Thoramana was neither a Huna nor father of Mihirakula

The westerners wrote that Thoramana was a Huna and father of Mihirakula. But Rajatarangini gives the following information. As given in this book’s list of the kings, as related in the third Taranga, 'Meghavahana’ was the 80th king in the pure Kshatriya Gonanda Dynasty, the 81st ruler was Pravarasena or Sreshtasena or Tunjeena. Hiranya and Thoramana were the two sons of Pravarasena I. The first Hiranya was the king and the second Thoramana was the Yuvaraja. When ‘Thoramana’ had the image of “Bala" removed from the coins and substituted his figure on them and put them in circulation, the king Hiranya came to know of this and put his brother "Thoramana’ in prison where he died. These coins having the figure of ‘Thoramana’ were useful to the foreign historians to advertise that he was a king, but, in fact, Thoramana did not reign at all as a monarch. The wife of ‘Thoramana’ was called “Anjana Devi", the daughter of Vrajendra of Ikshvaku dynasty. As she was pregnant by the time of Thoramana’s confinement, she was kept in concealment in the house of a potter. She gave birth to a son and he was named after his grandfather and was known as Pravarasena II. Thoramana died in the prison and afterwards Hiranya died leaving no heir to the throne. As the state fell into anarchy, the ministers requested Emperor Vikramaditya of Ujjain to send them a king to rule over Kashmir. Then he sent his state-poet ‘Matrigupta’ as king who reigned for five years. On hearing the demise of Vikramaditya, in great grief Matrigupta abdicated the throne. Afterwards, Thoramana’s son, Pravarasena II became the king of Kashmir. All this was vividly described in Rajatsrangini and so, it is evident that Thoramana was a pure Kshatriya prince and of Royal race. This prince lived between 16 B.C. and 14 A.D., but was no-where mentioned to have ruled.

Vikramaditya's time - some more evidence

Evidence -3. Jyotisha Phalaratnamala

The scholar Sri Krishna Misra, lived in the court of Vikramaditya of 57 B.C. In his book "Jyotishaphala-Ratnamala," a work on Astrology, in the first Chapter , sloka 10 he said as follows:-

"Let that Vikramarka, the Emperor, famous like the Manus, who protected me and my relations for seventy years, having endowed upon me one crore of gold coins flourish for ever with success and prosperity?

This Verse shows that Vikramarka was then alive. Having consolidated his empire, Vikramarka went to Nepal; he made the king, Amsuvarma a feudatory, and as a symbol of his over-lordship founded his Saka in Nepal in 57 B.C.. (Vide "The Ind. Ant. Vol.XIII." PP 411 ff). Afterwards, Vikramarka returned to Ujjain, became a patron of poets and scholars and spent his time with literary debates and discourses at court.

Vikramaditya of First Century B.C.--Kalidasa's Jyotirvidabharana

Contemporary Evidence. 2. Jyotirvidabharana. By Kalidasa.

It is a wonder that while there is definite evidence from ancient records regarding the date of Vikrama and Kalidasa, historians have unnecessarily made this a matter of controversy and have established wrong theories. Jyotirvidabharana is an astrological work by Kalidasa. In that work the great poet says that he was writing it to enhance the fame of Vikramaditya of the Paramara dynasty (Panwar dynasty), his patron king. This work was commented upon by Bhavamuni in Vikrama Samvat 1768 year or 1711 A.D. In the following sloka Vikrama is mentioned as a great donor and as a patron of scholars.

Jyotirvidabharana. Sloka No. 4—89

In this book Kalidasa defines the much disputed word "Saka". He says that whoever kills the Sakas in large numbers would be called a Sakakaraka, i.e., the founder of an era and that he would be an emperor and a founder of a new Era, ousting the previous era.

Sloka No. 10-109

The date of Emperor Vikramaditya

1. Puranic Evidence, (Bhavishya Maha Purana)

In the Rajatarangini Kalhana mentions that Vikramaditya, the emperor of India, whose capital was Ujjain sent Metrigupta to be the ruler of Kashmir, which was included in the empire of the former. We give below all the authoritative evidences that go to show the existence of Vikramaditya during 1st century B.C., and request the historians to peruse them carefully.The above slokas mean to this effect:- "After the completion of three thousand years in Kali (101 B.C.),for the destruction of the Sakas and the propagation of the Aryan Dharma, by the command of Siva, from the abode of the Guhyakas in Kailasa, a personage will be born (to Gandharva Sena, the king of Ujjain). The father gave the child the name of Vikramaditya and rejoiced. Even as an infant he was very wise and gladdned the hearts of the parents. At an early age of five years. he retired to a forest to do penance,. Having spent twelve years in meditation, he achieved spiritual eminence and returned to his city called "Ambavati" or Ujjain. On the eve of his ascending the throne adorned with thirty two golden statues, came a learned Brahmin and he delayed the coronation ceremony with a purpose to teach the king a history consisting of several episodes, wherein the rights and duties of a monarch are enumerated. Then the Brahmin taught the prince all the rights and responsibilities he owed to himself and to his subjects and gave him a befitting and an efficient training worthy of an adventurous Sovereign. Afterwards, in Kali 3020 year or B.C. 82 Vikramaditya was crowned king. Then he expelled the Sakas and drove them as far as Bactria, conquered the whole of Bharata country from Setu to the Himalayas, and received tribute from the feudatory kings.

The limits of his empire was described in the Bhavishya Purana:— In the west the other bank of the Sindhu River; in the South the Setu; Badarinarayana in the Himalayas formed the North limit and the city of Kapilavastu, the boundary in the East. These were the limits of Vikramaditya's Empire.

Meaning :- "By the grace and command of Siva, Gandharvasena’s son, Vikramaditya reigned as Emperor, for hundred years. His son "Devabhakta" after ruling for ten years, was killed in a battle by the cruel Sakas."(Kali 3130 or 29 A.D.)

We deem it our duty to make minor alterantions to periods of Kings of Kashmir

Ancient records and old inscriptions should be the sources for history. The narratives constructed on the basis of personal predilections and racial prejudices should be considered as romances woven out of idle fancies but do not deserve the name of history. There might be lapses and slips in the traditional records maintained by the chroniclers from generation to genaration. In the absence of the printing press, certain errors might have crept in due to the negligence of the scribes or the lack of comprehension on the part of the writers. When similar slight mistakes occur, the duty of the modern research scholar will be to mend them in such a way as to maintain the trend of the popular tradition but not to mangle and mutilate the original with insertions and interpolations, so that it might appear a monstrasity. On the flimsy ground of a contradiction here and there, the historian should not condemn it as a legend and reject the first three Tarangas as Dr. Buhler did. Further, it will be highly blameworthy and injudicious to overhaul the old history and to write a new one so as to suit their misconceptions of modernity. As regards Kalhana and his Rajatarangini, the western writers played the game of ‘run with the hare and hunt with the hound'. Dr. Buhler, who rejected the first three Tarangas, expresses that "with this key, it wiil become possible to fix the chronology of the latter Kashmirian kings with perfect accuracy" and in doing so Buhler blows hot and cold in the same breath. We are not able to reconcile how Buhler could accept the authenticity of ‘Saptarshi Era' made use of by Kalhana and recognise ‘The last three books of his chronicle', while at the same time he rejects the authority of the first three Tarangas, (i. e. the whole history of the Gonanda dynasty consisting of 89 kings, covering a period of 3702 years from 3450 B.C., to 252 A. D.).