|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA is found in the Midnapur plates of Śaśāṅka,[1] while the word chhātra is used in the above sense in several inscriptions.[2] It seems that there was no excuse for the absence of the vārikas of the Uttarakulika class when thrice summoned to court by a court peon. The fine for the offence was two and one-fourth silver coins even if there was any good reason for absence. 30. Vyavahār-ābhilēkhitaka-karaṇa-sēvakasy=ā-madhyāhnād=ūrdhvaṁ nirupasthitasya vinayō rūpakāḥ shaṭ=sa-pādās=saha dhārmikēṇa. If the clerks[3] who had to write down the statements of cases in the law-court were absent from the court after mid-day, they were liable to a fine of six and one-fourth silver coins. 31. Ā-madhyāhnād=ūrdhvam=Uttarakulika-vārikāṇāṁ chhalō n=āsti. No. pretext of the Uttarakulika-vārikas, absent from the court after mid-day, was to be accepted. For chhala, see Nos. 6, 7 and 9 above. The ordinary meaning of the word seems to suit the present context better. 32. Arggha-vañchanē rūpaka-trayaṁ sa-pādaṁ saha dhārmikēṇa. This may refer to the Pēṭavikavārikas (cf. No. 27 above). In cases of fraud in regard to the delivery of rāj-ārgghikā, the officers concerned were liable to a fine of three and one-fourth silver coins and the fine could not be reduced even when there was a reasonable excuse. Arggha-vañchana may, however, also refer to the flouting of the prices fixed by the authorities (cf. No.27 above). 33. Mudr-āpachārē vinayē rūpakāḥ shaṭ=sa-pādāḥ saha dhārmmikēṇa. Mudr-āpachāra is the crime of using counterfeit coins (or, the misuse of official seals), the fine for which was six and one-fourth silver coins and no excuse for reduction of the fine was allowed.[4]
34. Sthāvara-tya(vya)vahārē sāmantaiḥ avasitasya vinayō rūpaka-śatam=āshṭ-ōttaraṁ 108. Sāmanta possibly means a subordinate ruler (cf. No. 11 above). The meaning of the āchāra may be that a subordinate ruler was liable to pay a fine of 108 silver coins if he disposed of a case involving landed property without informing his overlord (cf. No. 35 below). If the word sāmanta may be taken in the sense of men from neighbouring villages who had to settle boundary disputes,[5] the meaning of the āchāra may possibly be that the defeated party in a boundary dispute had to pay a fine of 108 silver coins. But the fine seems to be rather heavy for a case like this. 35. Saṁvadanē rūpakāḥ chatushpañchaśat. Taking sāmanta in the sense of a subordinate ruler (cf. No. 34 above), this seems to mean that the fine was only 54 silver coins (i.e. half the amount prescribed in No. 34 above), if information had been later given to the overlord about the case. In case the alternative interpretation of the word sāmanta is preferred, the āchāra may refer to the party that had had itself invited arbitration in a boundary dispute but was defeated. 36. Jayikē bhāshā ; phālāvanē chā(cha) rūpaka-trayaṁ sa-pādam. This is probably connected with Nos. 34-35 above. This āchāra is difficult to explain. But it may mean that the winning party (jayika) in a boundary dispute was to be granted a written declaration (bhāshā) in its favour although it had to pay 3¼ silver coins for the protection of his ploughed field (phāl-āvana) from the encroachment of the defeated party in this dispute. We may also take chā as a combination of cha and ā. In that case, ā-rūpaka-trayaṁ sa-pādam would mean ‘ any amount upto 3¼ silver coins’. 37. Ullambanē karṇṇa-trōṭanē cha vinayō rūpakāḥ saptaviṁśat(śatiḥ). The word ullambana is recognised in the lexicons in the sense of ‘leaping over someone’; but the Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra, _______________________________________________
[1] Vide Pravāsī (Bengali), Śrāvaṇa, B.S. 1350, pp. 291 ff. ; JRASB, Letters, Vol. XI, 1945, pp. 8-9.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
