Consider the following statements:
- Statement I: James Prinsep, an officer in the mint of the East India Company, deciphered Brahmi and Kharosthi scripts which were used in the earliest inscriptions and coins
- Statement II: James Prinsep found that most of the scripts mentioned a king referred to as Piyadassi – meaning ‘pleasant to behold’
Both the statements are individually true and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I
Both the statements are individually true but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I
Statement I is true but Statement II is false
Statement I is false but Statement II is true
Answer is Right!
Answer is Wrong!
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2014
– Statement II is true. While deciphering these inscriptions, Prinsep found that many of them referred to a ruler using titles like ‘Devanampiya’ (beloved of the gods) and ‘Piyadassi’ (pleasant to behold). It was later confirmed that this ‘Piyadassi’ was Emperor Ashoka Maurya.
– Statement I describes the historical achievement of deciphering the scripts. Statement II describes a significant discovery made *as a result* of that deciphering process. Statement II does not explain *how* Prinsep deciphered the scripts or *why* he was able to do it; it merely states one of the key findings from the deciphered texts. Therefore, Statement II is not the explanation for Statement I.
– The decipherment relied on comparing bilingual inscriptions and coins where available, using known scripts (like Greek on some coins) as keys.