SRI KOTA VENKATACHALAM – a complete scholar – historian






Edited by

Dr.K.M.Rao Ph.D., D.Litt

State President

Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Samiti



Dr.Sivaji Singh Ph.D.,

Gorakpur University

Dr.T.P.Varma Ph.D.,

Benares Hindu University,

Dr.Viswakarma Ph.D.,

Gorakpur University

Dr.RadheshyamBrahmachari Ph.D.,

University of Kolkatta

Dr.K.Mahankali Rao Ph.D.,

University of Madras

Dr.S.Kalyana Raman Ph.D.

Dr.Pappu Venugopala Rao Ph.D.,

Dr.Kolla Vepa Ph.D

Director, Intl India Foundation

California, U.S.A.

R.Purnachandra Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

K.V.Ramakrishna Rao, M.A.,

T.V. Rangarajan, M.A.,

Part – I

A Classic case study of Sri Kota Venkatachalam on Menander,
Milinda and Amtiyoka

Dr.Sivaji Singh, Professor of Ancient Indian History, Gorakpur University, National President, Akhil Bhara – Gya Itihasa Sankalana Yojana.

It is supposed that Menander was born at Kalasi-grams near Kabul (in the region of the ancient Yavana kingdoms) as mentioned in. the ‘Milinda Panha.’ His capital is said to have been Sakala or modern Sialkot in the Punjab. It seems this Menander handed over the administration to his son and became a Buddhist monk and gradually an Arhat. So, it is presumed that the story mentioned by plutarch of the king over whose bones the neighbouring cities contested for possession might have been true of him. The story related by Kshemendra with reference to Menander is also narrated with reference to Kanishka, it seems. Also it seems that in connection with a Buddhist image in Indo-China it is stated that Menander and Kanishka were associated. The author, however declares his opinion of such legends as follows: “Of course such legends are not always authentic; but the most interesting thing in this connection is the impression the foreign king must have made on the Indian Mind.” (Bhavan’s History Vol. II, p. 113).

There is no definite conclusion in the above account of Menander. This Menander is identified as the Milinda of Milinda Panha. He is, it seems assigned to the 2nd century B.C, but the author of the essay Dr. D.C. Sirkar prefers to assign him to 115-90 B.C. It seems some, historians opine that the Yavana prince who invaded India in the time d Patanjali and carried his conquests upto Saketa and Madhya-mika-Desa was only this Menander. But it is pointed out that in the interpolated Yugapurana chapter in Garga Samhita1 that, a Yavana invasion reached Eastern Bharat after the time of ‘king Salisuka’ of the Maurya dynasty and before Pushyamitra became king i.e. before the coronation of Pushyamitra, conjectured to have taken place in 187 B.C. It seems historical scholars are unanimously of opinion that Menander’s time is about 165 B.C. So he might have been a contemporary of Pushya-Mitra towards the end of his career but he could not have been the invader before Pushya-Mitra in 200 B.C.


1 Vide – “Yugapurana” By Pandit Kota Venkatachalam.

‘Pushyamitra, it is claimed, waged war with the Yavana prince Demetrius soon after he seized power and later, towards the end of his reign, with Menander according to some historians. It seems, in the Buddhistic. religious literature of the North-west of Bharat, the Menander of Milinda Panha lived about 500 years after the demise of Lord Buddha. All these statements are of the nature of conjecture and hypothesis and there is nothing in it of ascertained historical fact or inference (Bhavan’s history Vol. II pp. 113, 114.) A foot-note on page 114 says “Hieun-Tsang speaks of the four traditions of the epoch of the Parinirvana of (1) about the 3rd century B.C. (2) about the middle the 6th century B.C. (3) about the middle of the 7th century B.C. and (4) about the middle of the 9th century B.C. The first, second and fourth epochs are either too early or too late for Menander. The third epoch would place the Yavana king between the middle of the 2nd century and the middle of the 1st century B.C. It is Interesting to note in this connection that Keilhorn suggested an epoch of the Parinirvana falling in 633 B.C., with which astronomical details of the date of an inscription (Northern Inscription no. 575) work out satisfactorily.

Hieun-Tsang gives four different traditions about Buddha Nirvana:—

1. At the end of the 3rd century B.C. i.e. about 200 B.C.

2. About the middle of the 6th century B.C. i.e. about 550 B.C.

3. About the middle of the 7th century B.C. i.e. about 650 B.C.

4. About the middle of the 9th century B.C. i.e. about 850 B.C.

In Hieun-Tsang’s writings there is scope for the current provisionally accepted date of 486 B.C. If we count 500 years from the provisionally accepted date of Buddha Nirvana, we get 14 A.D. So Menander should belong to after 14 A.D. i.e. 1st century A.D. But even this is pure conjecture and based on the assumption of the identity of Menander with the Milinda of Milinda panha. Even the provisionally accepted date of Buddha Nirvana is itself based on the wrong assumption of the contemporaneity of Maurya Chandragupta and Alexander of 324 B.C. How can we expect the superstructure to yeild correct dates when the basic assumption is itself questionable and a mere conjecture. As soon as the hollowness of the original foundation of the entire structure is exposed and recognised the entire edifice topples down with a crash and the time for it is approaching It is wrong to identify Menander with Milinda. Menander even according to the author of the essay, Dr.Sirkar, belongs to the 2nd century B.C. It will be proved in the pages that follow that Milinda belongs to the end of the l4th century B.C.

Question :1. :- The Age of the Yavana king “Milinda”.

The Milinda Panha says that the Yavana king Milinda flourished (1) 500 years after the Nirvana of Buddha and (2) soon after the reign of the later Maurya king “Salisuka” and (3) probably before the accession of Pushyamitra (about 187 B.C.)

(Vide Bhavan’s history Vol. II, p. 113).

On the basis of the above hypothesis of our modern historians, let us try to locate the date of king Milinda according to their axiomatic hypothesis that Chandragupta Maurya was the contemporary of Alexander in 324 B.C. and that the Nirvana of the Buddha occurred in 486 B.C. It is held by all that “The date of Buddha’s death is thus the crucial point in fixing the chronology of the rulers of Magadha and other contemporary dynasties of the period. Although no finality attaches to this or any other conclusion, 486 B.C., may be accepted as a working hypothesis and most scholars now place Buddha’s death within a few years of this date.” (Vide Bhavan’s History Vol II. p 36)

“Recently E.J. Thomas has pointed out (B.C. Law Vol II, pp 18-22) that according to the Sarvastic-vadins Asoka flourished one century after the Nirvana of Buddha and this tradition may be traced even in the simhalese chronicles. According to this the date of Nirvana falls in the 4th century B.C., and a Japanese scholar quoted by Thomas, places this event in 386 B.C.” (Vide foot-note 1 on p. 36 of Bhavan’s History Vol. II)

“On the basis of 486 B.C., as the date of Buddha’s death, the accession of Bimbisara falls in 545 B.C. as he ruled for 52 years and the Buddha died in the 8th year of his son’s reign.”

(Vide Bhavan’s History Vol. II. p.37)

According to the chronology of the modern historians.

I. Coronation of Chandragupta Maurya 324 B.C.

The Maurya period lasted only 137 years

(as to their account)

(a) So the close of the reign of the ninth

king of the dynasty ‘Salisuka,’ 204 B.C.

(b) coronation of Pushyamitra 187 B.C.

II. Time of Buddha Niryana 486 B.C.

500 years later 500 B.C.


Milinda’s Time 14 A.D.


This is 218 years (204 B.C. + 14 A.D. = 218) after 204 B.C. So there is no agreement or possibility of reconciliation.

This shows that “The unanimous opinion of historical scholars, 165 B.C. as the time of Milinda”, as Dr.D.C.Sirkar stated (Bhavan’s His. Vol. II. P 113) is totally wrong, according to their modern chronology.

Puranic Account

Hindu Royal Dynasties of Magadha And

Their Reigning Periods

According to the Puranas.

Name of the Dynasty No. of kings Years reigned. From B.C. – B.C.

1. The Barhadradha Dynasty 22 1006 “ 3138 – 2132

2. Pradyota Dynasty 5 138 “ 2132 – 1994

3. Sisunaga Dynasty 10 360 “ 1994 – 1634

4. Nanda Dynasty 9 or 2 reigns 100 “ 1634 – 1534

5. Maurya Dynasty 12 316 “ 1534 – 1218

6. Sunga Dynasty 10 300 “ 1218 – 918

7. Kanva Dynasty 4 85 “ 918 – 833

8. Andhra Satavahana
Dynasty 32 506 “ 833 – 327

9. Gupta Dynasty 7 245 “ 327 – 82

10. Panwar or paramara
Dynasty from Vikramaditya 24 1275 B.C. 82 – 1193 A.D.

Then the Muslim Period.

Let us apply the three indications from Milinda-Panha for the time of Milinda, accepted and relied upon by the modern historians. The application of these three indications, on the basis of their basis chronological assumptions, could not lead them to any definite or plausible conclusion. Let us apply the same tests to the Puranic chronology.

According to the Puranas:-

Coronation of Chandragupta Maurya 1534 B.C.

Salisuka was the 9th king of the Maurya Dynasty.

Chandragupta Reigned 34 years.

Bindusara Reigned 28 years

Asoka Reigned 36 years

Suparswa Reigned 8 years

Dasaratha Reigned 8 years

Indrapalita Reigned 70 years

Harshavardhana Reigned 8 years

Samagatha Reigned 9 years

Salisuka Reigned 13 years

214 years 214

The close of Salisuka’s reign 1320 B.C.

II. The time of Buddha Niryana according to the Puranas.

– 1807 B.C.

Milinda – 500 years after – 500 B.C.

Milinda’s time 1307 B.C.

After the close of the reign of Salisuka in 1320 B.C.

III. Coronation of Pushyamitra Sunga 1218 B.C.

certainly long after 1307 B.C.

So Milinda’s time may be located between 1320 B.C. to 1307 B.C. There is no difficulty, no ambiguity no room for conjecture here.

So this is just an instance of the superiority of the Puranic chronology which is regular and complete from 3138 B.C. the year of the Mahabharata war. All the historical events of later times can be determined with definiteness and consistency if this Puranic chronology is accepted as the basis, without any need for conjecture or difficulty in reconciliation.

Part II

Age of Amtiyoka

The above mentioned ‘Amtiyoka’ belonged to a branch of Bharatiya Yavana Kshatriyas. He was the ruler of ‘Simhapura’ one of the five Yavana kingdoms 1. Abhisara 2. Uraga 3. Simhapura 4. Divyakataka 5. Uttarajyotisha. The other four rulers were subordinate to him. These five kingdoms were all beyond the borders of Asoka’s empire on the North-west and a group stretching in sequence from west to northeast. Now we find them included 1. in Kashmir, 2. in the North-west Frontier Province and 3, 4, 5, in Afghanistan. They were very small kingdoms. The people of these regions were Yavana Kshatriyas and martial people who lived on their arms i.e. served as mercenary soldiers under any ruler who paid them. Their women were very beautiful and they were employed as body-guards in the royal (harems) households of several Indian princes.

These mercenary soldiers were very loyal to the masters under whom they served and sacrified their lives if necessary for the safety of their masters. They were Kshatriyas of Solar descent. But they were excommunicated from the Aryan Kshatriya fold on account of their disregarding and discarding the Vedic rituals and observances. (Manu 10-43, 45) They were regarded as Mlechchas. When they could not secure employment under wealthy masters who could maintain them, they used to live upon theft and banditry, raiding peaceful villages and carrying away loot to their mountain regions. They were cruel, indulging in violence, theft, and abducting women, Their homelands were rocky regions, infertile and unsuitable for cultivation. Later in the 12th century A.D. they were converted to Islam. Even in very recent times, so late as i94 A.D. it was the people of these regions that invaded Kashmir and looted the villages on the border.

The kingdoms surrounding the Yavana states were: –

On the East – Kashmir and Gandhara.

On the South – Gandhara.

On the West – Ramatha, Amara Parvata, Hara, Huna.

Of these Ramatha was inhabited by a Kshatriya race known as Ramathas or Romakas or Rummas, Amara-Parvata by another Kshatriya sub-sect known as Barbaras, Hara by Haras (or Hurs) and Huna by Hunas-all kshatriyas. In course of time these Bharatiya Yavana Kshtriyas, as they increased in numbers’ migrated further west and established their colonies there. Rome was such a colony of the Ramathas or Romakas. The Barbaras colonised in the North and East of Africa now called the Barbary States. The Hurs settled down in the North-Western-Frontier Province and became Muhammadans and in Rajastan etc., they are now found among Hindus. The Hunas first settled down in Central Asia, but later as they became too numerous spread and came to the west raiding countries, in central Asia and India, sometimes in Europe also and settled down in various countries in Asia and Europe and established many kingdoms of their own mixing with the natives of those regions and evolving into the several nations of Europe of modern times.

