History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c34.s6.50
History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c34.s6.50
- Language
- English
v3.c34.s6.50
Even if, however, it is supposed that the second and insignificant Lakshmaṇasena started the era from a previous king's reign, the question still remains whether the initial year of the era was taken from the date of Vijayasena's accession or that of the illustrious Lakshmaṇasena. There is unfortunately no definite data to settle the dispute. The Sena records give no Saka or Vikrama date; and only contain regnal years as do Pāla records. The Saka year given in Dānasāgara, a work written by Ballālasena is given by some as 1019 and by others as 1091 (शशिनवदशमिते शाके); i. e. some take it as 1091. A. D. while others take it as 1168 A. D. Sir Vincent Smith thinks that Ballāla was alive on this date and hence takes Lakṣmaṇasena as commencing to rule in 1170 A. D. My R. D. Bannerji believes that Ballāla ruled upto 1119 from 1100; and Lakṣmaṇasena ruling from 1119 A. D. from whence his era counted, probably finished the Dānasāgara in 1168 A.D. How Dr. Smith takes 1159 as the initial year of Ballāla's reign is not quite clear. There is, however, one argument which favours the chronology adopted by Smith viz. that the victories of Ballāla and even of Vijayasena in Mithila could not have taken place in the days of Rāmapāla, a victorious and powerful king of the Pāla line of Bengal who began his rule in 1084 (see p. 228). Secondly, it appears from Kumār's paper on Lakṣmaṇasena era (I. A. 1913 p. 187) that Lakṣmaṇasena must have come to the throne at about the age of 22, as he is said to have fought as Yuvarāja with Kalinga in the Mādharinagar copperplate (J. A. S. B. 1910). If Lakṣmaṇasena's accession in 1119 is accepted his death in 1199 being certain, he must have come to the throne wnhe quite a child. Indeed his inscription of Sam. 3 or 7 would have to be assigned to his childhood and as said before, he could not have been described as Parama Vaiṣṇava. As learned Bengali researchers are still not unanimous on this subject we leave this subject as undecided yet.