________________
358 POLITICAL HISTORY OF ANCIENT INDIA was a direct invasion of the rights and privileges of the Brāhmaṇas. It is hardly correct to represent the Dharmamahāmātras as mere superintendents of morals when their duties consisted in the establishment of the Law of Piety (which included liberality to Brāhmaṇas), the promotion of the welfare of the Yavanas, Kambojas, Gandhāras, Ristikas, Brāhmaṇas and others, revision of sentences of imprisonment or execution, the supervision of the family establishments of the Emperor's brothers and other relatives, and the administration of alms-giving." These duties were not essentially those of a mere superintendent of morals, and were not a direct invasion of the rights and privileges of the Brāhmaṇas. Moreover, there is nothing to show that the Dharma-mahūmūtras were wholly recruited from non-Brāhmaṇas.
Our attention is next drawn to the passage where Asoka insists upon his officers strictly observing the principles of Danda-samatā and Vyavahāra-samatā. Pandit Šāstri takes the expressions to mean 'equality of punishment' and 'equality in lawsuits' irrespective of caste, colour and creed, and adds that this order was very offensive to the Brāhmaṇas who claimed many privileges including immunity from capital punishment.
The passage containing the expressions Dandasamatā and Vyavahāra-samatā should not be divorced from its context and interpreted as if it were an isolated ukase. We quote the passage with the context below :
"To my Rājākas set over many hundred thousands of people I have granted independence (or discretion) in the award of honours and penalties. But as it is desirable that there should be uniformity in judicial procedure
1 Asoka, third ed., pp. 168-69.
