Śukanāsa, the minister of king Tārāpīḍa, was a brāhmaṇa. He also extols the qualities of Śukanāsa that his intelligence was fixed on all affairs of the kingdom, and was also an expert in governance etc.[12] It is described in the Madhuban[13] copper plate inscription of Harṣa that Skaṇḍagupta was not only the commander of the elephant force but also mahāpramātarā and mahāsāmanta.
The Arthaśāstra advises that on the death of the king, the ministers are to install the heir-apartment on the throne, or in an emergency the ministers are called upon to select a successor to the throne.[14] This practice has followed on the death of Prabhākaravardhana. The ministers choose Harṣa as the king of Sthāṇvīśvara.[15] King Prabhākaravardhana also requested him to take the throne.[16] It is also described in the On Yuan Chwang’s in India, that the ministers under the maukharis wields great power in offering the Maukhari crown to Harṣa when the last Maukhari king dies suddenly without leaving his successor.[17] It shows when there was a failure of heirs, the ministers used to elect a suitable successor from among the relatives of the deceased king.
A minister should have the sense of moral responsibility towards the subjects. It is seen that when Rājyavardhana was treacherously assassinated, the minister Bhaṇḍi felt himself as robbed (muṣita iva), cheated (chalita iva). He continued to feel guilty though his master was dead[18] and once said to Harṣa that they were to blame for the misfortune, for they ought not to have allowed Rājyavardhana to go to a foreign king’s camp unguarded.[19] It seems in this case, the ministers suffered from a sense of guilty for not giving the correct advice to the prince. The minister should also have the capacity to preserve the secrecy of the counsel which is an essential quality of the ministers. Therefore, minister Skaṇḍagupta warns Harṣa not to believe all.[20] In this context, he gives examples of many other kings, who are betrayed by their ministers, wife’s, servants etc.[21] Therefore, he requests Harṣa that these type of vices should always be avoided, which is recorded in the Harṣacarita.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
Kāmandakīyanītisāra,XIII. 25
[2]:
Kirātārjunīyam, I.5
[3]:
[4]:
Arthaśāstra,I,VIII.
[5]:
[a] mantrīvinirveśitarājyabhārasya……, Kādambarī,p.101 [b] durmanāyamānamantiṇi.., Harṣacarita,V.p.77
[6]:
rājaballabhāstu….. sacivāśca tasminnevāhani nirgatya…., Ibid.,V.p.89
[7]:
[a].…..aśeṣagajasādhanadhikṛtaṃ skaṇḍaguptaṃ draṣṭumicchāmīti, Ibid.,VI.p.104 [b].… senāpatiḥ samagravigrahaprāgraharo…, Ibid.,VI.p.99
[8]:
amātye senāpatau…, Kulluka on Manusaṃhitā,VII.65
[9]:
mantrīvinirveśitarājyabhārasya……, Kādambarī,p.101
[10]:
……svāmitāmiva..spṛhaṇīyāṃ…..bhṛtyatām……..prabhuprasādabhūmimārūḍaḥ…. abhṛtabhṛtyo bhajatām, …akrītadāso viduṣām skaṇḍagupto.., Harṣacarita,VI.p.104-105
[11]:
Manusaṃhitā, VII.v.58-59
[12]:
Kādambarī,p.14
[13]:
Epigraphica Indica, no.11, p.67
[14]:
Arthaśāstra,v.6
[15]:
[16]:
ātmīāikriyatām rājakam, Ibid.,V.p.87
[18]:
...svāmivirahavidhṛtajīvitāparādha….aparādhiva…. muṣita iva chalita iva…., Harṣacarita,VII.p.121-122
[19]:
...helānirjitamālavānīkamapi gauḍādhipena mithyopacāropacitavisvāsaṃ muktaśastramekākīnaṃ viśrabdhaṃ…, Ibid.,VI.p.98
[20]:
idṛśaḥ khalu lokasvabhāvāḥ…tadiyamātmadeśacarocitā svabhāvasaralahṛdayajā tyajyatāṃ sarvaviśvāsitā, Ibid.,VI.p.105
[21]:
Ibid.,VI.p.105-106