Sunday, January 24, 2010

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.

But the westerners styled him a Huna and made him father of Mihirakula. Now arises a suspicion, that Huna Mihirakula and Thoramana might hdve been altogether separate individuals, and if so, they have to produce evidence that they ruled in western India. The future historians have to take note of this fact. Mihirakula was the 64th ruler in the list of the kings of Kashmir. He was the descendant of the dynasty of Gonanda III of 1182 B.C,, who was the 53rd king in the list. As Mihirakula was of the 12th generation to Gonanda III, Mihirakula reigned from 704 B.C. to 634 B.C. In this family the 81st ruler was Pravarasena I, whose sons were Hiranya and Thoramana. Their date was from 16 B.C. to 14 A.D.. So there was an interval of seven centuries between Mihirakula and Thoramana. While the facts are so patent, the alien historians proclaim that the two monarchs were son and father, belonging to a foreign stock of the Huma race. We area asked to justify their misrepresentations and reconcile their absurd conclusions. In this manner, the western scholars transposed royal dynasties, distorted the Indian History and directed it in a wrong track. Thus they wrought all possible harm they could do. So we trust that even now, our historians open their eyes and attempt to write an accurate Bharat history, after a study of native sources.


No comments:

Post a Comment