________________
Shri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra
www. kobatirth.org
Acharya Shri Kailassagarsuri Gyanmandir
NOTES
209
and that the Grāmanāri-vişaya was situated adjoining and on the other side of the Strīrājya. Hence, even if it be true that the Purāņas mention Strīrājya and Mūzika countries as forming one princedom, Mr. Jayaswal has yet to supply us with a definite evidence for locating Strīrājya as "a Vindhyan country towards the West."
It may be, as Mr. Jayaswal argues, that the Krşņaveņā is the same river as the modern Wain which unites with the Kanhan, its main tribu. tary, in Bhandara District, and that the united stream comes down to meet the Wardha in Chanda District in the Central Provinces. But is there any independent evidence, we ask, to prove that the Mūşika city or country was situated on the banks of the Kroņaveņā ? Even assuming his reading Kanhabenágatāya to be a correct one, can it be definitely suggested that the Hātbi-Gumphā inscription contemplates Musikanagara, the capital of the Mūşikas, “ to be on the Kañhabenā"? Can it not also be suggested that King Kbāravela struck terror into Muşika. nagara with the army that advanced from the Kanhabenā ? While Mr. Jayaswal's Hāthi-Gumphā inscription contemplates the capital of the Mūşikas to be on the Krşņaveņā, Dr. H. C. Raychaudhuri finds reasons to suggest that " the Mūşikas were probably settled on the banks of the river Musi on which Hyderabad now stands." 2
We have maintained that the intended reading is not Kañhabendgatāya but Kalimgågatāya; not Musika-nagara but Asaka-nagara or Asika-nagara. Had the letter been intended to rea i mu, there is no reason why the 1-mark should appear as the lower prolongation of a straight vertical line on the right. We have offered a good explanation for the probable appearance of the 2-mark along with sa, in case such a vowel-mark was not in the intention of the engraver. We also have shown how a few holes on the inscribed surface, on two sides of the letter li, are accountable for the production of a mirage of a letter, which Mr. Jayaswal reads siha in the estampages.
If our reading be correct, as we believe it is, a great advantage to be derived therefrom is that it does not compel us to resort to a number of assumptions without any proofs, that the Mūzikas “ were probably a subordinate ally of Sātakarņi," that the capital of the Müşikas was a city on the river Kronavenā, that Strīrājya and Masika countries formed at
Strirajya."
1. Käma-Sūtra, VI. 6.42: "Grāmanārīvisaye Stri-räjye ca Vahlike." samipa eva parato Grāmanārī viņayah.
2. Political History of Ancient India, 2nd edition, p. 59.
27
For Private And Personal Use Only
