Book of Indian Eras, with Tables for Calculating Indian Dates c26: XXI.—Era of Lakshmana Sena

Book of Indian Eras, with Tables for Calculating Indian Dates c26

Language: English

XXI.—Era of Lakshmana Sena

c26.1

THE earliest notice of this era by name occurs in an inscription from Buddha Gaya published by James Prinsep, in which the date is thus given:

c26.2

*Sri Mat Lakshmana Sena Deva pâdânam-*
*-atita râjye Sam 74, Vaisâkha-badi 12, Guran.*

c26.3

“The reign of Sri Mad Lakshmana Sena Deva having passed,” or as Babu Râjendra Lala translates it—

c26.4

“After the expiration of the reign of the auspicious Lakshmana Sena Deva.”

This era, therefore, was established on the death of Lakshmana Sena, the son of Ballâla Sena, Râja of Bengal. It is still used in Tirhut and Mithila in almanacs, but always along with the better known eras either of Vikrama or Sâka. Unfortunately the people, who thus use it, know nothing about it, and the equivalent dates give slightly varying results. I believe, however, that I have succeeded in clearing up the difference. I number the following statements for easy reference hereafter :—

c26.6

1. The earliest mention of the era is by Colebrooke, who speaks of “Lakshmana Sena as a renowned monarch who gave his name to an era of which 692 years are expired.”* The Preface containing this statement is dated 17th December 1796 : the year in which this era established must have been A.D. 1104, and A.D. 1105 would have been the year 1 expired.

c26.7

2. The next mention is by Buchanan, who says that, according to the almanacs of Mithila, A.D. 1810 was the 706th year of the era of Lakshmana Sena, which, as he remarks, places its beginning in A. D. 1104.†

c26.8

† Buchanan's Eastern India, III, 41 and 139.

c26.9

3. In another place, however, he gives a slightly different statement as follows : “In Mithila the year is lunar (*i.e.* luni-solar) and commences on the first day after the full moon of Ashâdha. Here they say that Sak was the same as Sâlivâhan, and this year 1810 is reckoned the 1732nd year of his era. It is also the 1866th year of Samvat, who, according to them, is the same with Vikram. In these two points they agree with the Brahmans of the South, and differ totally from those of Bengal. They have still another era called after Lakshman, king of Gaur, and of which this is the 705th year.”

c26.10

∗ Preface to the Digest of Indian Law--Essays, I, 472.

c26.11

4. Babu Râjendra Lâla mentions the *Saduktikarnâmrita* as bearing the two dates of Saka 1127 and Lakshmana Sena era *rasa+eka+ninsa*.* The book was written by Sridhara Dâsa, son of Vatsa Dâsa, a general under Lakshmana Sena. The words expressing the date are unfortunately defective.

c26.12

5. Babu Râjendra also notes that the *Dâna-Sâgara* was written in Saka 1019, or A.D. 1097, by Halâyudha, the spiritual adviser of Lakshmana Sena.† I mention this for two reasons: 1st, because it shows that Lakshmana Sena I. was reigning *before* A.D. 1105, when the era was established; and 2nd, because this Lakshmana must be a different prince from the Lakshmana of No. 4, who can only have been Lakshmana Sena II., or Lakshmaniya.

c26.13

† Bengal Asiatic Society’s Journal, 1865, p. 137.

c26.14

6. A copper-plate inscription of Siva Sinha Deva, Raja of Tirhut, gives the following dates:—“*Lakshmana Samvat* 293, *Srâvana-Sudi* 7, *Gurau*,” coupled with “*Saka* 1321, and *Samvat* 1455.” The Saka date is equivalent to A.D. 1399, but the Vikrama date of 1455 gives A.D. 1398. The difference between the two dates is only 134 years instead of 135. This difference was also noticed by Buchanan, who states that Kamala-kânta, the most learned Brahman in the Rangpur district, made the Samvat era begin 134 years before that of Saka.‡ In the Mithila district he found the same, as he notes (see No. 2) that the year 1810 A.D. was reckoned as Sake 1732 and Samvat 1866, with only 134 years’ difference. As the Sake date is the correct one, I have adopted it in preference to the Samvat date, which is but little used in Bengal. But the best proof of its accuracy is the fact that it agrees with the week day mentioned in the copper-plate. The dates are Thursday the 7th Srâvana-Sudi, 1321 Sake, or A.D. 1399. As the proof of this is very simple, I give it here as another example of the general accuracy of the tables for working out any luni-solar date. Sake 1321 = Kâli-Yuga 4500—

