The lasting effect of Bhishma as a political thinker is remarkable. In Arthashastra, Acharya Kautalya cites the viewpoint of कौणपदंत (Bhishma) on the method of appointment of ministers. As per Bhishma, the post of ministers should be hereditary with which Kautalya disagrees.
However, the available inscriptional records regarding the ministers show that despite the objection of Kautalya and other Acharya-s of Dandaniti, the appointment of ministers was often hereditary. Some of the examples are: 1. Virasena who was the sandhi-vigraha minister +
of Chandragupta II had acquired the office by hereditary right.
2. Harisena, the sandhi-vigraha minister of Samudragupta was the son of Mahadandanayaka Dhruvabhuti.
3. Prithvisena, the minister of Kumargupta I was the son of Shikharaswami who was minister under Chandragupta II.
2. Harisena, the sandhi-vigraha minister of Samudragupta was the son of Mahadandanayaka Dhruvabhuti.
3. Prithvisena, the minister of Kumargupta I was the son of Shikharaswami who was minister under Chandragupta II.
4. In a terracotta seal found at Muzaffarpur of Bihar from 2nd century AD mentions a minister Hastabala who was the son of minister Bhadrika.
5. Darbhapani, the minister of Pala king Devapala was the son of minister Garga under Dharmapala.
5. Darbhapani, the minister of Pala king Devapala was the son of minister Garga under Dharmapala.
As cited by Kautalya, the strongest opponent of this practice of hereditary appointment of ministers was Acharya Vatavyadhi (Uddhava) as such ministers end up usurping the power of king as we saw in Nepal where the office of the Prime Minister was hereditary.
Reference: p. 129-132, 'Ministers and High Officials in Ancient India' by Kunja Gobind Goswami, Vol. 29, No. 2, The Indian Historical Quarterly, 1953.
Loading suggestions...