Saturday, December 19, 2009

Kings of Taranga VIII

Agni Vamsi or Brahma-Kshatra Kings From 1110 to 1148 A.D. Total 38 years (4 kings. )

Name of King Years Reigned Kashmirabda or Laukikabda Christian Era A.D.
133. Uchchla - 134. Sankaraja 10 4186-4196 1110-1120
135. Sussala 8 4196-4204 1120-1128
136. Jayasimha 20 4204-4224 1128-1148

Kalhana mentioned that Jayasimha was the ruler of Kashmir when he wrote the Rajatarangini in the Saka 1070 years. If we add 78 to 1070, we get the Christian Era 1148 A.D.. It appears that Jayasimha ruled for some time more ( till 1154 A.D.)

The Sum total of all the reigns after Gonanda III, the 53rd. king.
53rd king to 73rd ---- 910 years
74th king to 79th ---- 192 years
80th .. .. . 89th ---- 332 years
90th .. .. . 106th---- 600 years
107th .. ... 116th----- 84 years
117th .. ... 126th----- 76 years
127th .. ... 132nd----- 98 years
133rd .. ... 136th----- 38 years
Total ----------------2330 years .
Befere Gonanda III--- 2268 years.
Grand Total-----------4598 years

Kalhana's time is 1148 A.D.; 4593-1148 = 345O B.C.
i.e., From 3450 B.C. we have the history of Kashmir.

Kalhana’s father was a tributary to the king of Kashmir, besides being the Prime Minister. This family might have been a branch of the Satavahana dynasty.

Rajatarangini relates that the Lohar kings, who were subordinate to the kings of Kashmir, belonged to Andhra Satavahana race. The 120th king in the list, Parvagupta, was a descendant of Satavahana dynasty; since he got the crown of Kashmir, the Brahmin kings of Gupta family became rulers of Kashmir. The Brahmin king of Lohar was the son-in-law of Bhima Sahi, the Hindu Brahmana Sahi king in Kabul. His daughter ‘Didda Devi’ was married to Kshemagupta, the son of Parvagupta. The 127th king in the list, "Sangrama Raja", was the nephew or brother’s son to Didda Devi; and was son of Lohar king. Rajatarangini clearly mentions that he was a descendant of Satavahana family. The Puranas pronounced that the Andhra Satavahana race spilt-up into several offshoots and spread all over the land. These Andhra Brahmin families held sovereignty not only over the South but also over the North; in, Kashmir, Lohar etc.
The Sahi family ruled over an area by the name of "Dhakkan Territory", in Simhapura, Divyakataka, and Uttara Jyotisha regions; these Yavana states were conquered and consolidated into one kingdom and ruled. Its modern name is Afghanistan.

Friday, December 18, 2009

Kings in Taranga VII. - Satavahana Dynasty

Lohar Family ·
From 1012 A.D. to 1110 A.D. Total 98 years. ( 6 kings)

Name of King Years Reigned Kashmirabda or Laukikabda Christian Era A.D.
127. Sangramaraja, Brother’s son of Didda; contemporary to Trilochana Pala of Kabul 1000 to 1021 A.D. 15 4088-4103 1012-1027
128. Hariraja 22 days - -
129. Anantadeva 35 years 4103-4138, 1027-1062
Anantadeva again 16 4138-4154 1062-1078
130. Kalasa or Ranaditya(Pandit and Poet ) Patron of Pandits and Poets 10 4154-4164 1078-1088
131. Utkarsha, 132. Harsha 22 4164-4186 1088-1110

These six kings ruled for 98 years.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Kings in Taranga VI. - Brahmin Kings.

Gupta Brahmin Dynasty From 936 A.D. to 1012 A.D.
Total 76 years (10 kings)

Name of King Years Reigned Kashmirabda or Laukikabda Christian Era A.D.
117. Yasaskara 4012-4021½ 936-945½
118. Varnata--1 month; 119. Sangramadeva-- 5 months ½ 4021½—4022 945½-946
120. Parvagupta 2 4022-4024 946-948
121. Kshemagupta 9 4024-4033 948-957
122. Abhimanyugupta, minor, by mother Didda or Diththa Devi, wife of above Kshemagupta. Didda was contemporary to Bhima Sahi of Kabul, descendent of Lalya Sahi. Didda was grand daughter of Bhima Sahi(Daughter's daughter). 14 4033-4047 957-971
123. Nandigupta, second son of Didda, minor, by mother Didda 1 4047-4048 971 -972
124. Tribhuvanagupta, 3rd son of Didda, minor, by mother Didda. 2 4048-4050 972-974
125. Bhima gupta, fourth son of Didda and minor, by mother Didda. 5 4050-4055 974-979
126. Didda or Diththa, herself reigned,Daughter of Simharaja of Lohar, wife of 121. Kshemagupta. 33 4055-4088 979-1012
This Lohar family belongs to the Andhra Satavahana dynasty. This Simharaja, father of Didda, is the son-in—law of Bhima Sahi of Kabul who belonged to the Thomara Dynasty, one of the four Agni Vamsis. These ten Brahrnin kings ruled for 76 years.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Kings of Taranga V. - Utpala Dynasty

From 852 A.D. to 936. - Total 84 years. (8 kings)

Name of King Years Reigned Kashmirabda or Laukikabda Christian Era A.D.
107. Avantivarma (In his court f1ourished many poets like Anandavardhan, Ratanakara ) 28 3928-3956 852-880
108. Sankaravarma (Contemporary to Lalya Sahi, Brahmin king of the Yavanas in Uttara Jyotisha, Divya Kataka and Simhapura, now forming part of Afghanistan 20 3956-3976 880-900
109. Gopalavarma, minor, whose mother Sugandha ruled 2 3976-3978 900-902
110. Sankata, 111. Sugandha, 112. Suravarma 2 3978-3980 902-904
113. Partha 14 3980-3994 904-918
114. Nirjitavarma 2 3994-3996 918-920
115. Chakravarma ( murdered ) 14 3996-4010 920-934
116. Unmattavanti 2 4010-4012 934-936
These 8 Kings ruled for 84 years.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Kings in Taranga IV - Karkotaka Dynasty

From 252 A.D. to 852 A, D. Total 600 years ( 17 kings).
Name of King Years Reigned Kashmirabda or Laukikabda Christian Era A.D.
90 Durlabha vardhana (Son-in·-law of No.89 king) 36 3328-3364 252-288
91 Durlabhaka or Pratipaditya 50 3364-3414 288-338
92. Chandrapida or Varnaditya 59 3414-3473 338-397
93. Tarapida or Udayaditya 34 3473-3507 397-431
94. Lalitaditya or Mukatapida( Poet ) 36 3507-3543 431-467
95. Kuvalayaditya 1 3543-3544 467-468
96. Vajraditya or Bapyayika or Lalitapida 57 3544-3601 468-525
97. Prithivyapida 44 3601-3645 525-569
98. Sangramapida 7 days 3645 569
99. Jayapida ( Pandit and poet R.T. IV-404;489;497;548 slokas) 51 3645-3696 569-620
100. Lalitapida 52 3696-3748 620-672
101. Sangramapida II 57 3748-3805 672-729
102. Chipyata-Jayapida 52 3805-3857 729-781
103. Ajitapida 56 3857-3913 781-837
104. Anangapida 3 3913-3916 837-840
105. Utpalapida 5 3916-3921 840-845
106. Sukhavarma 7 3921-3928 845-852
Total 17 kings ruled for 600 years.

Karkotaka Dynasty ends.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Kings in Taranga III in Kalhana's Rajatarangini

Dynasty of Andha Yudhistira who belonged to Gonanda Dynasty. From 30 B.C., to 252 A.D., 10 kings,
Total years 332.

Name of King Years reigned Kashmirabda or Loukikabda Christian Era, B.C.,A.D.
80. Meghavahana 34 2996-3030 80-46 B.C.
81. Pravarasena or Sreshtasena or Tunjina 30 3030-3060 46-16 B.C.
82. Hiranya, elder brother of Toramana, died issueless. (Toramana died in prison. His wife and his son were in exile.) 30 3060-3090 16 B.C.-14 A.D
83. Matrigupta (He was sent by Vikramaditya of Ujjain as king of Kashmir in 14 A.D.) 5 3090-3095 14 A.D.-19
84. Pravarasena II (Toramana's son ) 60 3095-3155 19 A·D.-79
85. Yudhistira II (contemporary to Salivahana, founder of the Era 78 A.D.) 39 3155--3194 79 A.D.-118
86. Lakshmana (Narendraditya) 13 3194-3207 118 A.D.- 131
87. Tunjina or Ranaditya (Poet) 42 3207-3249 131 A.D.- 173
87. Vikramaditya 42 3249-3291 173 A.D.- 215
89. Baladitya 37 3291-3328 215 A.D.- 252
With this king the Gonanda Dynasty ends.

Ten kings ruled for 332 years.

Kings in Taranga II in Kalhana's Rajatarangini

Dynasty of Pratapaditya.
From 272 B.C. to 80 B.C. Total 192 years (6 kings.)

