________________
Shri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra
www.kobatirth.org
Acharya Shri Kailassagarsuri Gyanmandir
184
OLD BRAHMI INSCRIPTIONS
(d) That the former capital of the Aira was Kosalā (South Kosala),
and that the Aira removed his capital to the Khandagiri at 'Eka
prastara' spot.” We have nothing to say against or to add to Mr. Jayaswal's fourth point. But his first three points are misleading, and need correction.
As to his first point, we find in the verses no indication whatsoever of Kalinga having been conquered by the kings of Magadha and liberated afterwards by King Aira. The implication of the verses obviously is that King Nanda of Magadba who tried either to conquer Utkala or appeared as a rival in his attempt to conquer some other country, was defeated by King Aira of Utkala in a battle.
As to his second point, what the verses state is that King Nanda of Magadha who was defeated by King Aira of Utkala in a battle, which ensued between them, was an adherent of the Vedic system. The verses are reticent about the religion of other Nanda kings of Magadha.
As to his third point, it does not appear from the verses that King Aira of Utkala was a great enemy of Asoka. Rather as a destroyer of Vedic religion and a promoter of his own faith, which was non-Vedic or anti-Vedic, he bore comparison with King Asoka, and the greater probability is that by mahāmittra, as pointed out by Dr. Sten Konow, the verses were intended to represent King Aira as “a great friend of Asoka."
In the inscriptions No. 1 and No. 3, Aira occurs as one of the distinctive royal titles prefixed, in the same manner, to the names of both Khåravela and Kadampa-Kudepa, the remaining titles being Mahārāja, Mahāmeghavāhana and Kalimgadhipati. Seeing that both Khāravela and Kadampa, two kings of one and the same dynasty, bore these titles in common, especially the epithet Aira, it may be surmised that Aira was a hereditary royal title or epithet of all the kings of this dynasty reigning in Kaliaga, in the same way that Brahmadatta was a hereditary royal title or epithet of all the kings of a particular dynasty reigning in Benares. Bat we are unable to see how such a surmise as made by Mr. Jayaswal could reasonably be made from the Sanskrit verses in the applauded Oriya MS. In support of this surmise, he argues, saying, “It is apparent that the Aira, who lived from the time of Nanda up to Asoka could not have been one and the same Aira. Aira tłerefore indicates a series of kings."
This ar zument of his, the force of which has freely been acknowledged by Dr. Sten Konow, is, in our opinion, unconvincing. For, in the first place, from the quoted verses, it is not at all clear that King Nanda of Magadha, referred to therein, was a pre-Mauryan Nanda king. And,
For Private And Personal Use Only
