Verse 7.54

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

मौलान् शास्त्रविदः शूरान् लब्धलक्षान् कुलोद्भवान् ।
सचिवान् सप्त चाष्टौ वा प्रकुर्वीत परीक्षितान् ॥ ५४ ॥

maulān śāstravidaḥ śūrān labdhalakṣān kulodbhavān |
sacivān sapta cāṣṭau vā prakurvīta parīkṣitān || 54 ||

He shall appoint seven or eight ministers, with respectable status, versed in law, of heroic temperament, experienced in business, born of noble families, and thoroughly tested.—(54)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Of respectable status’;—hereditary servants of the king, possessed of many children, and relations and much wealth, openly possessing vast numbers of cattle and landed property, inhabitants of the kingdom. ‘Mūla’ is status; and those possessed of status are ‘maula’.

‘Versed in law’;—‘śāstra’ is law, ordinance; the law regulating the conduct of servants; hence the term indicates other qualifications also; such as—intelligent, of firm resolve, capable of much hard labour, clever, eloquent, strong, respectable, endowed with courage and energy, able to bear hardships, pure, liberal, equipped with estimable character, free from both tardiness and fickleness, loved by men, not prone to making enemies.

The term ‘śūra’, ‘of heroic temperament’, indicates one who, in his zeal for the king’s work, takes no account of his body, life, children or wealth, and also also not afraid of death, ever ready for battle, and though alone, he is ever ready to engage in a fight with many persons,—capable of striking hard, possessed of strength.

‘Experienced in business’;—this indicates the fact of their having seen much work; those who have actually fought with the sword, who have successfully accomplished their duties, who have had previous experience in ministerial work.

‘Born of noble families;’—when people are moved by considerations of their noble family, they desist from improper acts.

‘Ministers’— assistants.

These should always remain at the king’s side.

‘Seven or eight’—This is a restrictive rule; fewer than these are likely to combine,—and this would render the king’s consultations one-sided. On the other hand, if they are too many, there is likely to be great diversities of opinion. Hence only seven or eight ministers are to be appointed.

‘Thoroughly tested”—This refers to tests relative to (a) virtue, (b) wealth, (c) love and (d) fear. For instance, (a) The Priest, under the pretext of having been reprimanded in his work, by the king, should approach each of the ministers with large presents sent through trustworthy messengers, with proposals purporting to bring about the king’s ruin, saying—‘this proposal has been approved by all the ministers, how does it appear to you?’—If the minister thus approached, repudiates the suggestion, he has been ‘tested with the test of virtue.’—(b) The army—commander, under a similar pretext of having been reprimanded, may approach one of the ministers with large presents sent through trusted messengers, suggesting proposals for bringing about the king’s ruin, saying—‘this has been approved by all ministers, what do you think of it?’—If the minister should repudiate the suggestion, he becomes ‘tested with the test of wealth.’ (c) A female ascetic who is trusted in the king’s harem, shall approach each of the ministers, saying—‘such and such a queen is in love with you and has made arrangements for meeting you.’ If the man repudiates the suggestion, he becomes ‘tested with the test of love.’—(d) Some persons, urged by the king himself, should give out the rumour that ‘the king is being killed by certain ministers who have made a combination against him’; having heard this numour (rumour?), a trusted man in the priest’s employ should suggest to the ministers the following plan—‘on hearing this rumour the king is going to punish you’; one of these men, having previously entered into the plan, should approach each of the ministers and urge them to activity; the ministers who repudiate this suggestion become ‘tested with the test of fear.’

Or, he shall appoint such ministers of finance as are ‘maula’ i.e., capable of collecting and guarding and rightly spending wealth; that is, those who collect wealth from the villages, and carefully keep and rightly spend what has been collected. The meaning thus is that he shall appoint such finance ministers as are experts in money-matters.—‘Versed in lavs’— the councillors that he appoints should be learned.—The army-commanders that he appoints should be ‘of heroic temperament.’ ‘Experienced’ and the other epithets qualify each of those mentioned above.

Some people hold that the ‘testing’ of ministers, in the manner related above, is not the right thing to do; they hold that such testing may actually produce unfaithful feelings in the minds of the ministers. Hence some other faithful woman (than the queen herself) should be employed (in the test); and the intrigue too should he proposed against some other person than the King himself.—(54)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Labdhalakṣān’—‘Experienced’ (Medhātithi);—‘who fail not in their undertakings’ (Govindarāja, Nandana and Rāghavānanda);—‘skilled in the use of weapons.’

‘Suparīkṣitān’—‘Tried through temptations’ (Medhātithi);—‘tried as to incorruptibiliy’ (Nārāyaṇa);—‘tested by spies’ (Govindarāja);—‘bound to fidelity by oath, by touching the images of gods and such sacred objects (Kullūka and Rāghavānandà).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.311) to the effect that the king should appoint seven or eight councillors;—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 405);—in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 177), which explains, ‘labdhalakṣān’ as ‘paridṛṣtakarmaṇaḥ’, ‘who have seen action’, i.e., ‘experienced’;—in Nītimayūkha (p. 61), which explains ‘labdhalakṣān’ as ‘clever’,—‘maulān’ as ‘hereditary’;—and in Rājanītiratnākara (p. 9b).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 7.54-55)

Viṣṇu (3.71).—‘He shall appoint ministers to help him in his affairs, who are pure, free from covetousness, attentive and able.’