Modern Europe might as well be termed a composite Huna kingdom.

“That the Europeans became in time many races and tribes and that they, mixing with the barbarians became themselves savages have been clearly proved by the researches of the European scholars (themselves).” (Vide Kallar’s “The Lake Dwellers” and Taylor’s “The origin of the Aryans.”)

On the North:-1. Saka or Sakasthan (modern Drangiana comprising the river valley region at the bend of the river Helmond, 2. Aryanaka (Aria) Capital Herat, 3. North Bahlika. Capital Balkh, 4. Darada (or Daradastan)

The above four were to the north of the Yavana kingdoms; towards the west of the Yavana kingdoms were located in order Ramatha, Hara, Huna, Sakasthana, then Iran, then Iraq and Syria and beyond the Red Sea and Suez, Egypt to the North-west.


* 1. “The Italian Archaeologist ‘Boni’ sees in the Forum of Rome a site of Vedic funeral practice indicating that the Latins were Aryans who reached Europe from North India through Persia and AsiaMinor,’ (Pre Historic India Vol, I, By Dr. V.R.Acharya,P.213.)

The Yavana kingdoms mentioned in Asoka’s edicts were comprised in Modern Afghanistan, in tile eastern part of it, stretching from South to North-east upto Kashmir. The kingdoms of Saks, Bahlika and Darada, to the north of the Yavana kingdoms were in those days independent states. So the names of the states or the people of the states who were also other branches of Kshatriyas, the Sakas, Bahlikas and Daradas just like the Yavana Kshatriyas, have not been mentioned in the Inscriptions of Asoka. So we have to infer that Asoka’s empire extended only upto “Taxila” on the. North-west and the influence of his religious zeal and humanitarian activities extended to the Yavana, Gandhara and Kambhoja states on the border of his empire (mentioned in the inscriptions). Even Kashmir is no where mentioned in his inscriptions. So Kashmir must have been an independent state of Bharat beyond the frontiers of his empire. To the west and to the north of modern Afghanistan existed in his time the states of Ramatha, Hara, Huna and Saka, North Bahlika and Darada. These are nowhere mentioned in the inscriptions and no inscriptions (Edicts) of his have been discovered in those regions. Only the Yavana, Kambhoja and Gandhara states have been mentioned as the states beyond the frontiers of his empire on the north-west and so it is clear his empire extended to the east of these Bharatiya mlechcha states. The Yavana prince across the border of his empire ‘Amtiyoka’ mentioned in his inscriptions could be only one of the princes or the Bharatiya Yavana Kshatriya states viz. “Simhapura.” The other four princes mentioned along with him in the inscriptions should be identified as the rulers of the other four Yavana states 1.Abhisara 2.Urasa 3.Divya Kataka and 4.Uttara jyotisha (Bharatiya Yavana states). From the western region of modern Afghanistan (comprising in those days these five Bharatiya Yavana states) to the eastern end of China the distance is 800 yojanas as mentioned in the inscriptions and throughout this region touching on the western and northern borders of Bharat Buddhism was propagated, to the north of northern Latitude 300, from the meridian of 62° east to the meridian of 120° east the distance works out to 58° x 69 (1 degree = 69 miles) = 4002 miles 800 yojanas (1 Jyotisha Yojana being equal to about 5 English miles) the distance mentioned in the inscriptions of Asoka.

“By the 3rd century B.C., the Greeks had established their empire and Greek kings were ruling in Egypt. Syria etc. There were historians among them who wrote long and regular histories of Egypt, Syria and Macedon etc., who carefully mentioned in them even the most trifling details of any interest. Nowhere in those histories do we find any mention of Asoka of Bharat or of any religious or humanitarian missionaries sent to their countries or of any institutions for the medical treatment of men and animals established by him or his missionaries in their countries All the above facts prove that the contemporary of Alexander was Gupta Chandra Gupta (327 B.C.) and not Chandragupta Maurya (1534 B.C.)” (Vide The Plot in Indian Chronology, p. 7, by this Author.)

Of the Yona provinces (mentioned in the inscriptions of Asoka) Dr. Bhandarkar says in his ‘Asoka’ p.29:-

They formed part of Asoba’s Empire and had therefore nothing to do with the dominions of his neighbours. There was a Greek colony of the pre-Alexandrian period on the north-western confines of India and it was established between the rivers Kophen and the Indus.”

Prof. Rhys Davids, the Pall scholar, expresses the opinion that “The story of the spread of Buddhism in Asoka’s time is better preserved in the Simhalese chronicles than in his edicts. They make no mention of any such missions to the Greek kingdoms of the west”. (Quoted by Dr. Bhandarkar in his ‘Asoka, p.158.)’

Dr. Bhandarkar further explains Rhys Davids thus:-In other words what Prof. Rhys Davids means’ is “that Buddhism could not have extended to the Greek dominions of western Asia— and as the Simhalese chronicles speak of the Buddhist faith being preached in Asoka’ time only in the bordering regions of India, that must be accepted as more probable and more accurate”.

(Vibe Bhandarkar’s ‘Asoka’ p .159)

It is a fact, that Buddhism was preached and prevails even to-day in all the kingdoms of Central Asia between Afghanistan and China, including Sugadha, Kucha, Kusthana or Khotan Sinkiang, Tibet, Mangolia, Manchuria, Korea and China, – a length of roughly 800 yojanas.

Megasthenes, in his account of India has not said a word about Buddha or his system”. (Buddhist India By Rhys Davids, p. 178)

“The Greeks do not mention Asoka” (Ibid. p. 181)

It is plausible to infer that the region of Asoka’s missionary work beyond the northern frontiers of his empire extended from Afghanistan in the west to the eastern borders of China. Buddhism prevailed in those regions for a long time and prevails even now to a considerable extent. But there is no trace of the prevalance of Buddhism at any time in Syria, Egypt or Macedonia etc. The states to which missionaries were sent in the time of Asoka, for propagating the religion, are mentioned in the ‘Mahavamsa”, a Buddhist treatise.

“When the Thera, Moggali-putra, the illuminator of the religion of the conqueror, had brought the 3rd council to an end, and when, looking into the future, he had beheld the founding of the religion in adjacent countries, then in the month of Karthika he sent forth ‘Theras’ one here and one there. The Thera Majjhamtika he sent to Kashmira and Gandhara the Thera Matadeva he sent to Mahish–mandala (west of Magadha). To Vanavasa he sent the ‘Thera named ‘Rakkita” and to Aparamtika the Yona named ‘Maha Dhamma Rakkita,’ but ‘Thera Maharakkita’ he sent into the country of the Yona. He sent the ‘Thera Majjhima to the Himalaya country, (i.e. Northern border) and to Savana Bhumi (Karna Suvarna in Burma) he sent the two Theras Sons and Uttara. The great Thera Mahinda, the ‘Theras Itthiya, Uttiya. Sambala and Boddhasala, his disciples, these five Theras he sent forth with the charge “Ye shall found in the lovely island of Lanka the lovely religion of the conqueror. (Vide the Mahavamsa, chapter XII, p.82) As stated in the above passage of Mahavamsa he adjacent countries of Asoka’s empire were the following:- (1) Kashmira (2) Gandhara (3) Mahishamandala (4) Vanavasa (5) Aparantika (3) Yona country means (Abhisara, Ursa, Simhapura. Divya Kataka, Uttarajyotisha) (7) Himalayan country (i.e. Nepal etc.) These seven kingdoms were independent kingdoms, They were not included in the empire of Asoka. They were adjacent and neighbouring countries touching and contiguous to the north-western and northern borders of Asoka’s empire. It is wrong to identify them with the Greek kingdoms of Western Asia, Eastern Europe and Egypt.

The 3rd council was held in the time of Asoka and the states mentioned in Mahavamsa in the passage quoted above were all adjacent to the northern border to the empire of Asoka. The coronation of Asoka took place 335 years after the demise of the Buddha in 1807 B.C. i.e. in 1472 B.C. The States to which Moggaliputra Bhikshu sent missionaries for the propagation of Buddhism include Yona, Kashmir, Gandhara and the north Himalayan states, Sugadha, Kucha, Kustana, Sinkiang, Tibet. Mangolia, China etc. The other states mentioned are all within Western Bharat. Ramatha, Hara, Huna, Saka, Bahlika, and Darada were all to the West and North of the Yona states and modern Afghanistan. These states are nowhere mentioned in the inscriptions of Asoka or the Mahavemsa as states to which any missionaries were sent. Yona is mentioned immediately after Kashmir and Gandhara. There is no mention anywhere of Egypt, Syria or Macedonia etc. Moreover the word ‘Greek’ is not found any where in the inscriptions of Asoka or Buddhistic religious treatises or any Hindu Purana or Sanskrit literary work.

In this connection Prof. Rhys Davids (the Pali scholar) in his “Buddhist India” page 196, 197 writes :—

“Now when Cunningham opened the Topes (brick burial mounds) at and near Sanchi he discovered under them several of the funeral urns containing ashes from the funeral pyres of the distinguished persons in whose honour the Topes had been built. One of the urns has inscribed round the outside of it, in letters of the 3rd Century B.C., the simple legend: “Of the good man. Kassapa-gotta. the teacher of all the Himalaya region.” Round the inside of the urn is the legend: “Of the good man Majjhima.”

In another Tope close by at Sonari two urns bear the separate inscriptions;’ Of the good man, Kassapa-gotta, son of Koti, teacher of all the Himalaya region.” and: “Of the good man Majjhima. the son of Kodini. In the same Tope was a third urn with the inscription: “Of the good man Gotiputta, of the Himalaya, successor of Dundubhissara.

“I see no better explanation than the very simple one that these men really went as missionary teachers to the Himalaya region, and that the fact that they had done so was handed down, in unbroken tradition, till the Chroniclers put it down for us. They make no mention of any such missions to the Greek kingdoms in the distant West.” (Vide ‘Buddhist India, By Rhys Davids p p, 196, 197.)

“It is difficult to judge of Asoka’s claim that his Dhamma was followed by the peoples of the kingdoms mentioned by him Greece knew nothing about Buddhism previous to the rise of Alexandria in the Christian Era, Buddha is first mentioned by Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-218). Centuries later Alberuni observed that ‘in former times, Khorasan, Persia, Iraq. Mosul and the country up to the frontier of Syria was Buddhistic’. (Sachau, Alberuni’s India p. 21,). That Indian culture spread to these regions during this period can hardly be doubted, but its extent cannot be, estimated till more positive evidence is available.” (Vide Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan’s History Vol. II, page 616.)

“We have evidence to show that Buddhism, and along with it Indian culture, was spread among the Parthians, the Yuch-chi, the Sogdians and various other peoples of central Asia before the beginning of the Christian Era. Even the Sassanians of the third century A.D. regarded Bactriana as virtually an Indian country and the Oxus, a river of Buddhists and the Brahmanas. The Greek writers always cite Bactriana with India and state that thousands of Brahmanas and Samanas (Buddhist monks) resided there. The recent explorations in Chinese Turkestan have revealed the existence of a large number of flourishing cities with rich sanctuaries and introduced us to a new world of Indian culture which calls for a more detailed study,”

“The Tarim basin, to which all the three routes led, is popularly known as Chinese Turkestan, and corresponds to the modern province of Sinkiang. This region lies immediately to the west of China.

“It was subsequently a meeting ground of diverse peoples and cultures, such as Indians, Persians, Turks, Chinese, Tibetans, Buddhists, Jews, Christians and Manichaeans. Two roads passing along its northern and southern fringes led from the west of China. Kashgar on the western border, may be regarded as the starting point of both these routes which met on the Chinese frontier in east at a place called. Yu-men-Kuan or the Jade Gate, not far from the hills of Tunhwang which contain the caves of the thousand Buddhas.”

“Along the southern route there were Indian colonies at Shule or Sailadesa (Kashgar). So-Khiu or Chokkuka (Yarkand), Khotamna (Khotan) and also at Domoko, Niya, Dandan-Oilik’ Endere, Lou-Ian, Rawak and Miran; and along the northern route at Po-lu-ki or Bharuka (Aqsu district, near Uch-Turfan), Kuchi modern Kucha), Yen-ki (or Yen-chi) or Agni-desa (modern Qara-Shahr) and Turfan, in addition to various other localities Future Explorations would no doubt considerably add to this number.

