1920. ] _ The Later Mauryas. 309 
tion of one Rajuka should be entirely different from those 
prevailing within the jurisdiction of others.' He wanted to 
maintain some uniformity (Samata) both in Danda (penalties) 
as well as in Vyavahara (procedure). As an instance he refers 
to the rule about the granting of respite of three days to 
condemned men. The Samata which he enforced involved a 
curtailment of the autonomy of the Rajukas and did not 
necessarily infringe on the alleged immunity of the Brahmanas 
the Court of Janaka. In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (iii. 9. 
2 : 
ancient as in mediaeval and modern India. We learn from 
the Aitareya Brahmana that king Harischandra of the Iksh- 
vaku family did not scruple to offer a Brahmana boy as a 
victim in a sacrifice. : ; 
Against the surmises regarding the anti#Brahmanical 
policy of Asoka we have the positive evidence of some of his 
inscriptions which proves the emperor's solicitude for the wel- 
fare of the Brahmanas. Thus in Rock Edict III he inculcates 
liberality to Brahmanas. In Edict IV he reprobates unseemly 
behaviour towards Brahmanas. In Edict V he refers to the 
employment of Dharmamahamatras to promote the welfare and 
happiness of the Brahmanas. 
- M.M. Sastri says further that as soon as the strong hand 
of Asoka, was removed the Brahmanas seemed to have stood 
against his successors. We have no evidence of any such 
conflict between the children of Asoka and the Brahmanas. 
On the other hand, if the Brahmana historian of Kasmir is to 
pias 
1 I am indebted for this suggestion to my colleague, Mr. S. N. 
Majumdar. 