c26.15

∗ Notices of Sanskrit Manuscript, III, pp. 134, 149.

c26.16

‡ Eastern India, III, p. 506.

c26.17

c26.18

1643,662·2567 days ÷ 7 = 6·2 days over 1594,651·7489 = Thursday, 27th March 1399, 1st day of Solar year.

c26.19

49,010·5078 1600 lunations= 47,248·9406 = 27th March — 19 days.

c26.20

1761·5672 59 lunations = 1742·3046 8th March = 1st day of luni-solar year.

c26.21

Luni-solar year begins 19·6626 days earlier.

c26.22

and as Srâvana-Sudi 7th is the 125th day of the year, it fell on Thursday, 10th July 1399, O. S.

c26.23

7. There is another inscription dated in the era of Lakshmana Sena, which also gives the week day. Prinsep read it as Sam. 74,* which would be equivalent to A.D. 1180 and Kâli-Yuga 4281. This is the inscription referred to in the beginning of this account as being dated from the close of the reign of Lakshmana Sena. But taking Prinsep’s reading of the year as S. 74, my calculation shows that the week day does not agree with *Thursday*, Vaisâkha-Badi 12.

c26.24

8. I possess a third inscription dated in *Sri Mal Lakshmana Senasyâtita râjye Sam 51*. “In the year 51 after the close of the reign of Sri Lakshmana Sena.” Then follow some letters and figures which, no doubt, give the month and the day; but I have not yet been able to read them.

c26.25

In noticing the almanacs of Mithila, which mention this era, I have said that the equivalent dates give slightly varying results. This is even the case with the two notices of Buchanan, who in one place gives the year 705 of the Lakshmana era as the equivalent of A.D. 1810, and in the second place, 706.

c26.26

9. Babu Râjendra Lâla Mitra has collected several instances of the use of this era by the people of Tirhut.† He quotes Babu Rajakrishna Mukarji as having brought to notice the fact that it was still current in Tirhut, and that A.D. 1874 was the year 767 of the Lakshmana era. Deducting 766 from each number we get A.D. 1108 as the year 1 of the era.

c26.27

∗ Bengal Asiatic Society’s Journal, Vol. V, p. 657.

c26.28

† *Ibid*, 1878, p. 396.

c26.29

I also obtained several equivalent dates from some manuscript Tirhut almanacs in the possession of Pandit Babu Lâl of Darbhanga.

c26.30

10. The oldest of these was dated in Saka 1698, and Lakshmana Sam. 669, and Vikrama Sam. 1833, equivalent to A.D. 1776. Deducting 668 we get A.D. 1108 = the year 1 of the Lakshmana era.

c26.31

11. A second almanac, dated in Lakshmana Samvat 732, gave the equivalent dates of Saka 1762, and Vikrama Samvat 1897, both corresponding with A.D. 1840. Deducting 731 we get A.D. 1109 = the year 1 of the Lakshmana era.

c26.32

12. A third almanac, dated in Lakshmana Samvat 773, gave Saka 1802 as the equivalent corresponding with A.D. 1880. Deducting 772, we get 1108 = the year 1 of the era.

c26.33

13. A fourth almanac, dated in Lakshmana Samvat 730, gave Vikrama Samvat 1895 corresponding with A.D. 1838. Deducting 729 we get 1109 A.D. = the year 1 of the era.