Name of King Years reigned Kashmirabda or Laukikabda Christian Era B.C.
74.*Pratapaditya 32 2804-2836 272-240
75. Jalaukasa 32 2836-2868 240-208
76. Tunjina 36 2868-2904 208-172
77. Vijaya 8 2904-2912 172-164
78. Jayendra 37 2912-2949 164-127
79. Sandhimati 47 2949-2996 127-80
From Nos. 74 to 79 six kings ruled for 192 years.

note:- In Rajatarangi it is stated that this Pratapaditya is a relative of Vikramaditya, was brought by the ministers from a distant land and placed on the Kashmir throne. He ruled Kashmir from 272 to 240 B.C. Vikramaditya referred to here must be Sri Harsha Vikramaditya of Ujjain of 457 B.C. Kalhana says here that this Vikramaditya, the relative of the Pratapaditya was not the Sakari Vikramaditya (of 57 B.C. )

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Kings of Kashmir - (continued)

Dynasty of Gonanada III. From 1182 B.C. to 272 B.C.
Total 910 years. (21 Kings, from no.53 to no. 73)

Name of the king Years reigned Kashmirabda or Laukikabda Christian Era

53 Gonanda III 35 1894-1929 1182-1147

54 Vibhishana 54½ 1929-1983½ 1147-1092½;

55 Indrajit 35½ 1983½-2019 1092½-1057

56 Ravana 30 2019-2049 1057-1027

57 Vibhishana II 35½ 2049-2084½ 1027-991½

58 Kinnara or Nara 39½ 2084½-2124 991½-952

59. Siddha 60 2124-2184 952-892
60 Utpalaksha. 30½ 2184-2214½ 892-861½

61 Hiranyaksha 37½ 2214½-2252 861½-824

62. Hiranyakula 60 2252-2312 824-764
63 Vasukula 60 23l2-2372 764-704

64 Mihirakula 70 2372-2442 704-634

65 Baka 40 2442-2482 634-594

66 Kshitinamdana 30 2482-2512 594-564

67 Vasunamdana (Poet) 52 2512-2564 564-512

( Author of Smara Sastra )

68 Nara 35 2564-2599 512-477

69 Aksha 60 2599-2659 477-417

70 Gopaditya 60 2659-2719 417-357

(Built the temple of Adi Sankara called Sankaracharya or Thakti Sulaiman in B.C. 367-366. He founded several temples
and Agraharams. He was a poet.)

71 Gokarna 35 2719-2754 357-322

72. Kinkhila or Narendraditya 37 2754-2791 322-285

73. Andha Yudhistira 13 2791-2804 285-272

(He was called Andha Yudhistira by the people, because of his having small eyes; in fact he was not blind.)

The Total period from Gonanda III to Andha Yudhistira was 910 yrs.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Kings of Kashmir as per list of Rajatarangini

Serial Number Name of the KingYears reigned Before Loukikabda (3076 B.C.) Before Christ.
1-5 Names not known 212 374-162 3450-3238
1 Gonanda I 50 162-112 3238-3188
2 Damodara I 48 112-64 3188-3140
3 Yasovati ( wife of 2 and mother of 4) ½ 64-63½ 3140-3139½
4 Gonanada II 56½ 63½-7 3139½-3083
No.4 king Gonanda II ruled for 56½ years, 1½ years before Mahabharata War and 55 years after the war.

Kings 5 to 39 : According to Kalhana names are not known. But Mulla Ahmed’s history of Kashmir written in the Persian language gives the list of the lost 35 kings of Kashmir from No.5-39 of the list given in Kalhana’s Rajntharangini. Gonanda II (the 4th king in the list of the Kings of Kalhana's Rajatarangini) was Killed in a battle by Parikshit, king of Hastinapura in 3083 B.C. As Gonanda II left no heir, Parikshit incorporated Kashmir into his empire. He ruled it from Hastinapura for 42 years. At the time of his death, in 3041 B.C., Parikshit gave Kashmir to his second son "Harnadeva". 23 kings of the Pandava dynasty and twelve other kings ruled for 1331 years from 3083-1752 B.C.
No. Name
5. Parikshit ruled for 42 year from 7 B.L. to 35 A.L. or 3083-3041 B.C.
6. Hernadeva
7. Rama deva
8. Vyasadeva
9. Drunadeva
10. Simhadeva
11. Gopaladeva
12. Vijayananda
13. Sukhadeva
14. Ramananda
15. Sandhiman
16. Marahandeva & Kamandeva.
17. Chandradeva
18. Anandadeva
19. Drupadadeva
20. Harnamdeva
21. Sulkandeva
22. Sinaditya
23. Mangaladitya
24. Khimendra
25. Bhimasena
26. Indrasena
27. Sundarasena
28. Galgendra
29. Baladeva
30. Nalasena
31. Gokarna
32. Prahlada
33. Bambru
34. Pratapaseela
35. Sangrama chandra
36. Larik chandra
37. Biramchamdra
33. Babighana
39. Bhagavanta
The above 34 kings from no.6 to no.39 ruled for 1289 years , A.L. 35 to 1324, or B.C 3041 to 1752.

B.L. A.L. B.C
40. Lava 39 1324-1363 1752-1713
41. Kusa or Kusesaya 39 1363-1402 1713-1674
42. Khagendra 39 1402-1441 1674-1635
43. Surendra ( Issueless) 39 1441-1480 1635-1596
44. Godhara ( Another

Kshatriya family) 39 1480-1519 1596-1557
45. Suvarna 39 1519-1558 1557-1518
46. Janaka 39 1558-1597 1518-1479
47. Sachinara (His

Paternal uncle

Sakuni’s great 31 1597-1628 1479-1448

43. Asoka or Dharmasoka

( Gonanda Dynasty) 48 1628-1676 1448-1400
He lost his king-

dom and Mlechchas

occupied it and he

fled to forest. His son

49. Jaelauka- (recon-

quered and reigned ) 56 1676-1732 1400-1344
50. Damodara II 50 1732-1782 1344-1294
50. Hushka, Jushka

and Kanishka. 60 1782-1842 1294-1234
52. Abhimanyu 52 1842-1894 1234-1182

Total reign 2236 years.

52. Gonanda III Crowned in 1894 After Laukikabda Kala or 1182 B.C.

Gonanda I was a poet. Dharma-Asoka was the 48th king of Kashmir, counting from Gonanda I. He belonged to the Gonanda dynasty. Kalhana says that this king freed himself from sins by embracing Buddha's religion and built the city of Srinagar, with ninety-six lakhs of houses, resplendent with wealth. He appears to have been a poet.( R.T. 1-101 )

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Kalhana would not have authored the four verses 49, 50, 51 and 54 in first Taranga

In the context of the discussion of the reigning periods of the Kashmir kings, we come across four Verses 49, 50, 51 and 54, in the first Taranga. As these verses run counter to all Puranas, the history of Bharat, popular tradition, annual almanacs and astronomical calculations, we cannot attribute their author-ship to Kalhana. None of the ancient scholars gave expression to such contradictory statements, revolting to Aryan tradition. Nay--, even the modern historians, as long as they were not anglicised and proselytized by Occidentalists, did not commit the sin of misrepresentation or making irreconcilable utterances. In such a case how can we venture to father these Verses, bristling with contradictions, to Kalhana, a historian born and bred up in Vedic tradition, and a chronicler, endowed with gifts of scholarship, impartial judgement and supreme reverence to truth. So it is evident that Kalhana had nothing to do with these four verses, is our strong conviction and conclusion.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Kalhana and his Rajatarangini

Champakapura was a small State in Kashmir. The king of this state was paying tribute to the monarchs of Kashmir.

The king of Champakapura was the prime-minister of the Sovereign of Kashmir. His son Pundit 'Kalhana' was the author of " Rajatarangini ", the History of Kashmir. Kalhana was a great Sanskrit Scholar. His work “ Rajatarangini ", being printed, the whole book is available now, for our perusal. It is printed in Deva Nagari script, in two volumes, consisting of eight Tarangas. The author himself expressed that he wrote a critical systematic history of the Kings in 1148 A D., after a scrutiny of twelve ancient histories, inscriptions, the eulogies of the hierarchy of the past generation of the kings by the heralds and officers of the State and that he cleared all his doubts, in the light of his researches.

Kalhana, the author speaks about the sources and the purpose of his writing Rajatarangini as follows: When I say that I am writing the history written by my ancients, the readers should not disregard my work, without comprehending my motive expressed herein (R.T. 1-8)
The Pandits living in those times, wrote the lives of their contemporary monarchs, on the basis of first-hand knowledge, having practically seen and personally known, they wrote them in seperate Volumes and made their exit from this world. But later chroniclers compiled them and in doing so added some information which they gathered from heresy and informal talks. (R.T. 1-9)

In doing so there is neither dexterity not intellect. Therefore, in writing this ancient history, my main purpose is to remedy such errors and correct those contradictions, with the help of old records, gift-deeds and inscriptions that are at my disposal (R.T. 1-10)

So the purpose of ‘Kalhana’ was, with the aid of old histories and inscriptions, to purge the later compilation of its mistakes and to expunge the fictitious incidents. But this important and valuable information was left untouched by the Western critics.

So we must realize that the motive of Kalhana was to present to his readers a correct chronological history of the kings of kashmir; but not to reject one king and replace another; not to change the places and periods of this or that monarch, as the Western historians now did in modern editions of the same history.

Further Kalhana mentions:
Suvrata abridged and condenced the detailed ancient histories for easy reference and wrote a history, namely " Raja Katha ". The language being concise and difficult, this book was not within the comprehension of the readers. Another scholar, Kshemendra wrote a history, " Nripavali "; though this is free from language faults, it does not give us correct old histories and as such it cannot be accepted as accurate history.

The author, Kalhana, says that he rewrites the history written by his predecessors. So the events mentioned in Rajatarangini have an authenticity, based upon the records of the ancients who were alive at the time of the respective monarchs and they are not the outcome of the idle fancy of ‘Kalhana'. As such in this book are not visible, the safe shelter of the modern writers of history, namely, the stock phrases like, ‘It is possible, it is probable, it may be taken as granted, or we may guess, conjecture or surmise’ and so on. He did not transgress the limits of information found in the writings of his predeccssors, nor did he reject those incidents, on the score of myth or fiction. In case there were any doubts he took great pains to verify and clear them with the information from other sources, like the records of the eleven ancient chroniclers, and one of Nilarmuni and the grants and inscriptions of the old kings. In this way, Kalhana sifted the evidence available at his disposal with great care, caution and patience and arrived at correct accurate historical meterial for his Rajatarangini.

