According to the Greek accounts,
Xandrammes was deposed by Sandrokottas and Sandrocyptus was the son
of Sandrokottas. In the case of Chandragupta Maurya, he had opposed
Dhanananda of the Nanda dynasty and the name of his son was
Bindusara. Both these names, Dhanananda and Bindusara, have no
phonetic similarity with the names Xandrammes and Sandrocyptus of
the Greek accounts.
In the Greek accounts, we find the
statements of the Greek and Roman writers belonging to the period
from 4th century BC to 2nd century AD None of them have mentioned
the names of Kautilya or Asoka. Kautilya's work on polity is an
important document of lndia's mastery on this subject. It was with
his assistance that Chandragupta had come to the throne. Asoka's
empire was bigger than that of Chandragupta and he had sent
missionaries to the so-called Yavana countries. But both of them are
not mentioned. Colebrook has pointed out that the Greek writers did
not say anything about the Buddhist Bhikkus though that was the
flourishing religion of that time with the royal patronage of Asoka.
Roychaudhari also wonders why the Greek accounts are silent on
The empire of Chandragupta was known
as Magadha empire. It had a long history even at the time of
Chandragupta Maurya. In Indian literature, this powerful empire is
amply described by this name but it is absent in the Greek accounts.
It is difficult to understand as to why Megasthanese did not use
this name and instead used the word Prassi which has no equivalent
or counterpart in Indian accounts. To decide as to whether
Pataliputra was the capital of the Mauryas, Puranas is the only
source. Puranas inform us that all the eight dynasties that ruled
Magadha after the Mahabharata War had Girivraja as their capital.
Mauryas are listed as one of the eight dynasties. The name
Pataliputra is not even hinted at, anywhere in the Puranas.
Pandit Bhagavaddatta seems to have
studied the fragments of Megasthenes in more detail than those who
decided the identity. On the basis of Megasthenes's statements, he
has arrived at the following conclusions. "Yamuna was flowing
through Palibotha i.e., Paribhadra, the capital of the Prassi
kingdom. Palibothra was 200 miles from Prayaga on way to Mathura.
The kshatriyas there were known as Prabhadrakas or Paribhadrakas.
Their king was Chandraketu. The capital Paribhadra was near to
Sindhu-Pulinda which is in Madhya Desha and is today termed as Kali-Sindha.
The Karusha Sarovara was between Sindhu-Pulinda and Prayaga."
He further states, "Pataliputra cannot be written as Palibothra
in Greek because 'P', in Patali is written in Greek as English 'P',
only ; then why 'P', in Putra is changed to 'B', in Greek? There is
no instance where Sanskrit 'P', is changed to Greek 'B'." Putra
cannot be Bothra.
All such criticisms and questions
which were advanced against the identification and the sheet anchor
from its inception onwards remained unanswered. Max Mueller had not
answered Troyer. The Britishers might have continued the same
approach till India became independent. But why are the questions
not answered after lndia's independence ? Is it due to sheer inertia
as Dr. R. C. Mujumdar had termed it ?