“Buddhism was the prevailing religion in all these localities. This is proved not only by the discovery of images and the remains of Buddhist stupas, shrines and Viharas built after Indian models, but also by a large number of Buddhist texts, written in Sanskrit and Prakrit as well as in local languages of Central Asia and in Indian scripts, both Brahmi and Kharoshthi. Large numbers of secular documents have also been discovered. These are written in Indian languages and scripts on wodden tablets, leather, paper and silk. (Vide Bharatiya Vidya Bhayan’s History Vol II, page 638,)

“Khotan was very important centre of Buddhism. Its famous monastery. Gomati-Vihara was one of the biggest institutions of Buddhist learning in Central Asia. A number of able Indian scholars lived there, and many Chiense pilgrims, instead of coming to India for special instructions stayed in Khotan. The learned monks of Gomati-Vihara composed texts which were regarded almost as canonical.

(Bagehi, India and China, pp. 14-15)

“There were other Indian colonies on the southern route like Khotan but, beyond archaeological remains, we have no historical information about any of them.

‘On the northern route, Kuchi (modern Kucha) was the leading centre of Indian culture. (Cf. S.Levi’s account of Kucha in JRAS, 1914 pp 959 ff.) Its ancient rulers bore Indian names such as Suvarnapushpa, Haripushpa, Haradeva, Suvarnadeva, etc., It was a flourishing city with a number of large Buddhist monasteries and splendid buildings. Kuchi had received Buddhism from India at a very early period and the whole of the 1ocal civilization was Buddhist. The 1iterature discovered at Kuchi throws interesting light on the method of studying Sanskrit, the sacred language taught in the local monasteries. The students began with learning the alphabet, and many alphabetical tables have been dug out traced by more or less skilled hands.”

“Sanskrit grammar was then studied according to the Katantra system, presumable because it was more fitted than Panini for non-Indians. Then the students made verbatim translations from Sanskrit into Kuchean. In addition to famous religious texts like Udanavarga, we, have actual examples of astronomical and medical texts treated in this manner. This incidentally shows how, in addition to religion and its handmaid art. Indian astronomy, or rather astrology, and medicine were spread in this region. There was an extensive Kuchean literature, but all the works are based upon Sanskrit originals. At Ming-Oi, west of Kuchi, Brahmi fragments in Sanskrit have been found which belong to the second century A.D., (CII, II Part 1, p. Lxxiii). Kuchi was also an important centre for the propaganda of Buddhism in other countries.”

“Beyond Kuchi, ‘Qara Shahr’ was also an important Indian colony. It was known as Agnidess and its kings had Indian names like Indrarjuna, Chandrarjuna, etc. Like Kuchi it also played an active part in the spread of Buddhism to China and other countries. Another important site is Bazaklik. It was an important Buddhist centre with hundreds of temples which had wall-paintings of Indian monks in yellow robe with names written in Brahmi to distinguish them from other monks in violet robes, with names written in Chinese and Tibetan.”

“It is not possible here to refer in detail to all ancient sites which were colonised by the Indians and the antiquities discovered in them. Taken as a whole, the artistic remains architecture, sculpture and painting and the large number of written texts discovered in Central Asia, constitute a massive and most enduring monument of Indian culture and civilization which must have been widely spread all over the region, in the early centuries of the Christian Era. Although Buddhism was the prevailing religion, Brahmanical culture was not altogether absent. This is proved by the seals with effigies of Kubera and Trimukha, discovered at Niya and the, painted Ganesha at Endere, Both Hinayana and Mahayana forms of Buddhism were prevalent, but by far the largest number of paintings and sculptures belong to the latter.”

(Ibid pp. 641—642)

“According to Chinese tradition, Buddhist missionaries from India proceeded to China as early as 217 B.C., but this can hardly be accepted as historical. According to another account, a Chinese general, who led a military expedition to Central Asia in 121 B.C, brought a golden statue of the Buddha, and thus the Chinese first came to know of Buddhism. This is also very doubtful. It is however, definitely known that in the year 2 B.C. the Yueh-chi rulers in Oxus valley presented some Buddhist texts to the Chinese

count.” (Ibid page 645)

“The official account of the introduction of Buddhism into China places the event in A.D. 65. In that year the Han emperor Ming-ti saw a golden man in a dream and was told by his courtiers that it was the Buddha. He accordingly send ambassadors to the west, who brought with them two Indian monks named Dharmaratna (Bagchi (op.cit) gives the name Dharmaraksha on pp.7 and 32 and Dharmaratna on p.217. The last is also given in Le Canon Bouddhiqueen China, p. 4) and Kasyapa Matanga. These missionaries brought a load of sacred texts and relics on a white horse. Hence the monastery built for them by Imperial, order at the capital city was called “The White Horse Monastery.” The two monks spent the rest of their lives in China, translating Buddhist texts into Chinese and preaching Buddhism among the people,”

“This story is probable, substantially correct. But Buddhism must have also passed into China by the other overland route from India through Burma. There are good grounds to believe that Buddhist missionaries came by this route and were already active in China by the middle of the first century A.D.” (Ibid pages 645.)

According to Asokan inscriptions and Mahavamsa Buddhism was preached in the countries adjacent to the western and northern borders of Asokan empire i. e. the five Yona provinces (Uttarajyotisha, Divya Kataka, Simhapura, Urasa, Abhisara,) Kashmir, Sakastan, Daradastan, Bactria, Kucha, Kustana, Yarkand, Khotan, Sinkiang and China, a distance of 800 yojanas (i.e 4000 miles) from the west of Afganistan to China in the east in the time of Asoka. (15th century B.C.)


Astronomical Evidence in Sanskrit Literature for Historical Facts


Dr.S.Kalyanaraman, Ph.D


Sarasvati Sindhu Research Centre

5, Temple Avenue, Sri nagar colony,

Chennai 600 015.




The Great Bear was, according to the Puranas, in Magha at the time of the birth of Parikshit (i.e., at the time of the Mahabharata war) and it would be at the beginning of the 24th star century thereafter, in the starting time of the Andhra dynasty of Magadha. In the beginning of the 28th century—the time of the 24th Andhra king—it will be again in Magha in the next revolution.

The Great Bear will be with each star for a period of 100 years. While it was in Magha, the birth of Parikshit, the Mahabharata war, the coronation of Yudhishtira and the beginning of the Yudhishtira Era—took place in one year. (3138 B.C.) The Kali Era began 36 years afterwards. (3102 B.C.) In the 26th year of Kali (3076 B.C.) the Great Bear left Magha and passed to the next star and then began the Sapta-Rishi Era (known as the Yudhishtira Kala Era or the Loukikabda).

The Great Bear remained in Magha for 61 years (36 + 25) in the Yudhishtira Era and for 39 years previously.

Our ‘astronomical science as well as the Puranas agree unanimously that 2700 years should pass before the Great Bear can complete one cycle of the stars and be again in Magha. Therefore in 2661 of the Kali Era the 24th Andhra King of Magadha “Sivasatakarni” reigned for 28 years—from 2677—2705 of the Yudhishtira Era (or from the birth of Parikshit), as in his reign the Great Bear was again in Magha according to the Puranas. Our Rishis recorded frequently n the Puranas, details of the astronomical phenomena, the positions of planets and stars, with the intention that it might be possible, with their help, to rectify any mistakes that might arise in the figures assigned to the reigns of the different kings and dynasties in the Puranas as they were handed down orally from generation to generation of scholars, or due to any misunderstanding of the writer when they were reduced to writing or errors in printing when the manuscripts were later printed.

But the Western scholars deliberately ignored this information and refrained from making any use of it in verifying their interpretation of the Puranas or calculating the reigns of the kings mentioned therein.



(Printed in 1877 by Puvvada Yenkatarayarya in Telugu script)

“Ata Urdhvam pravakshyami magadha ye Brihadradhah Purvena ye Jarasandhat sahadevanvaye nrupah” (269—18)

And now we proceed to enumerate the kings of Magadha of the Brihadradha dynasty, and in Chap. 271 No. 38 to 47 verses:

“From the time of the birth of Parikshit to the coronation of Mahapadmananda 1500 years passed.” (Verse 38)

“Again from Mahapadmananda to the dynasty of the Andhra (who were known as Pulomas) the interval is 836 years.” (Verse 39)

“That period (i.e. 1500+836=2336 years) is the time that passed from the time of the birth of Parikshit to the beginning of the Andhras according to those Rishis versed in the Puranas.” (Verse 40)

“The Great Bear was then (at the time of the birth of Parikshit) in the star century of the towering brilliant Agni (the presiding deity of Kritthika according to Srutarshis) and after 2700 years in the time of the very Andhra kings the cycle repeats itself : (i.e. it will be again in Kritthika.) (Verse 41)

“The Great Bear remains in the region of each star of the Zodiac for a period of 100 years.” (Verse 42)

“The Great Bear goes round the cycle of the Zodiac in 7½ celestial years.” (i.e. 7½ X 360 X 2700 years) (Verse 43)

“As the two stars in the east of the Great Bear (Kratu and Pulaha) rise at midnight, if we see through the middle point of the line joining the two stars, (Kratu and Pulaha) the star in the Zodiac lying on the line, is the star in which the Great Bear is said to be located. This is Kritthika. There in that star, the Great Bear remains for 100 years (Verses 44,45) (This reckoning is according to Srutarshis and Varahamihira)

“This is the way to know the position of the Great Bear in the star. (Verse 46, 1st Stanza).

“At the time of Parikshit the Great Bear was in Magha for 100 years.” (Verse 46, 2nd stanza) (according to Purana and Vriddha Garga)

The reckoning of the Puranas and Vriddha Garga is as follows:

“As the two stars in the east of the Great Bear (Kratu and Pulaha) rise at midnight, if a straight line is drawn through the Pole-Star and the two stars due south, the star in the Zodiac lying on the line, is the star in which the Great Bear is said to be located (This star is Maghas). There, in that star, the Great Bear remains for 100 years.”

Here one may object that :

As the Saptarshis cannot be, at one and the same time in two different asterisms, Maghas and Kritthikas, the statements with regard to these two intervals of time, must be equally unfounded and inaccurate.

The answer to this objection is very simple.

The discrepancy is purely nominal and not real. The substance is the same, substance is the same, but only the nomenclature differs. What is ‘Magha’ according to Vriddha Garga and the Puranas is ‘Kritthika’ according to Srutarshis and Varahamihira and so the century consisting of the years 3177 to 3077 B. C. will be the Magha century of the Saptarshi Era according to the Puranas and Vriddha Garga, while the same will be designated as the Krittika century of the Saptarshi Era by the Srutarshis and Varahamihira.

[For full explanation, please vide “Indian Eras” by this author.)

“By the time of the beginning of the Andhra dynasty it will be in the 24th star century. Thereafter there will be many evils in the whole world and difficulties for the people.” [Verse 47]


According to the The Saptarshi Era or Laukikabda Initial According to

Puranas Years of Centuries Srutarshis

and Vriddha Garga and Varahamihira

No. Name of Nakshattras 1st Cycle 2nd Cycle 3rd Cycle Name of Nakshattras

B.Y. B.C. A.Y. B.C. A.Y. B.C.

1 Magha 2738 5877 38 3177 2662 477 Krittika


2 Aslesha 2638 5777 62 3077 2762 377 Bharani

3 Pushyami 2538 5677 162 2977 2862 277 Asvani

4 Punarvasu 2438 5577 262 2877 2962 177 Revati

5 Ardra 2338 5477 362 2777 3062 77 Uttara Bhadrapada


6 Mrigasira 2238 5377 462 2677 3162 25 Purva Bhadrapada

7 Rohini 2138 5277 562 2577 3262 125 Satabhisha

8 Krittika 2038 5177 662 2477 3362 225 Dhanishtha

9 Bharani 1938 5077 762 2377 3462 325 Sravana

10 Asvini 1838 4977 862 2277 3562 425 Uttara Ashadha

11 Revati 1738 4877 962 2177 3662 525 Purva Ashada

12 Uttara Bhadrapada 1638 4777 1062 2077 3762 625 Mula

13 Purva Bhadrapada 1538 4677 1162 1977 3862 725 Jyeshtha

14 Satabhisha 1438 4577 1262 1877 3962 825 Anuradha

15 Dhanishtha 1338 4477 1362 1777 4062 925 Visakha

16 Sravana 1238 4377 1462 1677 4162 1025 Svati

17 Uttara Ashadha 1138 4277 1562 1577 4262 1125 Chittra

18 Purva Ashadha 1038 4177 1662 1477 4362 1225 Hasta

19 Mula 938 4077 1762 1377 4462 1325 Uttara Phalguni

20 Jyeshtha 838 3977 1862 1277 4562 1425 Purva Phalguni

21 Anuradha 738 3877 1962 1177 4662 1525 Magha

22 Visakha 638 3777 2062 1077 4762 1625 Aslesha

23 Svati 538 3677 2162 977 4862 1725 Pushya

24 Chittra 438 3577 2262 877 4962 1825 Punarvasu

25 Hasta 338 3477 2362 777 5062 1925 Ardra

26 Uttara Phalguni 238 3377 2462 677 5162 2025 Mrigasiras

27 Purva Phalguni 138 3277 2562 577 5262 2125 Rohini

“At the birth of Parikshit the Great Bear was in Magha star century. By the time of the beginning of the Andhra dynasty it will be in the [beginning of the] 24th star century.”