Prof. P. Gwasha Lal B. A. writes:- "The histories of Kashmir of the following historians are said to be standard works: Kalhana Pundit, Jonaraja Pundit, Srinara. Prajyabhatta, Haider Malik, Mohamud Azim, Narayana Kaul, Birbal Kachooroo, Divan Kirparam. Of these Kalhana‘s Rajatarangini is almost a revelation. Among the master-pieces of the world, his history (Kalhana's) is also one."
‘Such a book as Rajatarangini is unique in the literature of the world.'(P. 8. of ‘A Short History of Kashmir By P Gwashalal B. A. )

Mr, V.A. Smith has the following to say on Kalhana’s work "The Sanskrit book which comes nearest to the European notion of a regular history is the Rnjatqrqngini of Kalhana a metrical chronical of Kashmir, written in the twelfth century by the son of a minister of the Raja." (page 54 Oxford Student's His. of India, Ed. 1915 By V. A. Smith.)

Moreover Kalhana expresses as follows:
My doubts and suspicions were set at rest, when I perused the records of Eleven Chroniclers and the Purana ( or history ) of Nilamuni; the edicts and inscriptions of the ancient monarchs together with their recorded praises and eulogies and other Sastras (Sciences) helped a great deal in clearing all my doubts. (R.T. 1-14,15)

Then he proceeds:
No mention of fifty-two kings was made, as they led a life contrary to the Holy Hindu Scriptures. Of these Nilamuni wrote about four monarchs, Gonanda etc. A great sacred Brahmin scholar by name " Helaraja " wrote a history by name " Parthivavali " or ' Kings Assembly ' consisting of twelve thousand slokas and verses. Then, 'Padma Mihira',on the lines of Helaraja, wrote the lives of eight rulers, Lava and others, the predecessors of Asoka. The history of Asoka and others, five sovereigns, were written by a chronicler Sri-Chchavillakara. Of the history of the 52 monarchs, commencing from Gonanda, the contemporaries of Kuru Pandavas in the beginning of Kali Era, the history of 17 kings were added but the history of 35 monarchs were lost in oblivion , as they discarded Vedic-Rites. (R.T. 1-16-19)

Kalhana says that the books wherein ancient events are narrated give pleasure to good people. So he asserts that the duty of an impartial historian is to record, without bias the lives of the kings, though they enhance or belittle the prestige of the Mother-land.

The beginning of Gonanda III’s rule goes back to 2330 years, of his own time (the time of the author Kalhana) and he was writing the history of the Kashmir Rulers from that time and Kalhana said that the period of his writing the "Rajatarangini" was Loukikabda 24 (i.e., 4224) or (Salivahana) Saka 1070(i.e, 78+1070 A.D.) or 1148 A.D. Prior to Gonanda III, 52 kings who discarded the Vedic Dharma ruled for 2268 years according to popular tradition. Kalhana affirmed that he wrote the past history after a close study of 11 Chroniclers and the Purana of Nilamuni who existed before his time .

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Dr. Buhler's writings Inconsistent, absured and Self-contradictory

Bhumivarma, founder of the Solar dynasty, the fifth dynasty of kings of Nepal, secured the throne for himself and ruled over the country in Kali 1389 or B.C. 1713. The 27th King of Nepal of the Solar dynasty, Sivadevavarman, was crowned in Kali 2764 or B.C. 338 according to Nepala Rajavamsavali or chronology of the dynastic lists of the kings of Nepal.

Inscription no 12 and again Nos. 13, and 14, in all 3 inscriptions, have been discovered so far, indicating the date of his coronation. By the time of the coronation of Sivadevavarma, the Sri Harsha era of 457 B,C., was in vogue in Nepal and hence the dates of his coronation is given by Sivadevavarma in the same era in these inscriptions. In inscription numbered 12. the date of his coronation is given as Sri Harsha Samvat 119. Inscription numbered 13 is dated Sri Harsha Samvat 143 and the inscription numbered 14 is dated Sri Harsha Samvat 145.

Sri Harsha Samvat 119 is the same as (457-119 =) 338 B.C. The date given in the Nepala Raja Vamsavali Kali 2764, also works out to (3102 - 2764 =) 338 B. C. So the date is confirmed as Kali 2764 or Sri Harsha samvat 119 or B.C, 338 and cannot be disputed. In the face of such clear evidence, with a view to bring forward the time of Sivadevavarma and thereby to reduce the antiquity of, and shift forward, the entire history of Nepal, the Sri Harsha era mentioned in the inscriptions is identified as the Sri Harsha Siladitya era of 606 A. D. and the date in the inscription given as Sri Harsha Samvat 119 is deduced to be the same as 606 + 119 = 725 A.D., and the date of the coronation of Sivadevavarma is therefore located in 725 A.D. by Dr. Buhler, the European orientalist, in his history of Nepal. This finding is accepted as authoritative and a proved fact by the modern scholars of the history of ancient Bharat.

As a matter of fact. Sri Harsha Siladitya had never founded an era. There is no evidence of any kind to show that he did. Alberuni mentions Sri Harsha era and equates it to 457 B.C. But he has not mentioned any Sri Harsha Siladitya era. Hieun·tsang, the Chinese pilgrim, who stayed in his (Harsha Siladitya's) court for 5 or 6 years as an honored visitor, or his court poet, Banabhatta, the author of Sri Harsha Charitra, never reports that Sri Harsha Siladitya, established an era. There is no evidence of any Siladitya era of 606 A.D., in any historical composition or inscription discovered so far not even any reference to such an era. It is entirely a creation of Dr. Buhler, with his obvious intention to distort history.

There is another absurd inconsistancy on the part of Dr. Buhler which deserves careful attention. The 31st king, i,e. the 4th after Sivadeva Varma in the list of the kings of Nepal, is Amsuvarma, the founder of the sixth or Thakore dynasty. According to the history of Nepal as recorded in the Nepala Raja Vamsavali this Amsuvarma was crowned 237 years after Sivadeva Varma i.e., 338-237 = 101 B.C. Dr. Buhler has deduced, as a result of his study and interpretation and application of the writings of Hieun·tsang, that Amsuvarma (actually of 101 B.C.) was crowned in 637 A.D. and this not only reduced the antiquity but upset the order of the kings in the chronology of Nepal. In this zeal and anxiety to reduce the antiquity of the history of the country he has been blind to the inconsistency in his determinations. The 31st king in the list, Amsuvarma who reigned 237 years later, is placed 88 years earlier than the 27th king in the list, Sivadeva varma, placed in 725 A.D. This is a telling example of the standards of efficiency with which European orientalists have studied and used the inscriptions in their reconstruction of the history of ancient Bharat. We are obliged to pause and enquire how dangerous it is to rely on the findings and the writings of such historical scholars.

It is such historians that have discounted the reliability for historical research of the true and accurate history of Nepal and the history of Kashmir, available in the Rajavamsavali and Rajatarangini, and the history of Imperial Magadha available in the Puranas, sneered at them and rejected them as unworthy of the attention and respect of students of history, not for any thing really wrong with the splendid historical writings of the land but on account of their own bias and prejudice. Historical scholars of Bharat who swear by inscriptions should wake up to the truth and recognize how the inscriptions available have been grossly abused by European orientalists in their reconstruction of the ancient history of Bharat and realize that inscriptions can never constitute independent evidence for historical purposes, and that they can serve at best only, to corroborate the evidence of genuine, historical writings. In fact, it is the other way round. Such of the inscriptions as do not tally with and go contrary to the indigenous historical treatises of ancient times and the traditions of the country should be rejected as likely to have been tampered with or even forged. All the inscriptions discovered so far have to be subjected to a critical study and scrutiny afresh by the patriotic historical scholars of Bharat, with an open mind, free from blind respect for the western orientalists, in order to reconstruct the true history of our ancient country.

According to the history of Nepal, available in the Nepala raja Vamsavali, Amsuvarma was crowned in 101 B.C., and ruled for 68 years, up to 33 B.C. During his reign, Emperor Vikramaditya of the Panwar dynasty reached Nepal in the course of his march of conquest and induced Arnsuvarman, without war, to incorporate Nepal as a feudatory kingdom within his empire, thereby completing the extension of his over-lordship over the entire continent of Bharat. As a matterof fact the inauguration of Vikrama Era of 57 B.C. or 3044 Kali was celebrated in Nepal. (Vide Indian Antiquary, Vol XIII, D. 411 ff.)

In the history of Kashmir, available in Kalhana’s Rajatharangini, it is recorded that Vikramaditya of Ujjaini ruled as emperor or overlord over the whole of Bharat. Jyotirvidabharana of Kalidasa vouches that Emperor Vikramaditya founded an era of his own, in commemoration of his Emperorship. Puranas, cherished as genuine historical writings in the country, regular historical treatises like the history of Kashmir (Kalhana’s Rajatarangini), the history of Nepal (Nepalaraja vamsavali), have all described the conquests of Emperor Vikramaditya elaborately. Yet, these European orientalists and their Indian disciples whose faith in them is unshakable strangely deny the very existence of the Great Historical figure Vikrama. The author urges upon the readers, in this connection , the desirability of a careful pursual of the following publications by himself(Pandit Kota Venkata Chelam). 1. Chronology of Kashmir History reconstructed. 2. Chronology of Nepal History Reconstructed 3. Age of Buddha, Milinda, Amtiyoka and Yugapurana. 4. Chronology of ancient Hindu history 1 and 2 parts.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Mandasar Insctiptions No. 164 and No. 165

"May that very long banner of (the God) Sulapani destroy the glory of your enemies; (that banner) which bears (a representation of ) the bull, marked by the fingers (dipped in some dye and then) placed on him by (Parvati) the daughter of the mountain (Himalaya), who causes the distant regions in which the demons are driven wild with fear by (his) terrible bellowings, to shake; and who makes the glens of (the mountain) Sumeru to have their rocks split open by the blows of his horns."

