Indian Antiquary Vol 41

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 172

168
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[JULY, 1912
The subject is interesting, and truth must be ascertained at any cost. I venture to lay before the public the results of my investigation for what they are worth.
Modern historians have been to an undue degree prone to discredit the narrative of Minhâj. They have completely ignored the fact that Minhâj was almost a contemporary author, and, more over, he did not rely upon information collected by himself alone. He is rather disposed to cite authorities and begins his account of the Sena kings thus :-" Contemporary historians, on whom be the peace of God, have thus related.” Another proof of his trustworthiness is that his statements accord exactly with the facts established by Dr. Kielborn by independent research. Minhaj declares that Rai Lakhmaņiab lived and reigned for 80 years and that Muhammad Bakhtyar sacked Nadia, in d. D. 1200. Dr. Kielhorn also found out that the era of Lakshmana Sena began in A. D. 1119-20, and there is exactly an interval of 80 years between this date and A. D. 1200. The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible that the era of Lakshmana Sena ran from the year of his birth. Let us investigate this matter a little further.
1. We get the following information about Laksbmaņa Sena irom Minhaj's book, the reliability of which is above inferred:
(1) Lakshmana Sena was in his mother's womb when his father died. (ii) His mother died in the course of delivery. (iii) He was set upon the throne by the royal officers just after his birth. (iv) He lived or reigned 80 years. (v) He was very old when Muhammad Bakht-yar sacked Nadia.
From quite a different source,--that of the Laghubharata, a Sanskrit historical treatise which seems to record genuine historical traditions, we get the following similar pieces of information about Lakshmana Sena.
(i) Ballála Sena, father of Lakslimana Sena, was absent on a war in Mithila when Lakshmana was born in Vikramapura,
(ii) False news about the death of Ballila in the Mitbila war spread abroad.
Combining the information gathered from these two different sources, we may conclude that Ballala was actually absent on war in Mithila when Lakshmaņa Sena was born in Vikramapura. False news abont the death of Ballâla reached Vikramapura and the royal officers placed infant Lakshmaņa on the throne. The queen died in child-birth. It is just possible that to commemorate all these important events, Ballkla introdaced the new Lakshmana Sena era. It should moreover be borne in mind that if this account of the birth of Lakshmana Sena be true, the birth and the coronation may be taken in one sense to have happened at one and the same time, as Lakshmana Sena was placed on the throne just after his birth, though by mistake.
II. Nadia was sacked in A. D. 1200. Minhaj says that Lakshmana Sena was 80 years old when the sack of. Nadia took place. Therefore he was born in 1200-80= A. D. 1120, which year is fixed upon by Dr. Kielhorn as the beginning of the Lakshmana Sena era.
III. Let us now consider the four inscriptions of Asokavalla. As we have already stated, three of the four inscriptions are dated, -the first in 1813 Nirvana year, the second in 51 Atilaraya year, and the third in 74 Alita-rajya year. Unfortunately Mr. Banerjee has completely ignored the first date on the ground that there was no concurrence of opinion as regards the date of Mahaparinirrána among the Indian Buddhists when Hiewen Tsang visited India. He ought to hare considered that the difference of opinion prevailing in the 7th century might have been settled
There are several proofs that Ballila lived beyond A. D. 1119, but we need not ontor into the discussion
here