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.



Several scholars account for their existence in many ways. Some think that they were surreptitious insertions of those to whom the greatness and glory of Ancient Aryan culture and civilisation was an eye-sore and heart-burn; or they were interpolations of ignoramuses who mistook Saka Era for Salivahana Era. Those, to whom the above possibilities did not strike are of opinion that Kalhana wrote these verses and criticise him for this blunder. The biased and the prejudiced, take advantage of these verses and propagate them as the real view of Kalhana. Below we give those slokas with their substance:-

The ignorant say that Bharata battle took place at the
end of Dvaparayuga; but some speak that this is false. So
I fix the date (1-49). If the periods of the reigns of the
several kings of Kashmir are summed up and the total is
deducted from the Kali Era calculation, we arrive at the
age of Bharata Kings, without remainder. (1-50). Kuru
Pandavas ruled after 653 years lapsed in kali Era. (1—51)
"We are to consider that those 52 kings reigned for 1266
years." (1-54)

There was no Indian who did not believe in the fact that Bharata battle was fought at the end of Dvapara until our country came into contact with the westerner. These western perverted notions did not take root at the time of Kalhana, that is, 4249 Kali Era or 1148 A.D. All over the country, the Puranas and the Mahabharata were read and held in high esteem by the people. Kalhana was a great Sanskrit scholar, who had an unshaken belief in the Puranas and he closely followed the ancient Aryan traditions. The readers of Rajatarangini can know Kalhana's faith and belief in our ancient learning and religion. How could such an orthodox scholar speak in a manner quite contradictory to Puranic litrature, that Bharata fight happened after 653 years in Kali Era and that Kuru Pandavas lived at that time. As such we can not give credence to this statement. So the above cited four Verses should be either insertions or later interpolations, by some one who intended only to dim the prestige and renown of the great fight, by transposing the dates and bringing the event nearer to our Iron age. It serves no other purpose.

The Vishnu Purana mentions as follows:·

In other words, the day on which Lord Sri Krishna went to Heaven, that day began Kali Era. In the face of the concordant evidence of all the Puranas and Bharatam, how could a sane critic and seasoned historian, of Kalhana's calibre, who was wedded to the principles of investigation, impartiality and independence, venture to chronicle that the incarnation of Sri Krishna occurred after a lapse of 653 years in Kali Era. When all the sacred books unanimously proclaim that Kali Era commenced on the day of Sri Krishna's demise, why should a truth-loving Sanskrit scholar Kalhana depart from the path of truth trodden by the ancients?

Further, the following Verses in Rajatarangini 1-55, and 56, evidently express the opinion of Kalhana. In these two slokas, Kalhana mentioned about the beginning of traditional nomenclature of time calculation in Kashmir as "5aptarshi Era or Yudhishtira Kala Era" or Loukikabda.
One hundred years is the period of passage of the Saptarshi Mandala from One Star to another. Its movement was decided by the Samhitakaras as follows, and I take it as my authority here. (1-55). When the circle of the Seven sages resided in the century of Magha star, Yudhistira or Dharma Raja, the eldest of the Pandavas was the ruling sovereign. If we add 2526 years to the Saka-Kala prevalent, we get the commencement of that monarch’s (Swargarohana) time, that is, of "Yudhishtira Kala Era or Saptarshi Era or Loukikabda. (1-56). It means that an Era came into being, after a lapse of 2526 years in Yudhishtira Kala Era. Yudhishtira Kala Era 3076 B.C. minus 2526 = 550 B.C. and in this year an Era came into existence. In the sloka 56, is the expression "Yutah Sakakalah" and the question arises to what Saka Kala or Era the reference is made.

Kalhana related that he accepted the statements of the Sanhitakaras as fundamental evidence to reach his findings. (Vide RT. 1--55). "Who are the Samhitakaras?" is the moot case. Originally the above verse, 1-56, is from "Garga Samhita". Varaha Mihira cited this in his Brihat Samhita, I have proved that Varaha Mihira was one of the Nine gems in the court of Vikramarka who lived in 57 B.C. (Vide Kali Saka Vijnanam Part 1, By this author). This ancient Garga was four or five centuries anterior in time. Even Western scholars agreed that either Vikarma Era or Salivahana Era was not prevalent at the time of Garga. So the Sake Era related in the sloka is neither Vikrama nor Salivahana Era and this fact is approved by all the historians. That is the age of the Persian Emperor, Cyrus, which began in 550 B.C. That Era being current in Punjab, N.W. Bharat, Kashmir and North India in Vrudda Garga’s time, found access into the Samhitas. This age was in vogue under the four appellations of "Saka-Kala, Sakanripa-Ka1a, Sakendra Kala or Sakabhupa Kala". The above sloka 1--56, mentioned in Rajatarangini and cited in Brihat Samhita of Varaha Mihira, was explained by Bhattotpala in the commentary of Brihat Samhita, named Chintamani.

The commentary means:- "When Yudhishtira was the ruling monarch, the Seven Sages (Saptarshis) resided in Magha star". In the same way, the Senior Garga mentioned that "the Seven Sages were in the Magha star at the transition age of Dwapara into Kali. In Yudhishtira-kala Era or Louklkabda elapsed 2526 years. To this figure, that is 2526 years, should be added the age of the Saka Nrupa Kala which was in use at that time: (Sakanripakaloyuktah karyah). When calculated in this manner, the total amount of years, will be the period that elapsed from the commencement of Yudhishtira Kala Era or Laukikabda 3076 B.C. The quotient got when the dividend of the years is divided by the divisor 100, should be the number and we must take that so many Stars from Magha elapsed, in the cycle of the Seven Sages. Divided in the above manner, the remainder should be deemed as the number of the expired years in the then existing star. As Magha is the star into which the entrance of the Cycle of the Seven Sages took place, the calculation should be from the Magha Star and the number of the stars will denote the lapse of so many centuries." Here Bhattotpala cited the sentence of senior Garga as authority in his commentary·

In the above quoted Sloka 1--55 of Rajatatangini Kalhana stated as ‘“Tatchchare samhitakarairevam dattotra nirnayah", which means that he accepted as authority, the calculations of Senior Garga and Varaha Mihira, concerning the movements of the Seven Sages." Among the Samhitakaras, the opinion of Senior Garga was mentioned in the commentary as "Kali Dvapara Sandhautu stitaste Pitrudaivatam " which clearly expresses, that the ancestral celestial group of Seven Sages-sphere was in the Magha Star at the time of the transition period of Kali and Dwapara, that is at 3102 B.C. Kalhana, in sloka 1-55 of Rajatarangini asserted that he had taken as standard the statements of the Samhita-karas and how could he write the self-contradictory Verses 1-49, 50, 51 and 54, which mention that the seven sages Cycle was in Magha at the time of 653 years in Kali. So it is evident that these four verses were forged insertions of some one and deserve to be deleted from Rajatarangini. Moreover, the first sloka, in the list of the Rulers, related in the end of VIII Taranga of Second Volume of Rajatarangini makes a misrepresentation and ought to be expunged.