"(L2)-He, to whose arm, as if to (the arm) of (the God) Sarangapani, the fore-arm of which is marked with callous parts caused by the hard string of (his) bow, (and which is stead-fast in the successful carrying of wows for the benefit of mankind, the earth be took itself (for succor) when it was afflicted by kings of the present age, who manifested pride; who were cruel through want of proper training; who from delusion, transgressed the path of good conduct (and) who were destitute of virtuous delights."

In line 6,there is the reference of Mihirakula. "He to whose two feet respect was paid, with the complementary presents of the flowers from the hair on the top of (his) head, by even that (famous) king Mihirakula, whose forehead (was) pained through being bent low down by the strength of (his) arm in (the act of compelling) obeisance."

There are nine lines in this inscription.

No.165 Mandasor Duplicate Pillar inscription of Yasodharman: There are nine lines. In the 6th line, there is the name Mihirakula and in the seventh the name of Yasodharman noted. The text of both the inscriptions is the same."

These two inscriptions Nos. 164, 165 are, indeed, forged ones, with no date. To fix the date which suits their purpose, they complicated the problem by introducing the story of the pilgrimages of Fa-Hian and Hieun-Tsang. besides extraneous and irrelevant arguments and information.

The No. 163 Mandasor inscription speaks of the existence of a person by name "Daksha", who had a great well dug, during Malava Samvat 589, the time of kings Yasodharma and Vishnuvardhan.(Ind. Ant. Ed. 1886 Vol. XV. P. 222 ff). That inscription at the bottom says that it is engraved by 'Govinda'. On the basis of this, the name 'Govinda' was inserted in No. 164 inscription and it was concluded that these two inscriptions were of about the same date; and our western scholars decided that the time of Mihirakula was 589 Malva samvat. They interpreted Malava Samvat to be the same as Vikrama Samvat; have deducted B.C. 57, from 589, and imagined that the date of Mihirakula was 532 A.D. On the strength of this imaginary date, by calculating backwards and forwards, by increasing and diminishing the kings, the foreign historians have brought, the five thousand years old history of the Kashmir kings to a very recent date, This is an inexcusable and intolerable impudent interpolation perpetrated by western chroniclers.

To refute the above conclusion of the western historians, it may be argued that the so called engraver "Govinda" of the inscription No. 164 may be the grandson or great grand-son or grand-father or the great grand-father of 'Govinda’ of the inscription No 163, or some other person of the same name. Then the two inscriptions differ in age. How can the date 589 of Malava-Gana-Saka of the 163 Mandasor inscription be borrowed for the undated 164 inscription?

Earlier we have shown reasons and proved that the Malava-Gana-Saka Samvat mentioned in No. 163 Mandasor inscription is not the Vikrama Era of 57 B.C. The full name of the so-called Malava-Saka is "Malava-Gana-Saka," which means the Saka promulgated by the people of Malava and its beginning was in 725 B.C. But Vikrama-Saka was the era brought into existence in 57 B.C., by Vikramaditya king of Ujjain. The name ‘Malavaganasaka’ was abbreviated into ‘Malava Saka’ and it is alleged that it was Vikrama-Saka fixed by the astrologers of Malawa; and it was stated that both are identical. Further they expressed that, in B.C., 1st century there was no king by the name of Vikramaditya, and, if there was one, he was the same as Chandra-Gupta II of the Gupta Dynasty (according to them 5th Century A.D.) who propagated this era and calculated it from 57 B.C. With such illogical and irrational arguments the westerners led our historians far astray from the right track. When the date of Chandra-Gupta II of Gupta line was B.C. 269-233; they have changed it to 5th century A.D. On the authority of the statements found in the inscriptions of Malava-Gana-Saka we have shown that it was different from Vikrama Saka and it was used in the Malwa inscriptions during the reigning periods of the Great Gupta Emporers, who flourished between 327 - 82 B.C.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

The History and date of Mihirakula by Dr. Fleet.

"The dates that have been proposed for Mihirakula and Baladitya are
(1) by the late Mr. Fergusson A.D. 180 to 200 A.D,
(2) by General Cuningham, during the century from A.D. 450 to 550 A D.,
and (3) by Mr. Beal, 420 A.D.

Mr. Fergusson based his date on the opinion, which he then held but afterwards abandoned, that the reign of Kanishka ended A.D. 21; coupled with the statement of Rajatarangini, that twelve reigns intervened between Kanishka and Mihirakula.

General Cunningham’s date was based partly on Fahian's silence regarding Baladitya’s samgharamas and other buildings at Nalanda and partly on the similarity of the architectural style of Baladitya's temple with that of a temple near the Bodhi tree at Buddha-Gaya, which, he had already shown, must have been built about A.D. 500.

And Mr. Beal based his date
(a) upon his erroneous identification of the Buddha-Gupta of Hiuen Tsang’s account with the Buddha-Gupta of the Eran inscription; which, coupled with his adoption of the theory that the Gupta era commenced A.D. 190, gave to Buddha Gupta the date of 349 to 368 A.D., and for his "Grandson" Baladitya a period of fifty years later;

(b) on the fact that, in Fa Hien's time ( 399-414 A.D. ) Buddhism was still flourishing and there were five hundred Sangharamas in the neighborhood of the Swat river; whereas in Hiuen Tsang’s time all the convents were ruined and desolate; which shewed that Mihirahula's persecution, during which Simha was killed, must have taken place at any rate after that period;

(c) on the current testimony of the Chinese accounts, which state that a life of Vasubandhu, the 21st patriarch, was written by Kumarajiva in 409 A.D., and that history of the patriarchs including Simha, was translated in China in 472 A.D.,

and (d) on the fact that the twenty-eighth patriarch, Bodhidharma, was certainly alive in 520 A.D., as he arrived in China, from South India in that year; which, allowing one hundred years for the four patriarchs between him and Simha, brought us again to 420 A.D. the period already arrived at on grounds (a) and(b)."

"The real date, however, of Mihirakula and Baladitya with of course, the margin of a few years either way, is now fixed with certainty by the duplicate pillar inscription of Yasodharman, from Mandasor, which I publish in page 253 ff below. This inscription records that this powerful king Yasodharman had worship done to his feet by king Mihirakula "whose forehead was pained through being bent down by the strength of his arm, in the act of compelling obeisance," i.e. that he subjugated Mihirakula. And, another Mandasor inscription, published by me at page 222 ff, above, has already given us the date of Malva Samvat 589 (A.D. 532-33) expired for Yasodharaman, we now know very closely the time of the overthrow of Mihirakula’s power in, at any rate, western and Central India."

"As regards the beginning of his reign, we have only to notice that Mihirakula’s Gwalior inscription is dated in his fifteenth year. Considering all that he did subsequently in Kashmir and Gandhara, it will he admitted that this date must be very near the end of his Indian career. His fifteenth year therefore, must fall somewhere about 532-33 A.D., the recorded date of Yasodharman; and in all probability a year or two before it. And we shall probably be very near the mark indeed,if we select A.D. 515 for the commencement of his career." (P.245 to 252, Vol.XV Ind.Ant.,Ed.1886,Text in page 252).

Dr. Fleet changed Mihirakula into a Huna king and brought him to a recent date of 6th cen. A.D. In order to maintain the modernity, he invented an inscription, and created a non existent monarch, by name, Yasodharma, who vanquished Mihirakula and humiliated him to his feet. It is clear that this is a forged inscription which was published in Indian Antiquary Vol XV, p,253, as No. 164, of Dr, Fleet’s Sanskrit and old Kanarese inscriptions. A duplicate of this same inscription was invented, as No. 165, being engraved on the second stone pillar.

In case there existed, at any time. a supreme sovereign who conquered the whole of Bharat from the Himalayas to Setu (Rameswaram) and reigned as the Emperor, the Puranas would have certainly praised his deeds of prowess and valour. But the narratives of the Kaliyuga kings in all the Puranas have described the monarchs from the date of the Bharata battle 36yrs B.K. or 3138 B.C., to Kali 4295 or 1193 A.D, No mention of Yasodharma was made in any one of the above books, Even Rajatarangini, which gave a graphic account of Mihirakula, was silent about Yasodharman, who by the strength of his arms, could extract homage from Mihirakula. Rajatarangini related that Mihirakula was a tyrant who invaded against Simhala (Ceylon), conquered and killed the king, he gave the kingdom to another, and, on his return journey, slew the kings of Chola, Karnata and Lata countries; and imprisoned many enemy rulers in his fortress. If there was a great hero who could defeat and destroy a despot like Mihirakula, Rajatarangini would, indeed, have showered praises and encomiums upon the saviour of humanity. In the absence of even the slightest reference to such a peerless hero or his victories, it is evident that the much boasted victor of the whole of India, Yasodharma, was a mere figment of the fancy of the foreign historians, who by the strength of their fantastic imagination gave to airy nothings a local habitation and a name. There is not even a single line in Rajatarangini to show that Mihirakula persecuted Buddhists and destroyed their Sangharamas. In this matter, Buddhist writings are not to be trusted. It is not true that he reigned in Central and Western India.

