Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c32.s1.45

c32.s1.45

2. It is perfectly true that there is a close agreement between Y. and K. in laws. I have discussed the point in my Tagore lectures. Here I shall take up only one datum which completely disposes of the question of priority. K. uses a term *Yukta* meaning an official, which occurs in Aśoka's inscription as *Yuta*. The latter term none could understand before the publication of the A. as the term in literature subsequent to A. has gone out of use altogether. Y. could not understand it as used in the A. : 'युक्त-कर्म चायुक्तस्य' 'an official act of a non-official' (as pointed out by Dr. Shama Sastry in his first edition of the the A Intro., p. X.), and he uses *yogya* 'proper' अयोग्यो योग्यकर्मकृत्, II 235) where K. gives *Yukta*, and *ayogya* 'improper' where K. has *a-yukta*. This can only be explained on the hypothesis that Y. versified the laws of K. and in places could not understand it. Jolly tries to meet this by saying that the demand for statement on oath being unauthorized was 'improper' and therefore the difference is purely nominal. But how could any one explain, even by straining, अयोग्यो योग्यकर्मकृत् 'an incapable man doing a work which should be done by a competent man' on the theory of 'nominal difference'?