The Mauryan Polity c7.s1.t7.12

c7.s1.t7.12

Like the term *śāsana* the expression *samaya* occurring in the First and Second Separate Edicts of Dhauli and the First Separate Edict of Jaugaḍa⁴ has been used in the technical sense of resolution or decision especially of corporate bodies or of judges. The expression is preceded in all these cases by the word *sasvatam* and Hultzsch in rendering the phrase *sasvatam samayam* ‘at all times’ follows Kern⁵ and Lüders.⁶ The full sentence in the context as appears in the First Separate Rock Edict, Dhauli, is *nagala viyohālakā sasvatam samayam yūjevuti*. Hultzsch interprets ‘in order that the judicial officers of the city may strive at all times’. If the rendering ‘at all times’ is to be adopted the reading must be śaśvat. A plausible reading is śaśvatam meaning eternal or immemorial and hence customary. Besides śaśvat means ‘at all times,’ and therefore no significance is attached to the expression samayam. The translation suggested is ‘in order that the judicial officers of the city may be bound by the customary law of the land’. Thus śāsana and the samaya of the Edicts as well as the punishments mentioned correspond to those of the Arthaśāstra to which Aśoka was of course indebted. In the light of the peculiar judicial concept of law as eternal, and samaya an important factor of the law, it is misreading the history of Ancient India if we style any monarch as a law-maker. In the nature of things and in the circumstances in which he accepts the crown the king is bound to be non-autocratic and non-absolute. In fact there is no place for an autocrat in the polity of ancient Hindus.