Mandasar Insctiption No. 164 :-

" The inscription refers itself to the reign of a powerful king named Yasodharman, who is evidently identical to with the Yasodharman of the Mandasor inscription of Malva Samvat 589, No. 163 (page 222 ff Ind, Ant XV) and whose dominions are here described as including the whole of the northern part of India, from the river a Lauhitya, or the Brahmaputra, to the western ocean and from the Himalayas to the mountain Mahendra. We have an important allusion in the statement that he possessed countries which not even the Guptas and Hunas could subdue and a still more important record, in connection with the general history of the period, to the effect that homage was done to him by even the famous king Mihirakula. It is not dated. But Yasodharman’s date is now known from Mandasor inscription of Malwa Samvat 589 (A.D. 532-33) expired No. 163 above , which mentions him and Vishnuvardhana; and the present inscription having been engraved by the same person, Govinda, must fall with a few years on either side of that date. The object of it is to record the erection of the column for the purpose of reciting the glory and power of Yasodharman and, since the present tense is used almost throughout, and also verses 7 and 8 speak of the column as being set up by Yasodharman himself, the inscription must be one of his own time, not posthumous."

Monday, October 12, 2009

King Mihirakula's date

Dr.E.Hultzsch. writes about Mihirakula’s Date:-
"King Mihiralzula's initial date as deduced from Rajatarangini itself is Kaliyuga Samvat 2397 expired,or B.C. 704; and the end of his reign, seventy years later, Prof. H.H. Wilson brought him down to 200 B.C., (loc. cit. p. 81). And Gen. Sir A. Cunningham arrived at the conclusion that he should be placed in A.D. 163 (loc, cit. 18). With the help, however, of newly discovered inscriptions, which are the really safe guide, Dr, Fleet (ante. Vol XV, p252) has now shown that his true date was in the beginning of the sixth century A.D.. that as nearly as possible the commencement of his career was in 515 A.D., and that A.D. 530 or very soon after was the year in which his power in India was overthrown after which he proceeded to Kashmir and established himself there,

This illustrates very pointedly the extent of the adjustments that will have to be made in Kalhanas earlier details; and furnishes us with a definite point from which chronology may be regulated backwards and forwards for a considerable time. A Similar earlier point is provided by Kalhana's mention, in Taranga I, verse 18, of the Turushka king Kanishka, who, according to his account was anterior by two reigns to B.C. 1182, the date of the accession of Gonanda III, but who is undoubtedly the king Kanishka, from the commencement of whose reign in all probability runs the Saka era commencing in 77 A.D. And a still earlier point is furnished by Kalhana's mention of king Ashoka in Taranga I verse 101. Accordinging to Kalhana, he stood five reigns before 1182 B.C. (2nd paper of E. Hultzsch pp. 65 to 97 of Ind.Ant, Vol XVIII)"

Mihirakula, the king of Kashmir, was the 12th ruler, in the family of Gonanda III, who ruled as 53rd king, in 1182 B.C., that is, he was the 64th ruler in the list of the Kashmir Kings, a Kshatriya belonging to Gonanda dynasty. His father was Vasukula, the 63rd ruler and his son was Baka, the 65th king. Hultzsch accepted that he ruled for 70 years and his date was Kali 2397 years or 704 B.C., as was related in Rajatarangini. But he mentioned that Wilson put him in 200 B.C. (loc·cit.p 18), Cunningham brought him to 163 A.D. (loc-cit. p 18) and later on Dr.Fleet, on the authority of an inscription (Ant·Vol. XV, p. 252) fixed Mihirakula as a Sovereign during the 6th century A.D and that the inscriptions are sure guides and certain sources of historical facts. This shows how the Kshatriya king Mihirakula who existed in 704 B.C., was altered into a Huna king of the 6th century A.D., by the western writers. Further they said that Thoramana who existed during 16 B.C., - 14 A.D,, was the father of Mihirakula. The readers can understand now, how these occidental chroniclers tried their level best to diminish the glory of the history of Bharat.

A scrutiny of that inscription shows that it was an invention and many inscriptions published in the Indian Antiquary are fabrications. Even these eminent erudite and enlightened western scholars, as they claimed themselves to be, rejected some incriptions as forged and spurious and the above one is the child of their fancy. As they could not find the date of that inscription mentioned in it, they borrowed the date of Mandasar No. 163 inscription and decided that Mihirakula existed in 6th century A.D. Then they adjusted the kings and altered their dates, forwards and backwards, from Mihirakula’s forged date of 532 A.D., and manufactured a modern history of Kashmir to beguile the gullible readers. In this attempt, the westerns deleted the history of Kashmir kings for about a period of 12 centuries. The same process of deception and diminution of about 1200 years, they performed in Nepal and Magadha Histories also.

Later we give a quotation from Dr. Fleet for the convenience of the readers. Its perusal will convince them what a line of absurd arguments, illogical reasonings, and invented self-contradictory statements, Dr, Fleet adopted to hoist a false pet theory of the modernity of Indian history and recency of Mihirakula’s date.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

The Ancient History of Malva State - Malawa Gana Saka

Before the Bharata battle, Malwa was an independent kingdom. Since the Bharata War, it was incorporated in Hastinapura Empire and was a feudatory State. In the year of dissolution of Hastinapura Empire, in Kali 1468 or 1634 B.C., "Maha Padma Nanda" became Emperor of Bharat, in Magadha. He invaded against sub-ordinate rulers, killed Kshatriya kings and installed non—kshatriya monarchs in their places. So, the Puranas described him as "Sarva Kshatrantako Nripah" or the Destroyer of all the Kshatriya rulers.

In 850 B.C., a Brahmin by name,"Dhunji’ with the help of the people, united the Malavas and became king. But he was obliged to be a vassal of the Sovereigns of Magadha Empire. In 730 B.C., a descendant of the Dhunji family declared Malava an Independent State. "In Indian Manuscripts, we find Malwa noticed as a separate province eight hundred and fifty years before the Christian Era, when Dhunji, to whom a divine origin is attributed, is said to have established the power of the Brahmins and to have been the founder of a powerful dynasty.

"The family of Dhunji is said to have reigned three hundred and eighty seven years before Putraj, the fifth in descent dying without issue. Adab Panwar, a prince of a Rajput clan still numerous in Malwa, asended the throne. establishing the Panwar Dynasty which continued to hold sway for upwards of one thousand and fifty eight years.”

" During the period that Dhunji’s family held Malwa, we find no particular mention of them until about seven hundred and thirty years before Christ, when Dbunji’s successor is said to have shaken off his dependence on the Sovereign of Magadha. From this time we lost all trace of the kingdom of Malwa until near our own era, when Vikramaditya, a prince whom all Hindu authors agree in describing as encourager of learning and the arts, obtained the Sovereignty". (memoir of central India by Ch. Payne,M.A., pp. 7 ,8) (Vide Kota Venkatachelam’s Kali Saka Vijnanam, part III, pp. 40.)

When Malawa asserted independence in 730 B.C., there was a quarrel with Satavahana Emperor "Sri Satakarni" of Magadha. He was the fifth king in the list of "Aandhra Emperors". Some time might have elapsed to make him accept the independence of Malawa. By 725 B.C. Malawa had its independence recognised and it entered into friendly alliance with the rulers of Magadha. From that date, the Malwa people might have established an Era which concerned their community and termed it "Malwa-Gana-Saka". According to this 493rd year equal to 232 B,C., would be 95th year of Gupta Saka. During that year, the Mandasor inscription might have been written by the orders of Kumara Gupta I. As related in the Puranas, according to the movement of the Saptarshi Mandala after the Andhra Satavahanas, the Guptas came to rule from 327 B.C. So, the year 493 (272 B.C) mentioned in Mandasor inscription would be "Malava—gana~Saka" but not "Vikrarna Saka" which was otherwise called 'Samvat' but nowhere as "Malva-grana-Saka". Vikramaditya was born after expiry of three thousand years in Kali; as stated in the Puranas, "Purne Trimsat Sate Varshe".
So the king by name Vikramaditya was born in 101 B.C. He was crowned king of Ujjain, in 82 B.C., and he founded his era in 57 B.C., after expelling the Sakas from the country. As Vikrama Saka was established in 57 B.C., and was promulgated by the Sovereign, its founder, the previously existing 'Malava-gana-saka’ went out of use. There were not many signs of its reference after the advent of Vikramarka. (For full Particulars please see "'The Indian Eras" by this author, Kota Venkata Chelam)

4. Gupta inscriptions

Dr.Fleet,the infallible archaeologist, has given us a huge volume on the subject of inscriptions, Corpus Inscriptionem Indicarum Vol III. And a most valuable volume, in one respect, it is; it gives an excellent collection of the Early Gupta inscriptions.But Dr.Fleet's conclusions from them are quite wrong; his claim to have discovered the Gupta Era as beginning in 319-320 A.D., is based entirely, as I shall show presently, upon an egregious misinterpretation.

Now, most of the Gupta inscriptions are either not dated or else they are dated in the Gupta Era; and so they do not disclose when the Gupta Era began. Dr. Fleet knows this; and he relies entirely upon one record, no. 18; the Mandasor inscription of Kumaragupta and Viswavarman. The inscription is of a temple constructed by the weavers of Malwa when Kumaragupta was ruler of the earth and Viswavarman was governor of Malwa; the temple was repaired in the time of Bhanuvarman, son and successor of Viswavarman.

The date of the construction is given as 493 expired or 494th year of some Era; and the date of repair as 524th similariy. In the 494th year therefore Kumaragupta was king. The text of the inscription reads excellent sanskrit poetry; and it gives the year 493 expired "Malavagana Stitya" which means "according to the calculation current among the Malawas."