The Brahmanda Purana also gives the same version. Chap.74. Verse 236.

The Great Bear was at the time of the birth of Parikshit in the Magha century. By the time of the beginning of the Andhras it will be in the 24th star century after Magha. After 2700 years from the birth of Parikshit in the time of the very Andhra dynasty [i.e. in the time of the 24th Andhra king] it will complete one revolution from Magha and start on the 2nd revolution beginning again from Magha. [vide Matsya, Vayu and Brahmanda Puranas From the end of the 24th king eight Andhra kings reigned at Magadha for 106 years. The 24th Andhra king “Siva Satakarni” reigned till 2705th year from the birth .of Parikshit or from the Mahabharata War. From the 25th Andhra king to the last king 106 years. [2705 + 106=2811] 2811 years, from the birth of Parikshit [or the Bharata War] to the end of the Andhra dynasty.

Birth of Parikshit 3138 B.C.

End of the Andhras 2811 years after the birth of Parikshit

Starting of the Gupta Era 327 B.C.

Gupta dynasty’s beginning and
Alexander’s invasion 326 B.C.


An attempt was made centuries back in our country to study critically the accounts of the dynasties of the kings of Kali given in our Puranas, to detect and amend the errors due to ignorant scribes, and misreading and misinterpretation by malicious and biassed interpreters, and to evolve a valid and authoritative account of the dynasties of the Kings of Kali based on the maximum of agreement among the varying texts of the different Puranas. The result of this exhaustive and critical enquiry was published in the Sanskrit language in the form of a treatise entitled “Kali Yuga Raja Vrittanta.” In this treatise a connected and consistent account of the history of our country down to the eighth century after Christ has been given in detail based upon- our Puranas and in agreement with the references in them to the movement of the Great Bear [Saptarshi Mandala]. This Great book has been rejected and sneered at by some as a mere forgery and despised and neglected by others as belonging to the tenth or the sixteenth or even the eighteenth century. This is a highly regrettable mistake on the part of modern historians and students of the history of India. Let us remind them that all their histories regarding India were written at the end of the 19th century. ‘-

It is not fair to reject or despise such a treatise merely because it runs counter to the current accepted history. This book was in existence for a long time just as the various Puranas, at least by the time the Western European scholars commenced their attempt to construct the history of India. It is therefore a respectable book whether we concede its antiquity or consider it only of recent origin compared with the Puranas. Modern historians have rashly, if not maliciously, rejected the authoritativeness of the Puranas and Itihasas, alleging them arbitrarily, whenever it suited them, to be wrong, inconsistent and corrupted; accepted in their place the stray references to historical events and personages in the works of fiction and drama such as Katha Saritsagara, Gatha Sapta Sati, Brihat Kathamanjari, Gathanukramanika, Raja Sekhara Charitha, Karpuramanjari, Vasavadatta, Ratnavali, Mudrarakshasa, Mrichchakatika, Lilavati etc., constructed their fantastic and mutually inconsistent historical account based largely on their own preconceptions and conjectures; and endeavoured to bring down the history of our country, as much as possible, nearer to modern times.

Our Puranas and Itihasas on the other hand give us not only the political events but descriptions of the civilisation, and social life and expositions, in an attractive form and with telling illustrations, of moral principles and social obligations to the people. They thus constitute true histories in the fullest sense of the term. The Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta, based on such true historical treatises and effecting a re-conciliation among the varying versions in the texts of different accounts in them, is certainly more authoritative

and respectable than the so-called histories of our modern historians full of vague theories and doubtful conjectures.

The Chronology of the dynasties of the Kings of Kali according to the Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta is also given below:

The beginning of the Kali Era B.C. 3102

The time of Mahabharata War
36 years before Kali B.C. 3138

From the Mahabharata War to the
Coronation of Mahapadma Nanda 1504 years

Mahapadma Nanda to the beginning
Of the Andhra dynasty of the
Empire of Magadha 801 years

The reigns of the kings of the
Andhra Satavahana dynasty 506 years

Total 2811 years

The time of Alexander’s invasion
Of the Punjab 327 B.C.

Gupta Chandragupta’s coronation 326 B.C.

The Gupta dynasty reigned for a
Period of 245 years

The coronation of Vikramaditya
Of the Panwar dynasty in Ujjain 82 B.C.

After the close of the Imperial Gupta dynasty Vikramaditya of Ujjain was crowned Emperor in 82 B.C. and his grandson Salivahana drove the Saka invaders out of the country and was crowned Emperor in A. D. 78.

These two emperors are historical personages and founders of the well-known eras named after them and commencing in 57 B.C. and 73 A.D. respectively. (Refer: Bharatiya Eras, The kings of Agni Vamsa, by the same author in Telugu and “Indian Eras” in English.)

Thedescendants of the Gupta emperors survive as rulers of small territories paying homage to Imperial Ujjain (Panwar Emperors) till A.D. 762 and then the Magadha Kingdom of the Guptas will pass into the hands of the Pala kings according to the Kaliyuga-Raja-Vrittanta.

This treatise [K.R.V.] moreover reconciles these dates with the movements of the Great Bear. It has been accepted as authoritative and used as the basis of “the Age of Sankara” by Sri T.S. Narayana Sastry, B.A. B.L., of ‘The Age of Mahabbarata’ by late Sri Nadimpalli Jagannadha Rao, and of ‘The History of Classical Sanskrit Literature’ by Dr. M. Krishnamacharyulu. It deserves a wider and universal recognition on the part of modern historians as an invaluable historical treatise of indisputable authority, which it is.

The Verses referring to the movement of the Great Bear in Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta.

In the time of Yudhishtira the Great Bear was in Magha for a hundred years. By the time of (Mahapadma) Nanda it will be in Sravana.

Explanation : Sravana is the 15th star in the reverse direction (the direction of the retrograde movement of the Great Bear) from Magha. So the interval between the times of Yudhishtira and Nanda (Mahapadma) is 1500 years. This is the period specified in all the Puranas.

Meaning: By the time of the beginning of the rule of the Andhras (royal dynasty of Magadha) the Great Bear will reach the 24th star century from Magha and remain therein for a hundred years.

This statement is also found in all the Puranas.

It should be known that from the birth of Parikshit to the coronation of Mahapadma (Nanda) (the time elapsed) is 1500 years.


This statement is also found in all the Puranas and there is nothing in this verse which can be attributed to any conjecture or inference on the part of the author.

Those who know (authoritative elders), say the interval between the coronation of (Mahapadma) Nanda to the commencement of the Andhra Empire (Imperial dynasty of Magadha) is 800 years.

Comment: This statement is also found in all the Puranas. But the figure in the Puranas is 836 while the author of this treatise ‘Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta’ gives the figure 8oo. Further he tacks on the remaining 36 years to the period of duration of the Andhra dynasty so that instead of 460 years mentioned in all the Puranas for it, we have to assign 496 years for it. But in view of the need to bring the account into conformity with the reference to the movement of the Great Bear, he adds another 10 years and assigns 506 years to the Andhra Imperial dynasty of Magadha. As the beginning of the rule of the Andhra kings is stated to commence in the beginning of the 24th century after the Mahabharata War, i.e., after 2301 years, from the total 2336 years of the figures 1500 and 836 years given in the Puranas for the two parts of the period, he deducts 36 years and adds the same together with 10 years more to the time of duration of the Andhra dynasty and assigns to it the figure 506. Except for this slight change and adjustment in the figures of the Puranas in an attempt to tally his account with the reference to the position of the Great Bear, there is nothing of the nature of conjecture or fictitious construction here on the part of the author.

By the time the Great Bear reaches Punarvasu again (in the next Cycle) the empire will pass from ‘the Imperial Gupta dynasty to others.


Punarvasu will be the 15th star from Sravana in the reverse direction (the direction of the retrograde apparently according to this ante) motion of the Great Bear. From Magha, Punarvasu in the second cycle is the 31st star and the end of the Gupta dynasty according to the Puranic account is 3056 years after the Mahabharata War i.e., Kali 3020 i.e., B.C. 82.

Again when the Great Bear enters Purvabhadra, the Kingdom of the Guptas (part of Magadha) passes on to the Pala Kings.

Comment: Purvabhadra is the 40th star from Magha (continuing the count into the 2nd Cycle—in retrograde direction). So the end of the Gupta dynasty of Mágadha is assigned to 3900 years after the Mahabharata War, i.e., A. D. 763. (3900—3137)

Thus the author of the Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta endeavours successfully to reconcile the figures of the Puranas and to construct a continuous and consistent account of the reigns of the different royal dynasties of Magadha in Kali, with very few and very slight adjustments of the statements in the Puranas. In contrast, we find the Western scholars and their followers arrogantly brand the Puranas as a whole as unreliable for purposes or history, ignore the time of the Mahabharata War (3138 B.C.) and the Kali Era (3102 B. C.) and proceeding on the basis of the hypothetical contemporaneity of the invasion of Alexander of Greece and the rise to power of Chandra Gupta Maurya which is only an assumption solely due to their own wild imagination and interested preconception, as though it were an ascertained fact of indisputable historical value, use, distort, and reject the texts of the Puranas as it suits their convenience, to bring their theories and conjectures into agreement with their basic assumption, and draw largely on their own imagination to fill the gaps of this fantastic history of India constructed by them. These foreign scholars with absolutely no knowledge of native tradition and no respect even for truth, sometimes disregard the Vikrama and Salivahana Sakas in use in our country for thousands of years, interpret the references to them as they please and venture to question the historical existence of the epoch-making emperors Vikrama and Salivahana themselves.

It is time we regain the proper perspective and reconstruct our history, attaching proper value to the different sources of our information and various kinds of historical evidence available to us.



Let us verify the above statement of the Kaliyugaraja Vrittanta about the historical events, following the motion of the Saptarshi Mandala from its entrance in the ‘Magha’ star century (3177 B. C.)

The Great Bear (Saptarshi Mandala) entered Magha Star century 75 years before Kaliyuga, i.e. (3102 + 75) = 3177 B.C.

39 years after its entrance in Magha or 36 years before kali the Mahabharata war was fought, i.e. 3177-39 or 3102+36= 3138 B.C.

The Kali era began in 3177-75= 3102 B.C.

The Great Bear with reverse motion entered Aslesha in the 26th year after the Kali era (i.e. 3102 B.C. – 26) = 3076 B.C.

No. Name of the Star Period of Stay Kaliyuga B.C.

1 Magha 61 years 36 years before 3138 to 3076

(after Kali to 25 years
the war) after Kali

2 Aslesha 100 26 to 126 3076 to 2976

3 Pushyami 100 126 to 226 2976 to 2876

4 Punarvasu 100 226 to 326 2876 to 2776

5 Arudra 100 326 to 426 2776 to 2676

6 Mrigasirsha 100 426 to 526 2676 to 2576

7 Rohini 100 526 to 626 2576 to 2476

8 Krithika 100 626 to 726 2476 to 2376

9 Bharani 100 726 to 826 2375 to 2276

10 Aswani 100 826 to 926 2276 to 2176

11 Revathi 100 926 to 1026 2176 to 2076

12 Uttarabhadra 100 1026 to 1126 2076 to 1976

13 Purvabhadra 100 1126 to 1226 1976 to 1876

14 Satabhisham 100 1226 to 1326 1876 to 1776

15 Dhanishta 100 1326 to 1426 1776 to 1676

16 Sravanam 42 1426 to 1468 1676 to 1634


This marks the end of Sisunaga dynasty.