Yājñavalkya (1.310-311),—‘He shall appoint ministers who are intelligent, hereditarily connected, firm and pure; with these he shall take counsel; as also with the Brāhmaṇa.’

Matsyapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Rājanīti, p. 175).—‘He shall appoint such assistants for himself as are brave, of noble family, strong, endowed with wealth, beauty, nobility and other good qualities, self-controlled, endowed with forgiveness, capable of hard work, courageous, knowing the duty, of sweet speech,

capable of offering salutary advice and devoted to their master.’

Viṣṇudharmottara (Vīramitrodaya-Rājanīti, p. 175).—‘The attendants of the king shall he gentle, high-born, brave, equipped with knowledge, free from jealousy, not mean, pure and clever.’

Mahābhārata (Do.).—‘The king should appoint only such ministers as are able and have been duly tested.’

Do. (Rājadharma) (Do., p. 177).—‘The king shall honour that minister who is grateful, intelligent, free from meanness, firmly devoted to him, firm in his duty and firmly grounded in political science.’

Parāśara (Do., p. 178).—‘The king shall appoint as ministers, counsellors, ambassadors, priests, judge and members of the assembly,—such people as may he devoted to his welfare and safety.’

Kātyāyana (Do.).—The king shall appoint as his minister a Brāhmaṇa, noble-born and devoted to the king, expert in his business.’

Śukranīti (2.106-109).—‘The king shall examine his officers with reference to their work, companionship, merit, habits, family-relations and other things; and place confidence in those that are found trustworthy.’

Matsyapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Rājanīti, p. 174).—‘Immediately after his anointment, the king shall proceed to select his assistants; even an undertaking that is easy is difficult to he accomplished by a single man, especially when one who has no assistant; how much more is the work of the king which involves great issues! Therefore the king shall himself select assistants born of noble families.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 41).—‘He shall appoint as ministers such persons as have been his fellow-students; as he is cognisant of the purity of their character, and hence has trust in them; so says Bharadvāja. This is denied by Viśālākṣa, who holds that as these men have sported with him, they are likely to disregard him; hence as ministers he should appoint such men as share his secrets; because such men have the same habits and defects as himself; as these men knowing that the king knows their secrets will never misbehave towards him. Parāśara holds that this objection is common to both; the king also knowing that they know his secrets, will follow them in their acts of commission and omission; hence he should appoint as ministers such persons as might have helped him in dangerous situations; because their attachment to him has been actually seen. Piśuna denies this; the feeling here mentioned is an emotion, it is not a lasting quality of the mind; hence the king should appoint as ministers such persons as have, in actual practice, been found to have acted in strict accordance with orders; because the quality of these will have been actually perceived. This again is denied by Kauṇapadanta; because even these men would not be endowed with other qualities necessary in ministers; therefore he shall appoint as ministers such persons as have been hereditary ministers, because the antecedents of such men are fully known; they will not abandon him even though ill-treated, because of the hereditary relationship. This is denied by Vātavyādhi, on the ground that such men would arrogate to themselves all the powers of the master and would behave as such; therefore be shall appoint as ministers such persons as are well-versed in political science and are strangers; strangers would regard the king as holding the rod of chastisement and would never misbehave. This is denied by Bāhudantī-putra, on the ground that a man, though possessing theoretical knowledge, if devoid of practical experience, would come to grief; hence he should appoint as ministers such persons as are endowed with the qualities of nobility of birth, wisdom, purity, bravery and loyalty. All these opinions are right, says Kauṭilya; but the real character of men can he ascertained only from actual experience; hence the king shall examine the ministerial capacity of the persons concerned, the exigencies of time and place, and also the nature of the work in hand and then appoint them as ministers, not as the chief minister.’

Kāmandaka (4.27-30).—‘Upadhās are the means of testing honesty, and by these the king should test his dependants. A person who has got a good many friends to deter him from the paths of vice, who is not a foreigner by birth, who possesses noble lineage and character and great physical strength, who is eloquent and audacious in speech and is farsighted, energetic and ready-witted, who is free from obstinacy and fickleness and is faithful to his friends, who is painstaking and pure and truthful, who is blessed with equanimity, cheerfulness, patience, gravity and health, who is a master of all the arts, dexterous, prudent and retentive, unswerving in his devotion, and not prone to avenge the wrongs done to him by his sovereign,—such a person should be selected as the minister. Accuracy of memory, exclusive devotion to the ways and means and the Empire, grave consideration of the pros and cons of a question, unerring judgment, firmness, and observance of secrecy regarding all counsels,—these are the necessary qualifications of a minister.’

Do. (11.61).—‘A mantra or counsel consists of five parts: supports, means to ends, divisions of time and place, averting of calamities and final success.’

Do. (11.74).—‘Manu says twelve, Bṛhaspati says sixteen, and Uśanas says twenty, ministers should form a cabinet.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 48).—‘Accompanied by the Chief Minister and the Domestic Priest, he shall, in the first instance, appoint ministers to unimportant posts, and there test them by means of tests.’

Do. (p. 76).—‘The cabinet of ministers shall consist of twelve—say the followers of Manu; sixteen, say the followers of Bṛhaspati; twenty, say the followers of Uśanas; the number shall depend on the king’s own capacity, says Kauṭilya.’