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.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
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.
"(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."
(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.
"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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)