1503 years after the Maha Bharata war Mahapadma Nanda was crowned as Emperor in 1504th year and his dynasty known as “Nanda Dynasty” ruled from 1504 to 1604 after the War.

(Vide ‘Kalisaka Vignana’ Part 2 by the same author)

This chronology tallies with what was mentioned in the Purana as set out in the book ‘Kaliyugaraja Vrittanta.’

The Great Bear will be in ‘Sravana’ during the time of Nandas. In addition to this, the correctness of the chronology is confirmed by the statement in the Puranas, that there was interval of 15 hundred years between the birth of Parikshit, i.e., the year of the Mah abharata War and the Coronation of Mahapadma Nanda.

We may also note that in the above Slokas it was mentioned that the Saptarshi Mandala would reach the 24th star century after Mahabharata war, when the reign of the Andhra dynasty commenced.

On accounting we find 1462 years elapsed between the Mahabharata War and the time of exit of the Great Bear from Dhanishta.

No. Name of the Star Period of Stay Kali Era B.C.

End of Dhanishta 1462 1426 1676

16 Sravanam 100 1426 to 1526 1676 to 1576

17 Uttarashadha 100 1526 to 1626 1576 to 1476

18 Poorvashadha 100 1626 to 1726 1476 to 1376

19 Moola 100 1726 to 1826 1376 to 1276

20 Jyesta 100 1826 to 1926 1276 to 1176

21 Anooradha 100 1026 to 2026 1176 to 1076

22 Visakha 100 2026 to 2126 1076 to 976

23 Swathi 100 2126 to 2226 976to 876


24 Chitra 44 2269 Andhra 833 B.C. Andhra Empire founded Empire founded


The Andhra Empire was established in Magadha 2305 years after the Mahabharata war when ‘The Great Bear’ was in Chitra (24th) by a reverse motion from Magha.

It is therefore apparent that 1504 years elapsed between the Mahabharata War or the birth of Parikshit and the coronation of Mahapadma Nanda. Thereafter there was an interval of 801 years till the establishement of Andhra empire, the total duration being 2305. It is exactly the period occupied by the Great Bear in its motion from Magha to Chitra as shown above.

The Empire of the Maha Guptas would come to an end according to Kaliyugaraja Vrittanta when the Great Bear enters ‘Punarvasu.’

Let us verify the correctness of this statements in the Kaliyugaraja Vrittanta.

No. Name of the Star Period of Stay Kali Era B.C.

End of Swathi 2261

24 Chitra 100 2226 to 2326 876 to 776

25 Hastha 100 2326 to 2426 776 to 676

26 Uttara 100 2426 to 2526 676 to 576

27 Poorvapalguni 100 2526 to 2626 576 to 476

28 In Magha (again) 39 2626 + 38 476 – 39

2700 = 2664 – 65 439

It has already been pointed out that Saptharshi Mandala or the Great Bear stayed for 39 years in Magha before the Mahabharata war or the birth of king Parikshit. After the return of the Great Bear into Magha and after its stay for 39 years in that star, one round would be completed making it 2700 years. By that time Kali Era would be 2265, having regard to the period of 36 years interval between the Great war and the starting of Kaliyuga. By the time the Great Bear had made the full round of 2700 years (2665 Kali) the 24th Andhra king Sivasathakarni was on the throne. He reigned from 2641 to 2669 of the Kali Era. The following Sloka in Matsya Purana Ch. 271 Sloka 41 (published by Puvvada Venkatrayarya in Telugu script in the year 1877 A.D.)

“The Great Bear was then (at the time of the birth of Parikshit) in the star century of the towering brilliant Agni (i.e. Krittika) and after 2700 years, in the time of the very Andhra kings, the cycle repeats itself. (i.e. it will be again in Krittika). Matsya Purana 271—41 exactly tallies with the calculations set forth. (supra)

Thereafter Andhra kings reigned for 110 years i.e., till 2665+110=2775 of Kali Era or 437—110=37 B.C. In that year the Andhra Empire broke to pieces and each chieftain asserted independence. Thereafter Maha Guptas became the reigning kings who left Girivraja for Pataliputra. Gupta Chandra Gupta became the king of Pataliputra and and his son Samudra Gupta conquered the whole o India and became the Emperor of Bharat. He was crowned at Ayodhya. He ruled the Empire having Pataliputra as his capital.

Let us follow the further movement of the Great Bear after the completion of the 1st round.

2nd round of the Great Bear.

No. Name of the Star Period of Stay Kali Era B.C.

Carried forward 2665

28 Makha (39 years
expired in the
1st round) 61 2665 to 2726 437 to 376

29 Aslesha 100 2726 to 2826 376 to 276

30 Pushyami 100 2826 to 2926 276 to 176

31 Punarvasu 100 2926 to 3026 176 to 26


The Empire of the Maha Guptas came to an end in 3020 of Kali Era or 82 B.C. (See “Kali Saka Vignanam” Parts II and III of this author)

Now the 5th Sloka above-mentioned (Supra) states:

By the time the Great Bear enters Punarvasu (2nd round) the Empire of Maha Guptas would come to an end. The above table shows the correctness of the statement.

It has been stated in the Puranas that when the Great Bear enters Poorvabbadra in its 2nd round after the Bharata War the kingdom of the later Guptas would come to an end and the Magadha kingdom of the Guptas would get into the possession of Pala kings.

Let us verify the correctness. of this statement in the Purana.

No. Name of the Star Period of Stay Kali Era B.C.

Carried forward 3026

32 Arudra 100 3026 to 3126 76 to 24

33 Mrigasirsha 100 3126 to 3226 24 to 124

34 Rohini 100 3226 to 3326 124 to 224

35 Krithika 100 3326 to 3426 324 to 324

36 Bharani 100 4426 to 3526 324 to 424

37 Aswani 100 3526to 3626 424 to 524

38 Revathi 100 3626 to 3826 524 to 624

39 Utharabhadra 100 3726 to 3826 624 to 724

40 Poorvabhadra 100 3826 to 3926 724 to 824

Stay in Poorvabhadra 39-3826+75 years before Kali = 3901

or 724 A.D. + 75 years before Kali = 799 A.D.

In the 2nd round of the Great Bear the remaining period of motion in Makha is 61

From Makha to Utharabhadra (11 stars backwards) 1100

Period in Purvabhadra 39


Kali Era by the end of the 1st round in 2665. Add 1200 and you get 3865 of Kali. To this add 36 years interval between Kali and Mahabharatha war, we get 3901 years. Therefore we are able to prepare the Chronology of the kings that ruled 5901 years from the Mahabharata war. It will be seen that at about 764 A.D. Pala King of Vanga were ruling as stated in the Puranas.

As noted, Mahabharata war took place in 3138 B.C. if you subtract 3138 from the total of 3901 we get 763 A.D.

The historians of Bengal have recorded that Gopala I of Pala Kings ruled in Vanga from 3864 to 3909 to Kali Era (i.e. 762 to 807 A.D.)

Eleven kings ruled in Ujjain after King Bhoja and during the last ears of the 2nd of them 733 to 763 A.D. Magadha was conquered by Pala Kings in 762 A.D.

The 7th King after Bhoja was Vira Simha who ruled from 933 to 993 while the 10th King Ganga Simha reigned from 1113 to 1193 A.D. In the battle of Kurukshetra, the 90 year-aged Ganga Simha died on the field along with Prithviraja etc. (see Agni Kings by the same Author)

With this one came to Medieval India, the history of which has been written by several authors and thereafter that of British India till 15-8-1947.



“When the circle of the Seven Sages resided in the century of Magha star, Yudhishtira or Dharma Raja, the eldest of the Pandavas was the ruling sovereign. If we add 2526 years to the Saka-Kala prevalent we get the commencement of that monarch’s (Swargarohana) time that is, Yudhishtira Kala Era or Saptarshi Era or Loukikabda.”

It means that an Era came into being, after a lapse of 2526 years in Yudhishtira Kala Era or Saptarshi Era. The Saptarshi Era B.C., 3076—2526=550 B.C. (3076-2526=550) and in this year an Era came into existence.

In the above Sloka is the expression “Yutah Sakakalah” and the question arises to what Saka Era the reference is made.

Originally this verse is from “Garga Samhita”. Varahamihira cited this in his Brihat Samhita. We have proved that Varahamihira was one of the nine gems in the court of Vikramaditya of Ujjain, who lived in 57 B.C. (Vide Kalisaka Vijnanam Part I, by self.) This Vriddha Garga (was four or five centuries anterior, in time. Even Western scholars agreed that either Vikrama Era or Salivahana Era was not prevalent at the time of Garga. So the Saka Era related in the Sloka is neither Vikrama nor Salivahana Era and this fact is approved by all the historians. That is the age of the Persian Emperor, Cyrus, which began in 550 B.C. That Era, being current in the North-Western parts of India, Punjab, Kashmir and North India, found access into the Samhitas. This age was in vogue under the four appellations of (1) Saka.Kaia (2) Saka-Nrupa Kala (3) Sakendra Kala

(4) Sakabhupakala.

The above Sloka cited by Varaharnihira in his Brihat samhita (13-3) was explained by Bhattotpala, in his commentary of Brihat Samhita, named, “Chintamani.”

The commentary means:

“When Yudhishtira was the ruling monarch, the Seven Sages (Saptarshis) resided in Magha star.”

“In the same way Vriddha Garga also mentioned that ‘The Seven Sages were in the Magha Star at the transition age of Dwapara into Kali’. In Vudhistira Kala Era of Loukikabda elapsed 2526 years. To this figure, (that is 2526 years) should be added the age of the Saka-Nrupa-Kala which was in use at that time. When calculated in this manner, the total amount of years will be the period that elapsed from the commencement of Yudhishtira Kala Era or Loukikabda. The quotient got when the dividend of the years is divided by the divisor 100, should be the number by which we must take that so many stars from Magha elapsed in the cycle of the Seven Sages. After division in the above manner, the remainder should be deemed as the number of the expired years in the Star in which the Saptarshi Mandala is located. As Magha is the star into which the entrance of the cycle of the Seven Sages took place, (at the transition period of Dwapara into Kali) the calculation should be from the Magha star, and the number of the stars will denote the lapse of so many centuries.”

We have already stated that the Saka Era in the above Sloka (Brihatsamhita 13—3.) “Asan Maghasu Munayah” was the age of Cyrus, the Sakanrupati, who lived in 550 B. C.

The full interpretation of the Sloka will be as follows:

“The cycle of Seven Sages, at the transition period of Dwapara into Kali was in Magha Star and Yudhishtira was ruling at that time. If 2526 years are added to the years current, in the then Saka Era (Cyrus era 550 B.C.), we get Yudhishtira Kala Era of Saptarshi Era or Loukikabda (3076 B.C.)”

Thus there are clear astronomical references in all the Puranas and astronomical books which corroborate the Chronological account of dynasties given in the Puranas. It is a pity that Jones had no opportunity to have a look at this strong astronomical evidence which cuts at the root of his theories. The ignorance of Jones might be excused but what about those who swear by him even to-day when there is such strong evidence to refute his chronology and to confirm the Puranic accounts of our ancient history?

It is more astounding to note the attempt of Jones to compress the history of 195 crore years from the time of Swayambhuva Manu into 6000 years which is the age of the world according to the Bible. He tries to identify Adam with the 1st Manu, Noah with the 2nd Manu and so on. This table of identification is a standing example of the arbitrary and whimsical way in which Jones dealt with our ancient history.

It is 195, 58, 85, 054 years since the birth of Swayambhuva Manu. It is absurd to identify him with Adam of 5957 years back, while as a matter of fact the Indian contemporary of Adam was the first Brihadradha the founder of Magadha kingdom. (867 years before Kali)


It cannot be said that Jones was ignorant of the Kali Era, for in the last para of the quotation given above, he says that the year 4891 Kali corresponds to 1790 of the Christian era. So, the mistakes he committed in Indian chronology are mainly due to his loyalty to the Biblical conception of the age of the world and his anxiety to compress crores of years into a small space of six thousand years.

We would not have devoted so much space to expose the hollowness of the theories of Jones in this book, but for the fact that he has been blindly followed by scores of Indologists and his work practically forms the anchor-sheet and foundation of the superstructure of the false history of India which is taught in our schools and colleges.


“The originality of Hindu astronomy is at once established, but it is also proved by intrinsic evidence, and although there are some remarkable coincidences between the Hindu and other systems, their methods are their own.”

