________________
DID CASTANA START THE SAKA ERA ›
Rasesh Jamindar
There are many mooted problems which Indian history has had through Its course of time Many of these problems have fetched and are fetching the scholars, from time to time, into the battle of arguments and counterarguements Sometimes the new findings or discoveries, such as dated epigraphical records, coins etc, offer historians to change their views or help them to arrive at precise conclusions or assist to advocate quite a novel interpretation or come to their rescue to put forth a new theory Saka Era is one of such problems which have brought and are often bringing scholars across the table for hot discussions
Many scholars, so far, have advocated different theories ruggesting different rulers responsible for starting this era This writer does not intend to mention, in this paper, all those theories that were and are current on the era under review and to subject them for a detailed examination There Is no such need of describing them all here as have been well discussed at great length by many scholars, particularly DR Bhandarkar1 and RD Benerji"
But, even then, I think it is desirable to discuss few of those arguments for showing their limitations and make new propositions regarding this cre
The theory that the king Vonones was the founder of the Saka era was firat propagated by Dr Bhagwanlal Indrajis, but later on he corrected himself and suggested that it was Nahapana, a Kshaharata Kahatrapa king of Western India, who started this era to commemorate his victory over Satakarni and as he was a feudatory of the Kusana king Kaniska that he named this era in honour of his overlord
But this theory of Dr Bhagwanlal Indraji was based on insufficient Information and therefore It is not acceptable for the following reasons (1) It is quite obvious that Nahapana had not but was defeated by Satavahan king Gautamiputra Satakarni, so the question does not arise at all of commemorating any victory by Nahapana over Satakarni (2) The dates mentioned in the Nasik caves inscriptions of his times are but regnal years which were not continued by any of his successors (3) He was, la any case, not a viceroy of Kuşana king Kanika but was an independent king as it is proved by this author (4) Kanlıka was not of Saka origin
