________________
It has been pointed out by Jacobi that the stanzas place the accession of Candragupta in B.C. 312 and that of Pusyamitra in B.C. 204, while the latter king's rule is stated to have come to an end in B.C. 174. It will be seen that these dates do not agree with what we have inferred from other sources, but the disagreement is, I think, only apparent.
It has usually been assumed that the Jaina gathās are meant as a chronology of Magadha kings. The fact, however, that the first and last rulers mentioned in them belong to Malava and not to Magadha, shows, I think, that such cannot be the case. The gathās are in reality meant as an enumeration of the rulers of Central India between the Nirvāṇa and Vikramaditya. If such be the case, everything becomes clear and consistent. Puşyamitra, who is, as we have seen, called a Vaidiśā in the Mālavikāgnimitra, started on his career as senapati or senānī, i.e. general of the Maurya forces and governor of Malava, which had been suddued by Candragupta in B.C. 312. After having ruled there thirty years he rose against the Mauryas and made himself ruler of Magadha. He was then already advanced in years, he had a grown up grandson, but he did not change his ancient title of senapati before he ousted the Maurya's in Magadha. From the fact, however, that the Jainas consider him as the real ruler of Malava, we must infer that he had made himself practically independent of Magadha at an early date, before he started on the operations that led to the overthrow of the Maurya dynasty.
But if such be the case, he cannot possibly have ruled in Magadha for thirty-six years, as stated in the Purāņas. That period must comprise his rule as semi-independent viceroy in Mālava, and it is allowed to draw the inference that his rule came to an end thirty-six years after his accession in Vidiśā, i.e. in B.C. 168.
We have accordingly found that Khāravela's eighth year cannot fall before B.C. 174, and his twelfth year, in which he humiliated Pusyamitra, cannot be placed after B.C. 168. His accession must accordingly be dated between B.C. 182 and B.C. 180, a more definite date than what we are accustomed to be able to determine for the accession of ancient Indian rulers.
In this connexion I wish to point out that the results arrived at above necessitate a redating of Patanjali's Mahābhāṣya. Gold stucker and everybody after his time have taken it for granted that the Yavana ruler
तुलसी प्रज्ञा अंक 131
108
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