(Mill’s History of India. Vol. II, P. 107)

“In the more advanced stages, where they are more likely to have borrowed, not only is their mode of proceeding peculiar to themselves but it is often founded on principles, with which no other ancient people were acquainted, and showed a knowledge of discoveries not made even in Europe till within the course of the last two centuries.”

(Elphinstone’s History of India, P. 132)

“The Brahmin obtains his result with wonderful certainty and expedition in astronomy.” (Transactions of the R.A.S. of Great Britain and Ireland. Vol. II, Pp. 138, 139).

“The Brahmins had advanced far in astronomy before the Greeks arrived in India in 327 B.C…. The fame of the Brahinin astronomers spread westwards, and their works were translated by the Arabs about 800 A. D. and so reached Europe.” (Brief History of the Indian People by W. W, Hunter, page 55.)

“In some points the Brahmins made advances beyond Greek astronomy. Their fame spread throughout the West, and found entrance into the Chronican Raschale commenced about 330 A.D. and revised under Heraclius.” (Between 610-641 A.D.) (Indian Gazetteer Vol. IV, P. 218.)

“An Indian astronomer, the Raja Jai Simha was able to correct the list of stars published by the celebrated French astronomer De-la-Hire in 1702 A.D.” (Brief History of the Indian People, by W.W. Hunter. P. 55)

Prof. Wilson says :-

“The science of astronomy at present exhibits many proofs of accurate observation and deduction, highly creditable to the science of Hindu astronomers.” (Mill’s His. of India Vol. II, P. 106)

“During the eighth and ninth centuries the Arabs were in astronomy the disciples of Hindus.” (Weber’s Indian Literature) P. 255)

‘A very strange theory of the planetary motion is expounded at the commencement of the Suryasiddhanta, Chapter II, which is unknown outside India.” (Indian Wisdom By Monier William, P. 189)

“Till of late years we do not know with extreme exactness the longitudes of distant peaces.’ (Geographical Reader by C.B. Clarke, F.G.S.)

“The ancient Hindu method of finding longitude by first finding out the Desantara Ghatika, with the aid of observations made at the time of the lunar clipsee, is not only scientific but infalliable.” (Vide ‘Hindu Superiority’ by Har Bilas Sarada, p. 296, foot-note 1.)

The famous French astronomer Prof. Bailley wrote:

“The Hindu systems of astronomy are by far the oldest, and from them, the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and even the Jews derived their knowledge.” (Prof. Bailley, the famous French astronomer.)


“Humans did not evolve, but developed from pure consciousness”

– some reflections on Pandit Kota Venkatachalam’s Origin of human race


Dr.R.Brahmachari Ph.D.,

Professor of Applied Physics,

University of Kolkatta

ACCORDING to a report (Times of India, 27-02-2007) man appeared on earth nearly 4.1 million years ago. Scientists, who believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, are convinced that man has ascended from apes, most probably form chimpanzees who they consider closest to human being. According to their conviction men and chimpanzees had a common ancestor and at a certain stage of evolution they got separated from each other.

These scientists are trying hard to ascertain the date when man and chimpanzee begin to split as separate species by examining the fossils and skeletal remains of man like apes. Even a couple of years ago, the most accurate estimate was nearly 2.8 to 3.0 million years. Recently Shri Asger Hobolth, a researcher of North Carolina State University, has claimed that the separation began nearly 4.1 million years ago, much earlier than previous estimates. Shri Hobolth came to the above conclusion after studying the DNA of man, chimpanzee and gorilla.

Hindu tradition, on the contrary, says that man lived on earth much earlier than all the above mentioned estimates. It also discards the view that man has ascended from apes. According to the Hindu system of time reckoning, 4.32 million years make one mahayuga and thousand mahayugas, or 4.32 billion years make one kalpa. One kalpa is the day of creator Brahma and the following kalpa is his night. During the day of Brahma, the formless unmanifest Brahma assumes form and the universe with its contingent beings manifests itself. In short, the cosmic consciousness Brahma, which was so far beyond the perception of our senses, becomes perceptible. The period is therefore called srishti or creation. During the night of Brahma, the entire universe returns to the subtle and non-perceptible state again and the period is therefore called pralaya or dissolution. So the Bhagavadgita says:

For a thousand ages last

One day of (creator) Brahma,

And for a thousand ages one such night;

This knowing, men will know (What is meant by) day and night (8,17).

At the day’s dawning all things manifest

Spring forth from the unmanifest;

And at nightfall they dissolve again

In (that same mystery) surnamed ‘unmanifest’ (8,18)

Yes, this whole host of beings

Comes ever anew to be; at the fall of night

It dissolves away all helpless;

At dawn of day it rises up (again) (8,19)

Furthermore, the Hindu system of time reckoning divides a kalpa of 4.32 billion yars into 14 manvantaras and hence one manvantara becomes 30,84,48,000 years or 308.448 million years. Hindu tradition also says that we are now passing through the Svetavaraha Kalpa and after the beginning of this Svetavaraha Kalpa, siz manvantaras have gone and the seventh Vaivasvata Manvantara is in currency. The name of the first manvantara, after the beginning of the Svetavaraha Kalpa, is called the Svayambhuva Manvantara and our Bhagavat Purana says that Maharaja Uttanapata, the father of Bhaktaraj Dhruva, used to rule the earth in the said Svayambhuva Manvantara. A simple calculation leads us to the conclusion that the reign of Maharaja Uttanapata occurred 1,97,12,21,106 years or nearly 1.97122 billion years ago.

So far, the scientists of the Darwinian school used to pooh-pooh all these conclusions of our history as written in our 18 Pursnas and torn everything down declaring them myths. But very recently an American researcher has conclusively proved that the narrations of our Puranas are true. Shri Michael Cremo, who is a devotee of Lord Krishna and a member of the International Society of Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), being inspired by the descriptions of the Bhagvat Purana, started investigating these matters and unearthed a deep conspiracy of the Western scientists. In fact archaeologists had discovered fossilised human remains of much older date and many of them were more than a billion years old. But the scientists intentionally suppressed all theses discoveries as they could not be explained by the Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Michael Cremo has compiled all these discoveries in his book Forbidden Archaeology. Later on he wrote another book Devolution of Man, In this later work, he conclusively proved that man lived on the earth nearly two billion years ago. He also discarded the notion of the Darwin’s Theory that man is an ascended ape. Or rather, he believes that the ancestors of today’s man were angels and hence man is a fallen angel, not an ascended ape.

Is should not escape one’s notice that the discrepancy between the narration of the Bhagvat Purana and the conclusion of Michael Cermo are very close. While the Bhagvat Purana tells that man existed 1.97 billion years ago, Dr.Cremo’s estimate is two billion years. And hence the difference between these two conclusions is 0.03 billion (or the error is only 1.5 per cent). So in the introduction of his later work, Michael Cremo writes, “My book forbidden Archaeology, co-authored with Richard L.Thompson, documents archaeological evidence for extreme human antiquity, consistent with the Puranas, the historical writings of ancient India. The evidence places a human presence so far back in time as to call into question the Darwinian account of human beings.”

During the Vietnam War, the young Cremo became dissatisfied with life and started travelling and reading various texts and doring his wild travels, he happened to be got in touch with the Vedas and it was the Vedic philosophy that changed his life. In 1984, he began to study the correlation between modern science and the narration in ancient Hindu texts and in mid-1990s, be wrote his first book, Forbidden Archaeology. In October, last year, Dr.Cremo came to Kolkata to initiate a campaign for his books and delivered a lecture at the Anthropology Department of the University of Kolkata. While speaking about his work, Dr.Cremo said, “I had no idea that there was so much evidence. That’s one of the reasons it took me a long time to write the book.” He also said, “Humans did not evolve up from matter; instead we have devolved, or came down, from the realm of pure consciousness spirit.” But the book received bitter criticism from the scientific community in the West. So, Dr. Cremo said, “The book had to face a storm of scathing criticism from the scientific community.” He is now working hard for his third book. “The extra evidence I have gathered is sufficient for a third book. It wilt take another two years to finish the hook”, Dr Cremo told the audience.

From the above developments it is not difficult to understand that, time has arrived for the Western scholars to accept our Puranas as historical texts and not mythologies. It will not be irrelevant to recall the comments of a few renowned Western scholars regarding our historical texts. Famous Germin scholar Max Muller, in his History of Sanskrit Literature, wrote, “No wonder that a nation like India cared so little about history.” Another Western scholar M. Wintemitz, in his History of India Literature, wrote, “History is one weak spot in Indian literature.

It is, in fact, nonexistent. The total lack of historical sense is so characteristic that the whole course of Sanskrit literature is darkened by the defect.” Another Western scholar, Major Wilford, once said, “With regard to history, the Hindus have done really nothing but romances from which tome truth may occasionally be extracted,” Now the time has come for these scholars to swallow the bitter pill.


Sri Kota Venkatachalam – a complete scholar historian


Dr.K.M.Rao, Ph.D., D.Litt.

State President,

Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Samiti, Tamil Nadu

There were no special occasions during the life-time of Sri Kota Venkatachalam to honour him to make it a memorable occasion like this. But the legacy of his monumental historical studies travelled through time for about a century and captured the minds of contemporary historians, Sanskrit scholars, and academicians. This miraculous phenomenon reminds us of the prophetic truth expressed by the great samskrit poet Bhavabhuti in the following verse:

“utpatsyatesti mama kopi samana dharma

Kalohyayam niravadhir vipulacha prudhvi.”

Tr. (A kindred spirit is or will be born out of the limitless time and populous earth to accomplish the work.)

Here is an opportunity to offer our grateful acknowledgement for his pioneering studies in chronology ancient History based on our puranic heritage. He has been acclaimed as an outstanding resource person in ancient History by his friends and admirers. He was loved and respected now by academicians and professors in that discipline.

But the present occasion of remembering him is memorable in a distinct way. His works got the recognition they deserve in the academic circles and his findings are extensively quoted in the field of research. In the light of a stirring breakthrough in research in Ancient History in the discovery Saraswathi river and with the discovery of more than 2500 new sites of Mohenjodaro and Harappan civilization (now called as Saraswathi civilization) and exploding the myth of Aryan invasion, and with the findings of Sri Kota Venkatachalam the edifice of the false history of British Historians is tumbling down. Kota Venkatachalam unequivocally has established a continuous and uninterrupted reign of dynasties from Maha Bharata war in 3138 B.C. up to the rule of Vikramaditya — Salivahana rule in 78 A.D., with meticulous details from Matsya, Vayu, Bhavishya and Vishnu Puranas. Well researched articles from the works of Kota Venkatachalam have been brought out in this volume.

Since the publication of his works, a notable change has taken place in the academic circles of history and its influence has been steadily increasing. He has come to realize that for the preservation of the authenticity of our Ancient History and to validate and provide a broad and stable base for it, he has to critically examine the conclusions inferred by the western historians taken from our puranas. Sri Kota Venkatachalam highlights to what ridiculous extent they can stoop down can be best understood by the following instance he gave regarding fixing the “age of Patanjali” : (vide Ancient Hindu History.p.99)

“The sentence ‘ihapushpamithram yaja yamaha’ is found in the maha bhashya commentary on the sutras of Panini of Patanjali and therefore it is inferred by V.S.Smith and other historians (vide early history of India p. 228) that Patanjali was a contemporary of Pushpamitra Sunga and attended the Aswamedha sacrifice performed by him.”

Sri Kota Venkatachalam points out that the author Patanjali need not have to be present at the sacrifice which he mentions incidentally by way of comparison. (as an illustration of a principal) in a treatise on grammar nor does it follow that Pushyamitra was at that time.

Another grave And grievous they have perpetrated was that Maurya dynasty and Gupta dynasty ruled from Pataliputra as their capital. According to them both Girivraja and Pataliputra are the same. But Sri Kota Venkatachalam challenged the mistaken identitiy of these two capitals. He gave correct reigning periods of the kings of the Maurya dynasty. The Maurya kings reigned for 316 years at Girivraja as capital of their Magadha Kingdom from 1534 B.C. to 1218 B.C.

Name of the king Years reigned Period

1. Chandra Gupta Maurya 34 1534 – 1500 B.C. 2. Bindusara 28 1500 – 1472 B.C.

3. Asoka 36 1472 – 1436 B.C.

4. Suparsa 8 1436 – 1428 B.C.

5. Dasaradha 8 1428 – 1420 B.C.

6. Indrapalitha 70 1420 – 1350 B.C.

7. Harsha Vardhana 8 1350 – 1342 B.C.

8. Sangata 9 1342 – 1333 B.C.

9. Salisuka 13 1333 – 1320 B.C.

10. Somasarma 7 1320 – 1313 B.C.

11. Sathadhanva 8 1313 – 1305 B.C.

12. Brihadradha 87 1305 – 1218 B.C.

Total 316 years


Kali 2775 – 3020 : 327 B.C. to 82 B.C.

