History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.222.2

v4.c62.222.2

71) and Dr. Beni Prasad (in 'The State in ancient India' pp. 498-500) do not subscribe to this theory. For want of space detailed examination of Jayaswal's theory cannot be entered upon. But a few remarks must be made. The sheet anchor of his theory (in 'Hindu Polity' part II. p. 68) is a passage in the Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khārvela (E. I. vol. XX at p. 79 ll. 6-7) which runs 'Rājasūyaṁ saṁdasayaṁto sava-kara-vaṇaṁ anugaha-anekāni satasahasāni visajati poraṁ jānapadaṁ' and which he himself translates (at p. 78) as 'remits all tithes and cesses, bestows many privileges amounting to hundreds of thousands on the paura and jānapada'. Jayaswal himself has changed his views about the interpretation of this difficult record so many times (e. g. J. B. O. R. S. vol. III pp. 425-507 may be compared with his interpretations in E. I. vol. XX p. 71) that one can never feel sure even of his latest readings and translations. As a matter of fact Dr. Barua differs and reads 'pora-jānapadaṁ' as one word (I. H. Q. vol. 14 p. 464) and does not accept Jayaswal's interpretation (p. 477). If the word is 'pora-jānapadam' it would simply be a *samāhāra-dvandva* compound and mean 'all inhabitants of the capital and the rural inhabitants' and the singular need not necessarily lead to the inference that a parliament of city-dwellers and rural population is meant. Even supposing that the correct reading is 'poraṁ-jānapadaṁ', that would not matter much.