9058009408

12 W. R. ANTARKAR

2)    Sandra, is said to have marricd thc Greek princcss, Selukus Nikalor*s daughter and entered into a treaty with him. He is also said by the Greek accounts to have intimale relalions wilh the then Magadha queen and ihen to have killcd the prcvious king viz._f Candrainas and becoine thc king of Magadha. Ali this accords wilh the Indian account of Gupta Candra. and not wilh Maurya Candra.

3)    If Sandra, of Megas. is Candra. Maurya, il is surprising that Mcgas. makes no refercnce whatsocvcr to ihe prcdeecssor Nandas, iheir generał Raksasa or cven to Canakya, ihe architcet of Candra.^łs acccssion to the ihrone. Similarly, there is not only no refercnce in Megas. lo Kaulilya^łs Arthaśastra, bul Otto Stein has shown a nuinbcr of poinls of diffcrcnce bclween Kautilya and Megas.

4)    Then, again it is surprising that, if Candra. Maurya were the contemporary of Alcxandcr, the Nandas and cvcn Candra. wilh the vast and very powerful anny bolh are said to havc possessed should have kept quiet ór rcmain unnoliced by Alcx. or Megas. or olher historians like Plutarch. It is also surprising that so aslutc a polilician should have ignored thc threat to the country and should have conccnlralcd on intcmecine fcuds and persona! revengcs at thc cost of counlry’s freedom. On the conlrary when Alex. heard aboul Ihe tcrrifically vasl anny of the kings of Gangaridae and Prassians, his anny was in no mood lo fight and Alex. had to return.

5)    Shri Pandit Bhagavadalla has tried and tried wcll to show how the

equation of Paiibolhra in Megas. with Palalipulra (Modern Patna) by Sir William

Jones, is also not correct. According to hun, it agrees bcller with an ancient

Indian kingdom called Prabhadra, Prabhadraka or Paribhadra, near that of

the Pailcalas and which like Pali. of Megas. has Yamun& łlowing through

it than with Pfltalipulra to justify thc idcnlily, Jones has lo identify thc river #

Sona wilh Eranaoboas and say ihal Megas. has mentioned Ihese two rivers separatcly through mistake or inallcnlion.

The dale of Aśoka Maurya, ihe grandson of Candra. Maurya, has been fixed with refercnce to that of the lalter. Regarding this Aśoka, we find that apart front olher persons like Kalaśoka, Vitaśoka and Candaśoka we have Aśoka Maurya and Aśoka in Kalhana’s Raja. Modem historians have identified thc last Iwo, whilc Kalhana sceins to hołd that they arc distinct. The historians give their linie as 272 B.C. on thc basis of this idcnlificalion. Prof. Umesh has uphcld this dale of Aśoka as thc correct one. Howevcr, the following points dcscrvc lo bc noted in this conncclion.

i) The traditional dale of Aśoka Maurya as per the Puranic accounts is thc 15th cent. B.C., whilc Kalhana givcs thc datc of KaśmTra Aśoka as 1182 B.C.

ii) The antccedents of K. Aśoka and his progeny arc quitc dillcrent from