c26.34

On comparing the dates derived from the almanacs, it will be seen that not only do they differ amongst themselves, but there is not one of them that agrees with the date derived from the copper-plate inscription, which places the year 1 of the era in A.D. 1107. These various dates are as follow:—

c26.35

| No. | 1 | Colebrooke | ... | A.D. | 1796 | = | 692 | L.S. | or | A.D. | 1105 | = | 1 |
| | ,, | 2 | Buchanan | ... | ,, | 1810 | = | 706 | ,, | or | ,, | 1105 | = | 1 |
| | ,, | 3 | Do. | ... | ,, | 1810 | = | 705 | ,, | or | ,, | 1106 | = | 1 |
| | ,, | 6 | Copper-plate | ... | ,, | 1399 | = | 293 | ,, | or | ,, | 1107 | = | 1 |
| | ,, | 9 | Almanac | ... | ,, | 1874 | = | 767 | ,, | or | ,, | 1108 | = | 1 |
| | ,, | 10 | Do. | ... | ,, | 1776 | = | 669 | ,, | or | ,, | 1108 | = | 1 |
| | ,, | 12 | Do. | ... | ,, | 1880 | = | 773 | ,, | or | ,, | 1108 | = | 1 |
| | ,, | 11 | Do. | ... | ,, | 1840 | = | 732 | ,, | or | ,, | 1109 | = | 1 |
| | ,, | 13 | Do. | ... | ,, | 1838 | = | 730 | ,, | or | ,, | 1109 | = | 1 |

c26.36

The differences are not very great; but in dealing with the establishment of an era, the strictest accuracy is imperatively necessary. What may be the cause of these differences I can only guess at. I notice that Buchanan refers the beginning of the year to the full moon of Ashâdha.[*] But I was informed in Tirhut that the Lakshmana Samvat begins with 1st Mâgha-Badi, while both the Vikrama and Saka years begin with the 1st Chaitra-Sudi. Babu Râjendra also states that the Lakshmana year is a luni-solar one, “commencing from the 1st of the month of Mâgha,” that is, *Mâgh-Badi* 1, or middle of January.

c26.37

∗ Eastern India, III, 139.

c26.38

Before closing this account I must notice a very serious error into which Babu Râjendra has fallen about Lakshmana Sena himself. After having translated the Buddha Gaya inscription dated in S. 74, which declares that the era of Lakshmana Sena began “after the expiration” of his reign, he on the very next page makes the era date from the beginning of his reign.* Thus he says, “Beginning with (A.D.) 1106 Lakshmana had a very prosperous reign of many years.” And again he says, “A period of 30 years would not be too much . . . and Lakshmana’s reign may very fairly be assumed to have extended to the close of the fourth decade of the 12th Century.” So that the year 1706 A.D. was both the beginning and the end of Lakshmana’s reign. Again on page 402, in his list of the Sena Rajas, he gives A.D. 1106 as the beginning of Lakshmana’s reign. Lastly, in page 397, in speaking of the Tarpondighi inscription, which is dated in the 7th year of Lakshmana’s own reign, he notes that no attempt had been made to trace the initial date of the era.

c26.39

How the learned Babu came to the conclusion that the year A.D. 1106 was the beginning of Lakshmana Sena’s reign I cannot even guess. He himself publishes the notice that the *Dâna-Sâgara* was written in Saka 1019, A.D. 1097, by Halâyudha, the spiritual adviser of Lakshmana Sena. This alone is sufficient to establish the fact that Lakshmana Sena was reigning at least nine years before the adoption of his era. But there is another fact recorded by one of the earliest Muhammadan historians, Minhaj-us-Siraj, which points very clearly to an earlier period for the reign of Lakshmana Sena. This is the statement that Lakshmaniya, the last Hindu king of Gaur, had reigned for 80 years previous to the conquest of Bengal by Bakhtiyar Khalji in A.D. 1195.

c26.40

∗ Bengal Asiatic Society's Journal, 1878, p. 398.

Linked texts (2)

Saduktikarṇāmṛta — Śrīdharadāsa, Sanskrit
Dānasāgara — Ballālasena, Sanskrit