But the original Malavngana Stitya Dr. Fleet translates as "from the establishment of the tribal constitution of the Malawas." And he quotes a parrallel inscription (No. 35 of Yasodharman) in which the Sanskrit verse gives the date as 589 years (expired) "Malawa Gana-Stiti-Vasaat—Kaalajnaanaaya Likhitheshu" i.e. "in the years written according to the method of calculation of the Malawas for chronological (or astronomical) purpose". But here again Dr. Fleet translates the line as "from the (establishment of) the Supremacy of the Tribal Constitution of the Malawas"; adding in a foot—note that he does not quite catch the significance of Vasaat! ( Malava-Gana Sthithi Vasaat = According to the established malava Gana Saka ). But in the name of sanity, what is this fiction of the "tribal constitution of the Malawas". Dr. Fleet does not enlighten us. When was this tribal constitution established? No evidence is adduced on the point. But we are asked to believe that this was in 57 B. C. And so this Mandasor inscription, we are told, gives 494-57 or 437 A.D. as the date of Kumaragupta. This must be KumaraGupta I who lived in 127 of thc Gupta Era and so Q.E.D., the Gupta Era began in 320 A.D.! All this however, in simple English, is nothing but quibbling.

The Sanskrit words in the inscriptions are quite plain; they give the year according to the Malava Gana—Saka (725 B.C) in common use among the astronomers (Kalajnas) of Malawa. Malawa-Gana-Saka 725 B.C.-494 = 231 B.C.; or 96 Gupta Era (accordiug to the Puranas). The inscription (no.18) therefore gives the date 96 G.E. or 231 B.C. for Kumaragupta I who reigned between 94-136 of the Gupta Era, which began in 327 B.C. (or between 233-191 B.C.) The province Malawa attained its independence in 725 B.C., in commemoration of which the Malawa-Gana-Saka (or Era) was started in 725 B.C., by the people of Malawa. The western Indologists deliberately ignored this fact and wrongly identified this Era with Vikrama Era of 57 B.C., and consequently brought down all inscriptions of Malawa-Gana-Era to the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. Thus the Gupta Era which actually commenced in 327 B.C. was pushed forward to 319-320 A.D. So, a close examination of Malawa-Gana Saka is of great historical value.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

3. The Aihole inscription

An inscription has been discovered in the temple of Siva in the village of Iballi in the Dharwar district, recording a gift deed. The date of the inscription is mentioned in it as 3735 years after the Mahabharata war or 556 years of the Saka era, = 634 A.D., i.e., 556 + (78 A.D. corresponding to Salivahana Saka). The inscription is by Pulakesin II. The text has been published in the Indian Antiquary Vol. V pp. 67-71.)

The same has again been published in No. 34 of the Kavya Mala series, as the 16th document with the title "the stone inscription of Sri Pulakesin II of the Chalukya dynasty". The author has examined with the kind help of Sri Rallabhandi Subbarao Pantulu, Retired History Professor in the Govt. Arts college, Rajahmundry and Honorary Secretary of the Andhra Historical Research Society, the text published in the Indian Antiquary as well as the photographic copy of the inscription itself which are reproduced below:-

This has been published in the Prachina Lekha Mala with a little alteration in the 2nd line.
The text of the inscription should read when arranged in the prose order:-

Bhaarataa daahavaaditah, Kalau Kaale, Trimsatsu trishasreshu + saptaabda sata yukteshu + Sateshu Abdeshu panchasu panchaasatsu + shatsu + panchasataasucha, samaasu samatitaasu sakaanaamapi bhuubhujaam"

and when rendered into English:—
(37 years elapsed) after the Mahabharata war (up to the beginning of the Kali 1st year) and in Kali 30+3000+700+500=4230, and after 50+6+500=556 years after (the destruction of the Saka kings).

But this reading cannot yield any cogent meaning. So a mistake is inferred in the carving of the letters of the inscription and two alterations have been suggested and incorporated in the translation and in the text as published in the Praachina lekha Maala,
1. "Saptabda" is altered into "satabda" and
2. “Sateshu" into "gateshu."

with these alterations the inscription is made to yield the following meaning:

3135 after Kali or 556 after the Saka kings.

According to this reading of the text:
Since 556 of the Saka era is equal to 634 A.D., 3135 of Kali=556 of Saka era or 634 A.D.; Kali 1 is 3135-634= 2501, and the Mahabharata war is located in 2538 B.C.(= 38 years before Kali 1 according to this calculation,2501 B.C.)

This does not tally with any determination of any school of historians of Ancient India, eastern or western, ancient or modern.

So we suggest that two alterations are unnecessary. One, the second of "Sateshu" into "gateshu" is enough.

Then the inscription means that 37+(30+3000+700+5)—(50 +6+500)=37+3735=3772 after the Bharata war minus 556 of Saka era or 634 A.D. Therefore the year of the Mahabharata war=3772—634=3138 B.C.,which tallies with our determination based on other indisputable historical and inscriptional evidence.

The expression 'Sakanamapi Bhubhujam' in the inscription has been interpreted by modern Indian historians, as 'from the time of coronotion of the Saka princes'. That is not correct. The expression is to be interpreted not as we please but according to the traditional usage in the country.

Kalidasa has explained the expression thus in his Jyotirvidabharana ,Chapter X verse 109.

It means "who-ever kills the Sakas in large numbers would be called a "Saka Kaaraka", an emperor, and founder of a new era, ousting the previous era".

Salivahana who destroyed large numbers of the Mlechchas, the Sakas, and Protected the country, became the founder of an era after his name in Kali 3179 (A.D. 78), and emperor of Bharat. After the founding of his era, the vogue of the era of his grand-father, emperor Vikrama diminished.

Beginning of the Salivahana era Kali 3179 78 A.D.
Time elapsed in the (Salivahana) saka era 556 556

3735 634 A.D.

less 3101 B.C.

634 A.D.

This inscription had been discovered in 1880 A.D. But this date 3138 B.C. has been used all these years in our history as the sheet anchor of Ancient Hindu Chronology.

Dr. FIeet‘s translation of the inscription in the Indian Antiquary Vol V. p. 73 is as follows.
"Three thousand seven hundred and thirty years having elapsed since the war of the Bharatas and (three thousand) five hundred and fifty years having elapsed in the Kali Age and five hundred and Six years of the Saka kings having elapsed, this stone temple of Jinendra, the abode of glory, was conatructed by the order of the learned Ravikirti etc, etc."
This rendering also does not hold good.

It is clearly revealed in this inscription that after the Mahabharata war, by the year Saka 556(=634 A.D.) 3772 years and after Kali 3735 years had elapsed, i.e. the year of the Mahabharata war is 3772—634=3138 B.C. and the Ist year of the Kali era is 3735-634=3101 B. C.
Even after such clear inscriptional evidence has been available, to locate the date of the Bharata war in 3138 B.C, in exact conformity with the evidence of the Puranas that modern historians should ignore it all and persist in holding and propagating, even to this day, the erroneous view, foisted upon us by interested and prejudiced European orientalists, that the Bharata war took place in 1500 B.C., is significant and disgraceful. Even in the history published in volumes by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, under the general editorship of Dr. Munshi, the date of the Mahabharata war is given as 1500 B.C. If these modern historians have real faith in the inscriptions as they vociferously profess they should now change the views they had held previously, in view of the inscriptional evidence advanced above and endeavour to reconstruct the ancient history of Bharat from 3138 B.C., according to the Puranas.

The true histories of Magadha, Kashmir and Nepal, available in the Puranas and other indigenous literature of ancient times, proclaim unequivocally and with one voice, that the Bharata war took place 36 years before Kali(of 3102 B.C.) or in 3138 B.C.. Inscriptional evidence in support of the determination is now available.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

2. Maurya Inscriptions of Ashoka

35 inscriptions of Asoka have been discovered so far. But in none of them is the time of Asoka himself given. Only the year of the reign of Asoka is mentioned every now and then— eg:'in the 7th year of the reign of Emperor Asoka'. It is therefore not possible to determine the time of Asoka with the help of these inscriptions. Nor is any direct evidence forth—coming in the shape of literature, inscriptions, coins or buildings, for fixing with certainty the time of Chandragupta Maurya, the grandfather of Asoka, the vaunted sheet-anchor of the modern construction of Ancient Indian history.

If we consider the alleged evidence in the writings of the Chinese pilgrim, Hieun-tsang, it is admitted and declared by General Cunningham as well as the editors of the history published by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan that his writings are unreliable and contain more false than true statements. We have reproduced these opinions of the worth of the alleged writings of Hieun-tsang as evidence for historical purposes in connection with our discussion of Hieun-tsang. The alleged statemcnts in his writings, advanced in support of their theories of the time of Chandragupta Maurya by the modern historians must have been interpolated into his writings by themselves for their own purposes. These could not have been written by Hieun-tsang. There could be no reason for Hieun-tsang who visitcd India 22 centuries after the time of Chandrngupta Maurya to refer to the great emperor of such remote past. At least Hieun-tsang’s evidece is after all based on hearsay and popular tradition. Such evidence could never annul or disprove the indigenous history by native writers based on the court records of the emperor.

These modern historians have willfully neglected and ignored the authoritative historical literature of the country and therefore to buttress their unwarranted determination of the time of Asoka as the 3rd century B.C., they were obliged to resort to several fictitious statements, as:

" The Yona princes mentioned in Asoka‘s inscriptions as ruling on the frontiers of his kingdom have been identified as Greek princes of the 3rd century B.C., ruling in Syria, Egypt, Macedonia, Epirus and Cyrene by the European orientalists." But none of these kingdoms could have been on the borders of his empire.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Inscriptions - 1. Kharavela Inscription

Most of the Inscriptions, advanced as infallible evidence in support of their conclusions and determinations by the European orientalists, and their disciples among the modern historians of ancient India, are liable to criticism of the following eight kinds: 1. Misreading, 2. Misinterpretation. 3. Misrepresentation. 4. Misapplication, 5. Forgery, 6. Destruction,7. Rejection of genuine inscriptions as spurious, 8. Neglecting or ignoring of genuine inscriptions.

