Nor is the reference to the offering of funeral libations* to the deceased father calculated to lull all suspicion about the correctness of the theory, which identifies the Mlechchhas of the Mudrârâkshasa with the Mussulmans. Of course, in these remarks, I entirely lay out of consideration a possible view, that although the word Mlechchha in the earlier portion of the play does not stand for the Mussulmans, it does signify the Mussulmans in the last stanza of the play. +† That would be a theory itself standing in need of confirmation and verification; and without such confirmation or verification, it is one which has really no fair claim to acceptance. Therefore it seems to me manifest, that the first link in Professor Wilson's chain of reasoning is an excessively weak one. But let us concede, for the sake of argument, that that link is not a weak one; that, in other words, the Mlechchhas alluded to in the Mudrârâkshasa-or rather in its last stanza —are identical with the Mussulmans. How does that justify the inference that the Mudrârâkshasa belongs to the 11th or 12th century of the Christian era ? The expression म्लेक्क्खैरुद्विज्यमाना, would to my mind, indicate not so much a permanent establishment of sovereignty or any continuous oppression, as a more or less constant series of annoyances and harassments; and the
* P. 192: It hardly needs saying that Mlechchha is equivalent to the Greek
- "Barbarian," meaning literally, “one who speaks barbarously.” It may, of
course, be objected to the argument based on the names Malayaketu and so forth, that the name Meghanâda, or Meghâksha, or Meghâkhya, ( as to which see Ind.Ant., Vol. II., p. 145 ), does not betray a Persian origin, although it is expressly stated to be the name of a Pârasika king. This is quite true, and it may be, that though Muhainmadans are intended to be denoted by the names Malayaketu, &c., the names used are Sanskritised in order to be made appropriate to a Sanskrit drama. This may be, but the two cases are distinct in that, firstly, in the one case we know specifically from other evidence who the Pârasikas are, while we do not similarly know who are referred to by the Mlechchhas; secondly, Mlechchha is a connotative name. While Pârasika is not; and, thirdly, no further inference is sought to be based here on the identification of Pârasîkas and Persians, while the identification of Mlechchhas and Mussulmans is made by Professor Wilson and others the basis of a whole chronological superstructure. See further on this subject Kern's Brihatsamhitâ, Preface, p. 32, note, with which cf. Fergusson's Indian Architecture, p. 28++ In the Kîrtikaumudî (Circa 1250 A. C.) the Mlechchhas mentioned at II. 58 are stated by the learned editor, Professor Kâthavate, to be the Muhammadans (See Notes, p. 34) and from the Indian Antiquary, Vol. IV., p. 364, we find that in Târânâth's history of Buddhism the pame Mlechchhas is understood to refer to the Muhammadans. See further on this subject J.A, S. B., Vol. IX., p. 849.