S.No. Name of the Emperor years reigned Kali era B.C.

1. Chandragupta I 7 2775-2782 327-320

2. Samudragupta 51 2782-2883 320-269

3. Chandra Gupta II 36 3883-2869 269-233

4. Kumara Gupta 42 2869-2911 233-191

5. Skanda Gupta 25 2911-2936 191-163

6. Narasimha Gupta 40 2936-2976 166-126

(being minor by guardian Stiraputa 5 years)
Narasimha Gupta himself after attaining majority 36 years)

7. Kumara Gupta II 41 2976-3020 126-82

Sri Kota Venkatachalam targeted all the four western protagonists of false history namely.

William Jones, Pargitar, V.A.Smith and Max Muller and exposed their well laid out mischief. Their historical fraud and falsehood so brazenly incorporated in our history text books and passed on a presumptious history to posterity. He created through his books a historically salubrious atmosphere for writing our true history in accordance with our resources available in our puranas, and samskrit literary works belonging to different periods. The conclusions he has drawn based on those vast resource material are unassailable and infallible. That this situation has appeared now and has become as hopeful as it is to begin rewriting our history is largely due to Sri Kota Venkatachalam’ s genius, historical perceptivity, energy and undiscouraged Endeavour. Heir of the Bharatiya tradition he was fully convinced of the essential historical validity of our puranas and challenged the western Historians. He mastered the puranic perspective of our history so that he could present it to the western world how an oriental mind works in writing history with different parameters to which the western writing of history is not accustomed to and is mostly based on excavations in search of bones and stones.

As a result of this new methodological approach of writing our history based on this new paradigm, the books he has written have assumed a value to the enquirer into Bharatiya history. They open wide the door to an appreciation of the new orientation of our minds in studying our history. This new orientation enables the new generation of historians to catch the inner spirit of our Ancient History. The three volumes of Kota Venkatachalam: (1) Ancient Hindu History Volume I & II and the plot – will long remain a landmark, as an authentic presentation of the chronology of Ancient Hindu History from this puranic stand point. They provided exactly what was needed as a foundation on which more detailed historical material can be secured in future historical studies. In Ancient Hindu history part I, he has allocated chapter VIII exclusively for the study of contemporary kings of the various kingdoms of Bharat after the Mahabharata war with a map appended to it for geographical study. He reiterates that the Matsya, Vishnu, Bhavishya Purana’s give us continuous lists of royal dynasties of Magadha from the time of Mahabharata war i.e., from 3138 B.C. to 1634 B.C. (vide) page 281, Ancient Hindu History Volume I; Matsya Purana chapter 273, slokas 13 to 17; Bhavishya Purana 3rd parva 4-23-2 to 4-23-18. The Vishnu Dharmottara Purana khanda I, chapter XI and in slokas 7 to 10 narrates the western, north western, northern and north eastern states of ancient Bharat totaling to 23 states, (page 296 op.cit).

Sri Kota Venkatachalam dispells another mistaken identity of western historians regarding Pushpa mitra yavanas and Pushpamitra Sunga dynasty of kings who were quite different. He says that there could be no connection between these Pushpamitra yavanas and the Sunga kings of the dynasty of Pushpamitra Sunga. Pushpamitra Sunga belonged to the 13th century B.C. and the Pushpamitra yavanas belonged to the 3rd century B.C. according to the puranas. The Bahlika yavanas, Pushpamitra and Dimitras were the contemporaries of the Gupta kings of 3rd century B.C. according to unambiguous statements in the puranas. (vide page 304 ancient history part one)

Sri Kota Venkatachalam in his Ancient History volume II has defined the complimentary and yet the limited role of archaeology in matters of Ancient History of an ancient country like Bharat — the most ancient nation in the history of mankind. In the opening lines of this volume he writes:

“for the reconstruction of the true history of our country the ancient historical writings such as our puranas should form the main source and authority. Other evidences such as archaeological etc may provide corroborative evidence of the facts established from the historical writings but cannot suffice by themselves to furnish a complete and continuous account of the country. They give only a limited view of the circumstances they deal with. All the events in the history of our country extending over thousands of years could never have been recorded in inscriptions. Some of the inscriptions might have been lost or not yet discovered. It may not be possible to excavate the whole surface of earth in the country and satisfy ourselves that all the inscriptions in the past have been unearthed. Nearly because such confirmatory evidence in the form of inscriptions is not available in support of proved historical events, the historicity of such events should not be doubted”.

But strangely, European historians proceeded on the assumptions that for the reconstruction of the history of ancient Bharat, the Ancient Historical writings of our country such as the puranas are untrustworthy and that we have to rely mainly on the so called “Fundamentals of Historical Research”. Viz. coins, inscriptions, architectural evidence etc. Sri. Kota Venkatachalam deplores that these indologists masquerading as historians have indoctrinated these notions into the minds of our modern historians and set them on a wrong track. Their indology is an Euphimism for history or conversely their history is an Euphimism for indology.

In support of his stand point Sri Kota Venkatachalam quotes the view Mahamahopadhyaya Dr. Han Prasad Sastry who corroborates his stand:

“In the Eighties my Europian friends advised me not to touch Ramayana, The Maha Bhanata and the Puranas for the purpose of getting Indian History from them. They worked hard with coins, inscriptions, notices of foreign travelers, archaeology, sculpture, and architecture for extracting chronology and history from them. Except Puranas they studied everything. But Lo! Pargitar and jayaswal now produce a chronology that suits to their needs from the puranas. Indirectly they rescued the puranas from the disrepute in which they are placed and heightened the respect for them. (vide J.V.O.R.S vol.XIVP.P325, 326.)

Like S.Radhkrishnan, who interpreted Indian Philosophy to the west, Sri Kota Venkatachalam attempted to enlighten the western Historians regarding our oriental method of writing History. The English volumes of Sri Kota Venkatachalam make an indelible impression on the reader as an interpretation of Bharatiya History to the west from our purarnic viewpoint. These volumes provided exactly what was needed as a foundation on which more detailed and in-depth historical studies can be conducted in future. But the difficult problem here lies in bringing about a mutual intellectual understanding between these two conflicting views of writing our history and make the western historians understand the oriental genius of preserving our history in poetic form which no other nation in the world has ever tried this unique form. It can even be set to music to propagate human values of a highest order. To mediate effectively these two groups only a person like Sri Kota Venkatachalam can achieve through his works who has absorbed both the perspectives. The depth, profundity and his style of writing are inimitable.

His two monographs “The Historicity of Vikramaditya and Salivahana” in English and “Kaliyugaraja Vamsaniulu” in Telugu language epitomize brevity of expression of historical exactitude. They amply demonstrate that a good command in Samskrit is indispensible to write our history.

Any one who goes through his Historical works knows that there is something deeper in him, an inner vision, from which he intuitively derives his conclusions from the puranas in the light of which he discerned as if by a mystical revelation and interpreted the esoteric intricacies of history enshrined in our Puranas. He envisaged an ideal of Rajadharma in our history — the ideal of enlightened monarchies and dynasties of highly revered king that ruled as if by divine ordination and bequeathed their history to us through his historical studies.

He has a larger sense of history than the one being usually pursued, an inspired view which understands the aspirations of us in the annals of our history. As a precursor in the field of comparative chronological studies and with his insight into the deeper motives of our nation he has been anxious to motivate young historians in the new methodology he has explored. He is more concerned to point out guiding principles to them — the next generation of historians — to apply his method into newer areas of study.

This commemorative volume is devoted to his studies in comparative chronology, mainly in the hope that it would mark the beginning for a new line of historical activity which would ultimately result in a systematic and vigourous study of our history. His historical discussions with all eminent scholars of his time can be described as” a mastermind interacting with other masterminds”. It is right that this volume with a commemorative purpose with the name of a mastermind Sri Kota Venkatachalam, which not only is inalienably connected with the renaissance and an awakening in reconstructing our history but will also equally inalienably be associated with a new line of thinking directed towards looking at our own history afresh.

Dr.K.Mahankali Rao Ph.D.


Editorial Board.


‘The Historicity of Vikramaditya and Salivahana’

• A Golden Era ignored by British Historians

• AN intrigue exposed by Kota Venkatachalam


Dr. Kalikivayi Mahankali Rao Ph.D.,
State President
Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Samiti, Tamilnadu, India

Paper Read : at
Indic Study Foundation , U. S. A,


Akhila Bharatiya Ithihasa Sankalana Yojana
International Conference on Indian History, Civilization and Geopolitics
January 2009, 9th Friday to 11th Sunday
At India International Centre
No.40, Lodhi Estate,
New Delhi, India



– A golden era ignored by British historians
-An Intrigue exposed by Kota Venkatachalam
By Dr.Kalikivayi Mahankali Rao PhD1,
Email –

History is not a description of the fate of a people; each civilization develops a character of its own. Character is destiny said Dr.Radha Krishnan. It is applicable both for individuals as well as nations. History is a portrayal of an unfolding of destiny of a people who appear on world stage as and when their time comes to reveal value based life patterns relative to their perception of god, man and nature. It is their own Weltanschuung — a world view of their own. In this sense, History is an exercise in the evaluation of a society in terms of a historical teleological purpose to fulfill which a particular civilization comes in to existence and vanishes in the sands of time, like the Greek, Roman, Egyptian etc. This phenomenon has been put forward poignantly by WILL DURANT.

“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within”

This is what happened to all civilizations except Bhartiya civilization. This Phenomenon calls for an ‘objective analysis of their social structure, stratification and functional aspects of those extinct civilizations. Social structure sustains itself through its stratification to meet the functional needs of occupational differentiation — a kind of division of labor to meet the needs of production and distribution systems. There should exist a strong systemic relation between them for any civilization to last long. Egyptian, Greek and Romanian civilizations are conquering civilizations.

“Man is the measure of all beings”-This is the metaphysical statement or premise on which their civilizations are based. They have been built to show their military might. To keep their people happy and prosperous their Emperors went on military expeditions with mighty armies to conquer nations and brought wealth and enriched their people, brought slaves in hoards as work force. Some feeble attempts were made by some philosopher statesman like Marcus Auralius Caesar to make their nations republic. But all failed due to political turmoil and intrigues that prevailed at those times. Seneca was persecuted by Emperors Caligula and Nero. Socrates was poisoned and Greece succeeded in forming a mutually waning city states. Plato and Aristotle were reduced to a state of philosophers of state ignoring their metaphysical outpourings of highest order. George Santoyana of Spain writes that there are only two metaphysical nations in the world, one is Bharat and the other is Greece. When the neighboring states of Greece invented superior alloy metal to make swords and other weapons of warfare, the Greeks were decimated in all the wars. Similarly when the Germanian Barbarians invented the powerful Cross-Bow with a longer strike range the Roman Empire collapsed within a short period leaving nothing for posterity to cherish except the ruins that mourn silently with eerie winds around. Reminding the glory mayhem that happened for ‘THE


1 State President Bhartiya Itihasa Sanskala Sarniti, Tamilnadu, A-13 C Block Gulmohar Apts., T.Nagar Chennai 600012

GLADIATORS’ in a 64 day festival in Rome to celebrate their victories in the wars. The arena of the coliseum was soaked with the innocent blood of the Gladiators. In contrast the Bhartiya tradition of the concept of mother earth as a cow to be milked and not destroyed is the very basis of sustainable development epitomized in the Upanishadic saying exhorting humanity with the Upanishadic dictum.

