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.