Talk:Ashta Pradhan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / Maharashtra / History (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
Note icon
This article was last assessed in April 2012.

++Lar: t/c 12:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

ImpuMozhi's copyedit[edit]

This has improved the layout and readability of the article but also removed important info. such as alternate spelling of Asta Pradhad. I believe a partial rv is in order. Any suggestions? --Gurubrahma 05:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that the deletion proposal failed. The proposal has stimulated those who (unlike me) know somethign of the subject to expand the article. If there is more information that can be provided without affecting the balance of the article and it is correct, by all measn put it back. Peterkingiron 23:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

ok,

Unless I'm mis-reading it, the new addition to the DYK is factually inaccurate. It says DYK..."that Ashta Pradhan, a council formed by Shivaji in 1674 to help him in administration, was one of the first instances of ministerial delegation in India? " - But, Akbar had government Ministers way back in 1570, Humayun have what were de facto ministers too, and so did the successive Mughal rulers. Do you mean India, as in "Hindu", in which case you may well be right (I wouldn't really know), but Inidan, as in, "Rulers in India" is not entirely true... SIndifferent.gif - Irishpunktom\talk 14:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the concept of nine advisors that were in Akbar's (and even Vikramaditya's (100 BCE) ) government? I think that's quite different from a ministerial delegation. deeptrivia (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No, the nine Jewals were different. Humayun brought to the Mughal empire a Persian model of Government, which included what were effectively ministries. Humayuns Post-Persian rule was brief, and it was Akbar who essentially ruled with it. It included a Primie Minister, and A minister in charge of Finances. It included a minister in charge of waterways, and the Akbar-nama alludes to others. Atkah Khan, whose stabbing encouraged Akbar to rid himself of Anga and her son, was effeectively the Prime Minister. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that any sweeping assertion of "first ever ministerial delegation" needs at least a reputable citation. Why are the amatyas of the Mauryan empire not to be regarded as ministers, even if "advisors" are not to be counted as "ministers"? Besides, no ruler above the village-level strongman can micro-manage a kingdom by himself; most "advisors" would typically handle atleast some matters independently, so lets not cut too fine a point of it. In fact, The Ashtapradhan council was completely dominated by the ruler and lasted as a functional body for only something like one decade. ImpuMozhi 15:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
We do need credible references. I know some articles published in Times of India some days back (cant find them now). It was mentioned there that a letter was found in which edicts of Shivaji were corroborated by the Ashtapradhan Mandal, by each one of them, with his own stamp. It is generally thought that all the important decisions were taken by the King with his council and, at lesast in theory, they had right to veto. We do not know whether they were influential enough to do it or whether it was done by Shivaji's mandal, but we have some examples dating back to early Hindu kingdoms where Kings rulings were nullified by the council. Any muslim king hardly had anything that was nearly as powerful as these councils and their Vajir can be considered as sort of Prime Minister, he had in reality functions similar to Secretary in modern Indian government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.3.150 (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Two Senapatis?[edit]

In Shivaji's armed forces there were following posts with equal status- Sarnaubat (General) of the infantry Sarnaubat (General) of the Cavalry Sarkhel or Admiral. The Sarkhel was a latter addition and was not part of Ashtapradhan. In all the books I have refered each sarnaubat is sometimes referred to as senapati and sometimes as sarnaubat. But which oew of the other two was the part of the ashtapradhan mandal? Or was there another post of SaraSenapati in charge of all the army and member of the mandal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.3.150 (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)