North Indian Inscriptions

THE SIDDAPURA EDICTS OF ASOKA.

......The Śiddâpura edicts were sent to Isila from an office, presided over by an Ayaputa and Mahâmâtas. This scheme of government corresponds exactly to that, which, as the second Separate Edict of Dhauli teaches us, was adopted in Tôsalî, where a Kumâla and Mahâmâtas ruled, to all of whom the edict is addressed. The natural inference is, therefore, that of Mr. Rice, who takes Ayaputa to be an equivalent of Kumâla, while M. Senart’s supposition that the Ayaputa is a local chief (op. cit. p. 494 ; Notes, p. 27) appears more far-fetched. And it is not difficult to show that ayaputa may be used in the sense which Mr. Rice attributes to it ; for the St. Petersburg Dictionaries adduce passages in which the corresponding Sanskṛit word âryaputra means ‘a prince.’ Moreover, in Dr. Bhagvânlâl’s Kaṭak inscriptions,¹ Nos. I. and III., the kings Khâravêla and Vakadêpa receive the epithet aira,² i.e. ârya (aya), and in the Nâsik cave-inscription No. 15,³ king Pulumâyi is indicated by the word maha-airaka, i.e. mahârya. Hence airaputa or ayaputa might indeed be used for ‘a king’s son.’ It may also be urged that, if the Ayaputa had been a mâṇḍalika or padêsika, as Aśôka himself calls the local chiefs, the ministers would not be mentioned as sending their orders together with his. Such a proceeding would be against all etiquette. On the other hand, the position of a prince, sent out as a viceroy, was probably not an independent one. The distrus⁴ and the jealousy of the father and sovereign no doubt surrounded him with high officials, possessing almost, if not quite, the same powers, in order to watch, and, if necessary, to check him. Finally, we also quote the circumstance that Paḍa, one of the writers in the Ayaputa’s office, presumably had acquired his knowledge of the Kharôshṭrî characters while serving in Aśôka’s northern possessions.

......The extent of Aśôka’s possessions in the Dekhan cannot as yet be ascertained. But it may be considered as certain that they included more than the northern extremity of Mysore, and I believe we may venture on the guess that they extended into the Bombay presidency and that the conquest of the Dekhan had been made by governors of the Koṅkaṇ, after the annexation of the latter district. In the direction of the Western Ghâṭs I would also look for Suvaṁṇagiri, the head-quarters of the viceroy of the Dekhan. If it still exists, it will now go by a name like Sôṇgir or Sôṇgaḍh, Sôṇdurg, Suvarṇdurg, or the like.

......The three versions furnish in my opinion no great assistance for finally settling the most difficult problems connected with the New Edicts. They confirm, it is true, the view of Professor Oldenberg who, years ago,4 contended that, in the Rûpnâth Edict, aḍhatiyâni ought to be read, instead of aḍhitisâṇi, as I had done. But this is also highly probable according to a new impression of the Rûpnâth version, made over to me by Dr. Fleet, according to which I shall publish a new transcript in the Indian Antiquary.⁵ The reading aḍhatiyâni, as a matter of course, makes it necessary to give up the assumption that the statements of the inscription regarding the time of Aśôka’s conversion to Buddhism agree with those of the thirty years tradition. The Beloved of the gods says, not that he was a lay-hearer for more than thirty years and a half, but for two years and a half. Again,― and this is a point not yet recognised,― he does not say that he “approached or entered the Saṁgha” more than a year ago, but more than six years ago. When I wrote my first articles, I had not seen that the apparent i above va is the upper part of a ḍa, and hence read in the Sahasrâm version saviṁchhale, instead of saḍvachhale, i.e. shaḍvatsaram. Moreover, misled by the imperfect facsimiles, I believed that mistakes like chha for sa were common in Aśôka’s Edicts. Hence, I unhesitatingly corrected in the Rûpnâth Edict the inconvenient chhavachhare, i.e. shaḍvatsaram, ‘a period of six years,’ to
__________________________________________________________________________________________

......¹ Actes du Sixième Congrès International des Orientalistes, Vol. III. Part ii. p. 152.
......² Misread vera by Dr. Bhagvanlâl, who, in objecting to a Prâkṛit diphthong ai, had apparently forgotten the existence of the form thaira and similar ones.
......³ Rep. Arch. Surv. West. Ind. Vol. IV. p. 111, and p. 112, note 1.
......⁴ Zeitschrift der Deutsch. Morg. Ges. Vol. XXXV. pp. 473 ff.
......⁵ [Vol. XXII. pp. 299 ff.]