History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c34.s6.49

v3.c34.s6.49

This first explains why no Sena grant uses this era. We find that even Lakshmaṇasena's grants do not use this era but that they use regnal years. Nay even the Bakerganj grant of Keśavasena does not use this era. Secondly, Lakshmaṇasena died in the 80th year of this era and was, therefore, supposed by Mahomedan informers that he was 80 years old when he died and that he was crowned even when he was in the womb. Thirdly, the expression श्रीमल्लक्ष्मणसेनदेवपादानामतीतराज्ये सं. ७४ occurring in a Buddha Gayā inscription noted by Kielhorn in I. A. XIX (p. 2) is well explained. Kielhorn treats this date as given in Lakshmaṇasena era. We may note here that this is the earliest date supposed to be given in this era. But what seems to us proper is that the word atīta would not have been used in this sense. The wording would have been merely लक्ष्मणसेन संवत् if it referred to an established era (the words श्रीमत् and देवपादानाम् need not have been used). If the figure was intended to refer to regnal years, the words ‘Rājyavarsha’ or ‘Vardhamāna Rājya’ would have been used. The expression means, as some have well-contended, that 74 years had elapsed since the death of the illustrious or revered, prosperous Lakshmaṇasena. Lakshmaṇasena's rule was, as we have already said, prosperous and blessed and he was remembered throughout Bengal. Hence it was natural for people to assign dates from the end of his rule as that was the end of Swarājya in Bengal. The date would thus be in our view 1273 A. D. This of course does not take cognisance of the Lakshmaṇa era started by his descendant and counted from 1119. A. D. It is probable that this document in Gayā takes no cognisance of an era started in a distant part of eastern Bengal. Fourthly and lastly, we have no record to show specifically that Lakshmaṇasena the elder started this era; and if so in what year of his reign. Jayasinha of Gujarat started an era after himself and it was called Sinha Samvat. Lakshmaṇasena's grant published in Ep. Ind. XII (p. 8) mentions at the end only Sam. 3. and not Lakshmaṇa Sam. 3.