Anuṣṭubh under Pressure: Sandhi, Syllable Count, and Emendation
In a pre-board examination, a candidate is scanning a four-pāda verse printed in the prescribed text as an Anuṣṭubh. The printed text reads: “dharmaṃ careta sarvadā / na eva hiṃsyāt kadācana / dayāṃ kuryāt sadā jantuḥ / sukhaṃ yāti paratra ca.” The candidate counts pāda 1 as eight syllables, pāda 3 as eight, and pāda 4 as eight, but pāda 2 as nine: na-e-va-hiṃ-syāt-ka-dā-ca-na. She writes in the margin that the verse is not Anuṣṭubh and proposes deleting “eva” to make eight. The invigilator cannot answer subject questions. The paper’s instruction says that readings printed in the anthology are authoritative unless there is a metrical defect. The candidate has four minutes left and must decide whether to answer “Anuṣṭubh with a corrupt reading” or “Anuṣṭubh with sandhi naiva.”
1. What is the correct scansion of pāda 2, and should the candidate emend the printed text?
Read the worked answer
The correct scansion is naiva hiṃsyāt kadācana: nai-va-hiṃ-syāt-ka-dā-ca-na = eight syllables. The printed “na eva” is not a corrupt reading; it is an analytic or padapāṭha-style writing of the same sandhi. Sanskrit texts frequently print compounds and sandhi in separated form for learners, and the metre tells us to restore the sandhi. Deleting eva would change the meaning (“not indeed should one injure” becomes “not should one injure”) and is therefore unjustified. The candidate should not emend the anthology. She should write the pāda in its metrical form with naiva and note that the printed na eva is resolved by sandhi. The paper’s instruction about a “metrical defect” does not apply, because there is no defect once sandhi is restored.
2. Explain the principle that connects optional sandhi, metre, and textual authority in this case.
Read the worked answer
The principle is that metre can justify restoring a sandhi that a printed text displays analytically. Sandhi is often optional in written Sanskrit, especially in pedagogical editions; a text may print na eva to help a beginner see the two words, while the metrical line requires naiva. The examiner should ask: does the restored form fit the metre without changing the wording? Here it does: the syllables fall into eight, and no word is added or removed. Textual authority applies to the words, not necessarily to the spacing. The candidate should therefore respect the printed words na + eva and combine them, rather than deleting eva. The same reasoning applies to forms like tad api / tadapi and iti āha / ity āha: count the sandhi form, but do not invent a new reading.
3. How should the candidate write the answer in the remaining time to earn full marks?
Read the worked answer
She should write concisely: “Pāda 2 is Anuṣṭubh: naiva hiṃsyāt kadācana = 8 syllables. The printed na eva is a separated writing; by sandhi it becomes naiva. No emendation is needed.” Then she should give the full scheme: pādas 1, 2, 3, 4 each have eight syllables, so the verse is Anuṣṭubh. If the question asks for the name of the metre, she should state Anuṣṭubh and not “corrupt Anuṣṭubh.” A margin note such as “na eva = naiva by sandhi” shows the reasoning and protects against a examiner who sees only the printed nine syllables. She should avoid a long debate about manuscript corruption; the safe answer is the metrically restored form plus a one-line justification.