To support the alleged contemporaneity of Alexander the Great and Chandragupta Maurya and consequently the time of Chandragupta Maurya in 324 B.C:

The Kharavela inscription or Hatigumpha 1345 is advanced very often. This inscription does not contain any date within it. We do not know when it was inscribed. There are 17 lines in it. Only 4 of these 17 lines are legible and in a fit condition to attempt deciphering. They refer to the boyhood, of Kharavela and the stage when he was the heir apparant. Most of the letters in the other lines are defaced and hence do not admit of reading with definiteness. One or two of the letters are considered to be deciphered and others are imagined to fit in with their preconceived determinations and the whole line is published and interpreted as evidence to support their conclusions, by the European orientalists and their disciples.

It is alleged that in the 16th line of the inscription the date of the inscription is referred to as the 165/164 year after Raja Muria and this is interpreted as 324-165=159 B.C., on the assumptions that (1) the Raja Muria referred to is Chandragupta Maurya. (2) his time is 324 B.C., then, taking this date of the inscription, thus arrived at, of 159 B.C., as proved fact and (3) alleging that the inscription mentions the names of Nandaraja, Sungaraja and Kanwaraja, (4) it is inferred by these research scholars that Kharavela was acontemporary of three kings of three diffenent dynasties and (5) they also belong to 159 B. C. All this is mostly their own wild imagination as there is no number like 165 mentioned directly or by implication in any part of the 16th line or any other line.

E.J.Rapson writes in this connection:-
"This is one of the most celebrated and also one of the most perplexing of all the historical monuments of India. Unfortunately it has been badly preserved. Of its 17 lines only the first 4 remain in their entirety.-
All the other lines are more or less fragmentary. Many passages are irretrievably lost, while others are practically obliterated and can only be restored conjecturally."

Even the fundamental question whether the inscription is dated or not is still in dispute. Some scholars contend that a passage in the sixteenth line can only be interpreted to mean that the inscription was engraved in the 165th year of the Maurya kings or of the Maurya king, while others deny the existance of any such date." (Vide, Cambridge His. of India, Vol I, Ed. 1922 p.534)

N.B.:- No date is given in the original or in the translation, of Prof. Jayaswal or in the Telugu translation of Mahamahopadhya Kalaprapurna, Dr. Sri Chilukuri Narayarzarao Pantulu M.A.,Ph.D., Anantapur, published by Mr. R.Subbarao Pantulu in his Kalinga History of 1930, (Vide Kalinga_Desa Charitra in Telugu appendix p.25) by Mr. R.Subbarao Pantulu. M. A., B.Ed. Hon., General Secretary, Andhra Historical Research Society, Rajahmundry.)

Text of the 16th line of the Kharavela inscription as read by Jayaswal aud R.D. Benerjee:—

"Kharavela erected four pillars, ornamented with bells with precious stones embedded in them, brought over the Anga Sapthikam with four parts and sixty four limbs, bestroyed in the time of Raja Muria, (Kharavela is) a monarch of Security, progress and prosperity, a just king who enjoyed many triumphs."

There is nothing in the above lines to indicate any date. The sentence, ‘brought over the Anga Sapthikam with sixty-four limbs', has been interpreted fancifully to mean one hundred and sixty-four and tacked on to Raja Muria in another sentence and , a reference to the year one hundred and sixty-four after Raja Muria has thus been imagined and accepted as the date of the inscription (164 years after Maurya Chandragupta).

As a matter of fact only the first four lines of the inscription, which yet remain complete and legible, can be accepted as of historical value. The rest of the lines of the alleged text of the inscription and their significance alike belong to the wild imagination ol the western scholars. In the clear, and therefore acceptable, part of the inscription there is no mention either of Raja Muria, or Nandivardhana or Pushyamitra Sunga, or Satakarni, or the year 165/I64. Imaginary fabrications cannot pass for history. (for full discussion on the inscription please See pp. 139-149 of "The Plot in Indian Chronology" By this author.(Pandit Kota Venkata Chelam) )

Mr. V.A. Smith in his Early History of India writes:- Scions of the Satavahana Race apper to have established minor Kingdoms in different parts of the Deccan,"Early His. of India By V.A. Smith P. 226).

"Descendents of the great Asoka continued as unrecorded local subordinate Rajas in Magadha for many centuries; the last of them, and the only one whose name has been preserved being Purnavarma, who was nearly contemporary with the Chinese piligrim, Hiuen-Tsang in the seventh century," (V.A Smith’s His. of India P. 204)

"Later Mauryas reigned in Konkan between the western Ghats and the sea" (Vide V.A. Smith‘s History P 205.)

"Petty Maurya dynasties, apparently connected in some unknown way with the imperial line, ruled in the Konkan between the western ghats and the sea and some other parts of western India, during the sixth, seventh and eight centuries, and are frequently mentioned in inscriptions." (V.A. Smith’s His. P. 205).

"The early Pallava dynasty, and as late as the seventh century, the Chalukya Monarchs subdued Maurya Chiefs in the Konkan. A tradition recorded in an inscription of the twelfth century states that Kuntala, a province which included the Western Deccan and the north of Mysore, was ruled by the Nandas." (Early His. of India. By V. A. Smith P. 158). (For the Maurya survivals in western India, see Dr. Fleet in Bombay Gazetteer 1896, Vol. I. Part II, P. 202-204.)

Thus it is evident the Kharavela inscription does not in any way serve or contribute to fix the time of Emperor Chandragupta, founder of the Maurya dynasty of Magdha. It is far-fetched to translate as ‘Brihaspathi Mitra’ the name alleged to be found in line 12 as "Bahupathi Mitra" and then to interpret this name ‘Brihaspati Mitra’ as ‘Pushpamithra Sunga'. According to the chronology of the Puranas Pushpamithra Sunga belongs to 1218-1158 B.C., where as the Kharavela inscription belongs to the 6th, 7th or 8th century after Christ. Princes of the Maurya, Sunga, Kanwa and Sathavahana dynasties of Imperial Magadha could have nothing to do with it. It might be connected with the later descendents of the Maurya, Sunga, Satavahana and Nanda dynasties who ruled over petty principalities in the Deccan or others, borrowing their names, patronymics and titles.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Alexander's contemporary wrongly identified

The Greek historians who accompanied the army of Alexander the Great during his invasion of Western Bharat have mentioned the names of three successive kings of the country at about the time, in their writings. The names recorded by them clearly were Xandrames, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus. But European orientalists of recent times have been able to reduce the antiquity of the history and culture of Bharat by a wrong identification of the kings. They have wrongly identified the three names with those of Mahapadmananda, Chandragupta and Bindusara, successive kings of Magadha and hence determined (wrongly) the time of Chandragupta Maurya, held he was the actual contemporary of Alexander in 326 B.C., and his coronation to have taken place in 324 B.C. From this date thus arrived at as the basis, counting forward and backward for the times of the kings of the Royal dynasties of Magadha mentioned in our puranas, reducing the periods of the reigns of kings and, dynasties mentioned therein arbitrarily to suit their own convenience, constructed a false history and chronology of ancient Bharat. The Puranas definitely and specifically date the Mahabbarata War in 3138 B. C., and record the names of kings, and the periods of their reigns, from that time onwards, in unbroken succession; and according to their version the coronation of Chandragupta should have taken place in 1534 B.C. By assigning it to 324 B.C. instead, and making this the basic date for their chronology, the entire chronology of ancient Bharat has been shifted forwards by 1210 years. On the other hand, if the name referred to as Xandrames were to be identified as the Greek version of Chandramas in Sanscrit or Chandrasri, the last of the Andhra dynasty, and the other two, Sandracottus and Sandrocyptus, with Chandragupta and Samudragupta of the Gupta dynasty of the kings of Magadha, that succeeded the Andhra dynasty, and locating Chandragupta I of the Gupta dynasty as the contemporary of Alexander in 326 B.C., and counting back along the dynastic lists of the puranas the date of the Mahabharata War should work out to 3138 B.C., tallying with the independent determinations of its time on the basis of astronomical calculations and the Kali era, the calamity of shifting forward the ancient chronology and reducing the antiquity of Indian culture could not have occurred. But the European orientalists deliberately rejected the more plausible and correct alternative and fastened upon the less plausible and incorrect alternative for their own reasons. Sandrocottus is the 2nd name of the three. The last king of the Andhra dynasty was Chandramas (note the close correspondence of it to the Greek Xandrames). His minor son, who came to the throne after him, was killed and succeeded by Chandragupta, the founder of the Gupta dynasty. His son and successor on the throne was Samudragupta (note again the closer similarity of this name to Sandrocyptus than of the altogether different word Bindusara, the successor of Chandragupta in the Maurya dynasty. So Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty was, it is clear the contemporary of Alexander the great and not Chandragupta of the Maurya dynasty. By the wrong identification of the European orientalists of this basic figure (of Alexander’s contemporary in India), all the chronology built upon it has been vitiated. How can the chronology built upon such untenable foundations tally with the chronology in thc Puranas? If there is no agreement between the two, it is the chronology of the Europian orientalists, and the current accepted history of ancient Bharat that should be held wrong and rejected and not the chronology of tho Puranas. For the reconstruction of the true history of ancient Bharat the current history and the chronology in it has to be revised into conformity with the information available in the puranas. The starting point in the ancient literature of Bharat, of the ancient history of India, is the Mahabharata war of 3138 B.C. The starting point of the socalled ancient history of Bharat of the European orientalists and their Indian disciples now current and accepted uncritically is the date of Alexander’s invasion 324 B. C. The difference between the two is 2810 years.

