Indian Antiquary Vol 42

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 296

282
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
ROOK EDICT VI OF ASOKA.
BY KASHI-PRASAD JAYASWAL, M.A. (OXON.), BARRISTER-AT-LAW; CALCUTTA, THE passage:
[NOVEMBER, 1913.
यच किंचि मुखतो आपयामि स्वयं दापर्क वा आयापकं वा व वा पुन महामात्रेतु प्राचाविके आरोपितं भवति ताब प्रथाय विवादो निझती व संतो परिसायंप्रानंतरं पटिवेदेतथ्य मे सर्वच सर्वे काले एवं मया आपितं [1]
(Girnar, lines 5-7)
has been translated by Bühler as follows:
"Moreover, if, with respect to any thing which I order by (word of) mouth to be given or to be obeyed as a command, or which as a pressing (matter) is entrusted to my officials, a dispute or "a fraud happens in the committee (of any caste or sect), I have given orders that it shall be brought forthwith to my cognisance in any place and at any time."3
In the above translation the word nijhatt has been rendered as "fraud." I could not trace Dr. Bühler's ground for adopting this meaning. No explanation has been offered by him in his articles on the edicts published in the Zeitshrift d. Deutschen Morg. Gesellschaft, vols. 43 and 44 and the Epigraphia Indica, vol. 2. I do not think there is any warrant for this rendering. The source of the mistake seems to lie in M. Senart's remarks on nikati, an incorrect reading of nijhati: Le sens de "bassesse, fraude," atteste pour le pâli nikati et sen prototype sanskrit mikriti, s'accorde très bien avec de voisinage de virado "dèsunion, querelle." But the reading nikati, as Bühler himself pointed out, was wrong, jha being quite distinct in all the recensions. If nikati meant fraud,' there is no reason why mijhati also should mean the same. The two are not one and the same word.
Pillar Ediot IV.
Les Ine, de Piya,, ii. 89,94.
Jha in Asokan phonetics, as in Pâli, represents either dhya () or keha (a) of Samskruta, e. g., the jha in the nijhapayitave and nijhatiya which, as M. Senart pointed out," are derived from the Sans. Fr+, and the jha in the jhapetaviye of the Pillar Edict V., which. comes from the Samskrüta kshai() (Childers). The nijhati of our Rock Edict would therefore represent either #nidhyati (*nidhyatti) or #nikshatti (*nikshapti). The context shows that it does not stand for nidhyatti or a similar expression connected with ni-dhyai, to be attentive,' to reflect. For if in respect of the royal order, there was to be seen, in the parishat nidhyati, attention or reflection, the king would not have been in a desparate hurry to be told of it "forthwith" and t all hours and in all places. It is evident that some unsatisfactory conduct en the part of the parishat is meant by nijhati. And this sense we do get from the other restoration, nikskapti (or nikahipti), casting away,' throwing down, or the act of rejection. In respect of an order given to the Mahâmâtras if there happened or was going to happen () in the parishat a division (virado) or a total rejection of the order (nikshape), the king was to be informed forthwith at whatsoever place he might be and whichsoever hour it might be. The sense becomes still clearer with an appreciation of the real import of the parisd.
The stroke attached to ka is unmistakable, the projection being clearly noticeable beyond the abrasion. See the facsimile in the Ep. Ind., II, facing p. 454. In other recensions mijhatt.
Ep. Ind., vol. II, p. 468.
Les inscription de Piyadasi, i. 157. It must be at the same time noticed that M. Senart himself in transla ting the adiot (p. 173) does not adopt "bassessee" or "fraude" but "division" as the meaning of the supposed nikats
Pillar Ediot VII. 2.