Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c16.29

c16.29

² Weber (HIL., p. 223, n.) misunderstood the whole discussion and put the cart before the horse when he says that Āpisali regarded them as united and that therefore his successor Pāṇini lived after the union i.e., after Alexander. But both Kātyāyana and Patañjali are supplying the very want which arises on account of Pāṇini's rule—a rule composed at a time when there was no such union. Āpiśali gives no rule for them and the grammarian who composed the verse quoted by Patañjali is applying a rule of Āpiśali which had no reference to the Kshudraka-Mālavas. The composer of the verse knew the *vārttika* of Kātyāyana. If this exceptional rule had been anticipated before Kātyāyana's time either by Āpiśali or any one else, Kātyāyana would not have claimed the correction as he does by his *vārttika*. The whole passage is quoted here for the convenience of those who may care to follow the discussion in the original. The net result is that the league of the Kshudraka-Mālavas did not exist in the time of Pāṇini, though they themselves evidently existed, and that the league was a living institution in the time of Kātyāyana and that of Patañjali. The organisation thus evidently outlived the Mauryan empire.