1. Modern historians assign the Mahabharata war variously, some to 1500 B.C., others to 1900 B.C. They have not been able to show any direct inscriptional evidence for their determinations which is completely contrary to the evidence of indigenous tradition and historical and scientific writings of ancient times, annual calenders and daily repeated measure and progress of time.

2. They (the modern historians) are not able to show any direct inscriptional evidence for their hypothesis that Alexander and Chandragapta Maurya were contemporaries much less have they advanced any evidence of ancient historical records. The Greek historians who accompanied Alexander in his invasion of Bharat noted only the Greek (version of a) name Sandrocottus. The identification of this Sandrocottus with Maurya Chandragupta is entirely the inference and conjecture of recent European historians of ancient India. How can we accept it as a historical fact to serve as a basis and starting point ?.

3. Mr. E. J. Rapson is of opinion that Chandramas would be the equivalent in Sanskrit of the Greek appellative Xandrames. (Vide his Ancient India pp. 469, 470)
To identify the Greek word Xandrames as the equivalent of Dhanananda or Mahapadma nanda is inconceivably absurd.
The last of the kings of Magadha of the Andhra dynasty was named Chandramas or Chandrasri. His minister was Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty. His son Samudragupta was a commander in the Magadha army and led the forces in battle. The last Andhra king Chandrasri and his son Puloma who succeeded him to the throne were incompetent, and Chandragupta who was already the virtual ruler of the kingdom, seized the throne for himself, putting the minor Puloma to death.
If we work out the times of the reigns of the successive rulers of the different dynasties of Magadha according to the Puranas from the time of the Mahabharata War of 3138 B.C., the Andhra dynasty comes to a close in 327 B.C., and the rule of the Gupta dynasty commences. Then, in 327 B.C, the Andhra Empire of Magadha expired and the Gupta Empire began. At this juncture occurred the invasion of Alexander. The Greek historians who visited the land in the company of Alexander noted the names of the three successive princes on the throne of Magadha, Chandrasri, the last of the Andhra dynasty, Chandragupta the first of the Gupta dynasty that succeeded and Samudragupta, his son, a renowned warrior who extended his empire to the farthest limits. That, according to the Puranas, Chandragupta Maurya came to the throne in 1534 B.C., is admitted even by Sir William Jones. (Vide the fourth volume of his writings - in the chapter on the chronology of the Hindus)
In these circumstances, to identify Xandrames as Mahapadmananda and Sandrocyptus as Bindusara, with no conceivable similarity or correspondence to justify an identification is outrageous. With such identifications at the basis, the entire current history of ancient Bharat has been vitiated and its antiquity reduced. The king mentioned by the Greek historians could be only Chandramas, the last Andhra king and Chandragupta and Samudragupta of the Gupta dynasty and not Nanda and the Maurya kings.

4.There is clear proof available in the Puranas for the determination of the date of the Mahahharata war in B.C. 3138. The puranas date the commencement of the Kali era, 36 years after the Mahabharata war. The Kali era began in 3102 B.C. And hence the time of the Mahabharata war is fixed as 3138 B.C. Another era, the Saptarshi era, is mentioned, beginning 26 years after Kali i.e., in 3076 B.C. at the time of the ascent to heaven of Yudhishtira; it is otherwise known as the Laukikabda. Dr. Buhler, the European Orientalist says of this Saptarshi era:-
"I do not doubt for a moment that the calculation which throws the beginning of the Saptarshi era back to 3076 B.C., is worth no more than that which fixes the beginning of the Kaliyuga in 3101 B.C. But it seems to me certain that it is much older than Kalhana’s time because his equation 24=1070 agrees with it. It may therefore be safely used for reducing with exactness the Saptarshi years, months and days, mentioned in his work to years of the Christian era. etc. (Vide pp. 264-268 of the Indian Antiquary Vol. VI}.
Most of the wel-known European Orientalists, Sir William Jones, Dr. Buhler, General Cunningham, Dr. Fleet. Dr. Hultzsch, Dr. Wilson and others admit the first year of the Kali era in 3101 B.C., and of the Saptarshi era in 3076 B.C. The Kali era actually commenced at 2-27’-30" on the 20th of Feb. 3102 B.C., and has been used for reckoning time in all the indigenous calenders published from year to year and current in the different regions of the country.

(a) All ancient Indian historical writings vouch definitely that the Kali era begins in 3102, the Saptarshi era in 3076 B.C. and the date of the Mahabharata war is 36 years before Kali

(b) Some of the prominent among the European orientalists also have expressed their approval of this determination.

(c) According to the native calenders of the country prepared annually from year to year of the Kali era, the current year 1956 A.D. is the 5058th of Kali or 36+5058=5094 years after the Mahabharata war. So the Mahabharata war must have occurred in 5094-1956=3138 B.C.

(d) The Puranas give us the dynastic lists of kings and the duration of their reigns, from the time of the Mahabharata war, i.e., the chronology of the ancient history of Bharat from the year 3138 B. C.

(e) Nepal Rajavamsavali: The dynastic lists of the kings of Nepal begins with 3102 B.C., and gives us lists of kings before and after it?

(f) Rajatharangini, a history of Kashmir begins with the Saptarshi era i.e., 3076 B.C. These three eras, or standards for reckoning the passage of time and determining the chronology of the kings, have been in vogue in the country in their respective regions. We find in the Puranas, an additional clue for verification, in the observation that according to calculations based on the positions and movement of the Saptarshis or the constellation of the Great Bear, the time elapsed from the time of the Mahabharata war to the close of the reign of the Andhra dynasty in Magadha works out to 2811 years.

(g) There can be no doubt that the European orientalists were aware of these three indigenous eras. We have reproduced above the sentences relating there to, of one of them, Dr. Buhler. Similar extracts from Vol. IV of the writings of Sir William Jones assigning the Kali era to 3102 B.C., is given here-under. "Now the Hindu Astronomers agree, that the 1st January 1790 was in the year 4891 of the Kaliyuga or their fourth period, at the beginning of which, they say, the equinoctial points were in the first degree of Mesha and Tula, but they are also of opinion that the vernal equinox oscillates from the third of Mina to the twenty seventh of Mesha and back again in 7200 years, which they divide into four padas, and consequently that moves in the two intermediate Padas from the first to the twenty-seventh of Mesha and back again in 3600 years; the colure cutting their ecliptic in the first of Mesha, which coincides with the first of Aswani, at the beginning of every such Oscilatory period. (Vide "Sir William Jones works Vol. IV, page 52)

(h) With a view to reduce and discount the antiquity of the history and culture of Bharat, these European Orientalists have wilfully ignored these important indigenous eras of whose existence they were definitely aware and further initiated a false propaganda that the Hindus have no date in their ancient literature for the reconstruction of the ancient history of their country.
"No date or public event can be fixed before the invasion of Alexander. (Vide "History of India", 5th edition; p. 11 by Elphinstone; Max Muller's history of Ancient Sanskrit Literature pp 3-8 of the 1859 Ed., and p. 9 of the Allahabad edition; and Dr. Fleet's article in "Epigraphy in the Indian Empire"-—Imperial gazetteer of India —-Vol. II, pp. 3-6.)

(i) Thus the European orientalists have injured us doubly by their false propaganda (1) that we the people of Bharat have no eras of our own for reckoning time with the help of which the correct chronology of our ancient history can be evolved and (2) therefore there is no alternative to their procedure of starting with the date of Alexander’s invasion, of 326 B.C., for determining of ancient Indian history.

(j) A true account of the ancient history of our country could be evolved on the basis of any of the three above mentioned, wellknown eras and according to such an account based on any of the indigenous eras and indigenous historical writings of ancient times and the lists of kings and periods of their reigns recorded therein, Alexander's invasion in 326 B.C., occurs in the reign of Chandragupta, the founder of the Gupta dynasty of Magadha; and the coronation of Chandrugupta Maurya occurs in 1534 B.C.

(k) Obviously with a view to reduce the antiquity of the history of ancient India, the European orientalists wilfully ignored the ancient indigenous eras of the country of whose existence they were fully aware, alleged on top of that, that we had no indigenous eras to proceed upon; paid no attention to Xandrames, the first of the three names mentioned by the Greek historians who accompanied Alexander to India, identified only the second name Sandracottus but wrongly, delibarately, with Chandragupta Maurya instead of with Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty, fully aware of the greater plausibility of the other alternative; and thus shifted the time of Cixundiaguptu Maurya from 1534 B.C. to 324B.C., and making it the basis or sheet·anchor for the determination of other reigns and events, constructed a fanciful and false history of ancient India. They have no direct evidence, inscriptional or literary (historical) for their alleged contemporaneity of Alexander and Chandragupta Maurya. It is based on no authentic or authoritative evidence but merely on the strength of their conjecture, concoction and bluff dogged iteration. While on the one hand they cry hoarse over the lack of inscriptional evidence to confirm the facts recorded in our puranas, these gentlemen, it is strange to reflect, ignore the need for such direct inscriptional evidence to substantiate their conjectures and theories.

(l) To set up their wrong doctrines and theories the western historians have been producing some alleged inscriptional evidence. Our native historical scholars have been taught to insist upon such inscriptional evidence for every historical event. So we propose to enquire. in detail, into the nature of some instances of such inscriptional evidence,to prove to our readers, the unreliability and futility of such evidence and the conclusions based on such evidence.