‘Tena tyaktena bhunjita”-Take from nature whatever is required to sustain in accordance with your need and not according to your greed. The Bhartiya tradition sets before us the spiritual goal of Sanatana dharma and the socio-religious goal of Dharma in accordance with which our social codes (smritis) are composed. These social codes are revised time and again according to the changes in Yugas i.e. Yuga dharma. This reflects that our Bhartiya civilization constitutes a highly organized society with a strong social institutional basis for spiritual, religious and social goals. Taking an overall picture, we have to take into consideration the cultural-spiritual-ethical notion of dharma as the social foundation for a well ordered functional society. These dharmic values were implemented in the lives of our kings and people in our puranas and epics. To create such a tradition it requires hundreds of years history. This history is embedded in our 18 puranas. Purana means “purapi navah”-though old, yet ever new. Puranas have been edited and updated time to time hence they are ‘though old, yet ever new’. Puranas are the primary source for writing the ancient history of Bhaarat. V.A.Smith admits: “The most systematic record of Indian historical tradition is that preserved in the dynastic lists of the puranas”, five out of the eighteen works of this class namely; vayu, matsya, Vishnu, bhromanda and bhagavata contain such lists. But Pargiter tampered the text of puranas and advised his co-workers to rely on Bhavishya Purana. V.A.Smith admires F.E.Pargiter that he has succeeded in his work “The Dynasties of Kali Age” in obtaining the most-definite results which was challenged by Kota Venkatachalam. This paper intends to highlight the glaring disparity in assigning correct timing of the periods to all dynasties with reference to the historicity of emperors Vikramadilya and Salivahana. Kota Venkatachalam tells us: “The Bhavishya Mahapurana, in the form it is available s highly interpolated by the western scholars to create doubts about its authenticity. From the very early times Christian missionaries of all denominations were united in their endeavor to destroy or discredit our ancient literature as they would not tolerate the existence of our great works which contained the history of the earth and the universe for crores of years before the creation of the world they described in the Bible (Ancient Hindu History Part 1, pp2l 0-211).


The Vikramadifya and Salivahana eras begin with 57 BCE and 78 CE respectively. A controversy has been raging regarding the founder of these Iwo eras. Contrary to our expectation V.A.Smith writes:

“The popular belief which associates the Vikrama era of 58-57 BCE with a Raja, Vikramaditya or Bikram of Ujjain at that date is erroneous. There was no such person then. It is however true that probably it was invented by the astronomers of Ujjain. The first name of it was Malwa era. The term Vikramakala used in the later times must refer to one or other of the many kings with the title of Vikramaditya or Vikrama, who was believed to have established the era. The king referred to may be presumed to be Chandragupta II. Vikramaditya who conquered Ujjain about CE 390, The Gupta and Saka eras Changed their names similarly, becoming known in after ages as Valabhi and the Salivahana eras respectively”2

So it is impossible that the western scholars should be ignorant of the accounts of Vikrama and Salivahana in Bhavishya-maha-Purana; They purposely ignored the four dynasties of Agni Vamsa which covered over a period of about 1300 years, from 101 BCE to 1193 CE i.e. from the time of Vikramaditya to the time of Prithvi Raja taking Bhojaraja alone from the list of the Panwar dynasty leaving the era-founders, Vikramaditya and Salivahana in the intervening period. Even before Vikramaditya the four dynasties of Agni Vamsa covered over a period of 291 years from Kali 2710(or 392 BCE) to Kali 3001 (or 101 BCE). This intentional bungling was necessitated by the theory which makes Alexander and Chandragupta Maurya, contemporaries. The Chronology of ancient Indian History right from the time of Mahabharata War (3138 BCE) down to the beginning of Gupta dynasty (327 BCE) had to be compressed by 1207 years so as to suit the contemporaneity of Alexander and Chandragupta. *

Kali era begins in the year 3102

Legend Year

Beginning of Kali Yuga 20th Feb. at 2-27-30 hrs

3102 BCE

Mahabharata war 36 years before Kali 3138 BCE

After the war Somadhi of the 3138 BCE

Barhadradha dynasty

Was crowned as king of Magadha in

And the dynasty ruled for 1006 years 3138-2132 BCE

Pradyota dynasty ruled for 138 years 2132-1994 BCE

For this very purpose Gautama Buddha who actually flourished in the 19th century BCE. is placed in the 6th century; Chandragupta Maurya who lived in 1534 BCE is brought down to 323 BCE . The Andhra Satavahana dynasty which commenced in 833 BCE is dragged down to 220 BCE and is made to last till 240 CE i.e. for a period of 460 years. Even then they had to meet with certain difficulties. They made the Sunga, the Kanwa and the Andhra dynasties, contemporaneous simply to compress the chronology.


2 Vide, the Oxford Students’ History of India P.P 80, 81 by V.A Smith Ed 1915

They had to dnve away the Iwo great emperors and era founders-Vikramaditya and Salivahana-out of the historical field identifying Hala-Satavahana of the 5th century BCE with the Salivahana of the Panwar dynasty of 78 CE. The Gupta Dynasty and the Gupta era was placed in 320 CE.

Vikramaditya and Salivahana were historical persons who extended their empires from the Himalayas to Cape Comorin. Our historians summarily dispensed with them as mythical persons and ascribed these eras to some nameless Saka kings. This is an extraordinary case of audacity. It is a wonder that Indigenous scholars also followed the same line and fruitlessly tried to trace out the unknown Saka kings instead of searching their Puranic literature to have the correct history of the founders of these eras.

Vikramaditya and Salivahana are historical personages and both of them belong to the Panwar dynasty of Agni Vamsa. Of this dynasty Vikrama is the 8th, Salivahana the 11th, and Bhoja the 21st king. Salivahana was the great-grandson of Vikramadifya and he should not be confounded with Hala-Satavahana who belonged to the Andhra Satavahana family and flourished in the 5th century BCE. (i.e. 500-495 BCE).

Sisunaga dynasty 360 years 1994-1634 BCE

Nanda dynasty 100 years 1634-1534 BCE

Then the Maurya dynasty begins with 1534 BCE


Maurya the 1st King.

Invasion of Alexander 327 BCE

Difference 1207 years lost



“purne thrimsachchate varshe

Kalau prapte bhayamkare

Sakanamcha Vinasardham Arya

Dharma vivruddhaye

Jatassivajnaya sopi kailasat

Guhyakaloyat.” (Bhavishya Maha Purana 3-1-7-14,15 verses)

“Vikramaditya namanom pita

Krulwa mumodaha

So balopi mahaprajanah pithru

Mathru priyamkarah” (3-1-7- 16)

“pancho Varshe vayah prapte

Tapasordhe vanam gatah

Dwadasabdam prayathnena

Vikramena krutam tapah” (Bhavishya 3-1-7-17)

“Paschadambavatim divyam

Purim yatah siiyanvitah

Divyam simhasanam ramyam

Dwathrimsan murthi samyutam” (Bhavishya 3-1-7-18)

“At the completion of 3000 years after the advent of the terrible Kaliyuga, (ie.101 BCE.) a person descended from the abode of Guhyakas in Kailasa, at the command of Siva, for the purpose of destroying the Sakas and uplifting Arya-Dharma. He was born to the Great King Gandharvasena. The father named him ‘Vikramaditya’ and felt very much rejoiced. Though a boy he was very wise and pleased his parents. (Bhavishya Purana 3-1-7-14, 15, 16 verses)

When he was 5 years pld, Vikrama went to the forest and did penance for 12 years. Having enriched his greatness by penance he reached the city Ambavati (Uijain) and was anointed as a king on a golden throne decorated with 32 golden doils.” (This was in the year 3020 Of Kati era i.e. 82 BCE.) (Bhav. 3-1-7-17, 18). It should be noted that Vikramaditya was not a title as some historians think. But it was the name christened by the father.

Key Dates

Legend Kali, BCE

1. Birth of Vikramaditya 3001 – 101

2. Coronation of Vikramaditya 3020 – 82

3. Starting of Vikrama era when he visited 3044 – 58 – 57
Nepal, (see Nepal Vamsavali)

4. Dedication of Jyotirvada bharana by Kalidasa 3068 – 33

5. Sent his court poet ‘Mathru Gupta’ as king of
Kashmir which was included in Vikramaditya
empire (see Rajatarangini) 3115 – 14 CE

6. Pandit Sree Krishna Misra’s reference of
Vikramaditya in his astronomical treatise
(Jyotishaphalaratnamala) 3115 – 14 CE

7. Death of Vikramaditya 3120 – 19 CE

List of Kings of the Panwar Dynasty



1 PRAMARA 6 2710-2716; 392-386

2 MAHAMARA 3 2716-2719; 386-383

3 DEVAPI 3 2719-2722; 383-380

4 DEVADUTA 3 2722-2725; 380-377

MENTIONED IN THE PURANAS 195 2725-2920; 377-182

6 GANDHARVASENA (1ST TIME) 50 2920-2970; 182-132

DIED ISSUELESS 30 2970-3000; 132-102

GOVERNMENT AGAIN 20 3000-3020; 102-82

BORN IN 3001 KALI (101 BCE.) 100 3020-3120; 82-19CE

9 DEVABHAKTA 10 3120-3130; 19-29 CE

GIVEN IN THE PURANAS) 49 3130-3179; 29-78

11 SALIVAHANA 60 3179-3239; 78-138


21 BHOJARAJA 56 3739-3795; 638-693-94

BHUMIPALA OR (VIRASIMHA) 300 3795-4095; 693-993-94

29 RANGAPALA KALPASIMHA 200 4095-4295; 993-1193-94


(Vide Bhavishya Maha Purana 3rd Parva 4th Kanda 1st Chapter from 12 to 46 verses).

(for easy references see “Kings of Agni Vamsa” by Kota Venkatachalam – in Telugu)

This royal dynasty came to a close in the bathe of Kurukshetra. Along with this dynasty have closed the four dynasties of Agni Vamsa, except a few royal families of the chaulakya dynasty that established their might in the south. The history of the four Agnivamsis is narrated in 72 out of the 100 chapters in the Pratisagra parva of Bhavishya Maha-Purana. Out of the 72 chapters 44 are devoted for the history of Vikrama and Salivahana. It is a wonder that the history of these illustrious emperors of Agni Vamsa is not touched at all by the western historians, The names of Prithviraja, Jayachandra, Rani Samyukta and Bhoja could not be mentioned by them, but the history of the remaining persons of these dynasties was purposely withheld. What is worse, these historians began to assert that Vikrama and Salivahana were not historical persons at all, and they attributed their eras to some nameless Saka kings.

The Panwar dynasty in which Vikramaditya and Salivahana were born in the most important of the four Agnivamsis. Vikramadifya and Salivahana conquered the whole bharat from Himalayas to Cape Comorin, became emperors and established their eras. Salivahana performed the Ashwamedha sacrifice.

The situation of the country after Vikramaditya is described in the bhavishya Maha Purana, 3-3-2- 9; 17 verses.

The gist of the slokas is given here.

After Vikramaditya reached heaven several (incompetent and nameless) kings ruled the country. (From 19 to 78 CE.)

Then the empire of Vikramaditya was split up into 18 kingdoms. The limits of the empire were:

* Sindhu in the west.

Setu in the South.

Badari in the North.

Kapilarashtra in the East.

The 18 Kingdoms formed were:

1. Indraprastha.

2. Panchala.

3. Kurukshefra.

4. Kapilarashtra.

5. Antervedi.

6. Vrajarashtra.

7. Ajmir.

8. Maru (Rajputana).

9. Ghurjara.

10. Maharashtra.

11. Dravida.

12. Kalinga (included Andhra Desa).

13. Avanti.

14. Udupam.

15. Vangadesa (Bengal).

16. Gaudadesa.

17. Magadha.

18. Kosala.

There were several languages and religions in these kingdoms, each of which had a separate king. Under these circumstances, the Sakas and Mlechcha tribes heard that the Aryadharma was decaying and crossing the Indus in large hoards attacked Aryadesa. They entered the country through the Himalayan and Indus regions and plundered these small kingdoms, killed the old, the infants and the women-folk and abducted many women. (Bhavishya 3-3-29-17 verses.)



In those times, Emperor Salivahana the great grandson of Vikramaditya came to the ancestral throne of Ujjain. With a great army he proceeded against the Sakas, the Chinas, the Tartars, the Bahleekas, the Kamarupis, the Romans or Ramatas and the deceitful Khorasanis and defeated them.

He took back the treasures plundered by them, punished them and drove them out of the country in 3179 of the Kali era (i.e. 78 CE.). The Great Emperor Salivahana demarcated the Aryastana, and the Mtechchastana, the river Sindhu being the dividing line; the land to the east of the river being called ‘Sindhustana’ and the land to the west of it being called mlechchastana. (Bhavishya 3-3-2-17,21 verses.)

The Salivahana era started in the year Kali 3179 or 78th year of the Christian era. Salivahana not only demarcated the Aryastana and Mlechchastana but also made arrangements for the prevention of the Mrechchas crossing the border of river Sindhu.

He performed the horse sacrifice and reached heaven offer ruling for 60 years. (78 to 138 CE) (Bhavishya 3-3-2-33-3-4-1-23)

Bhoja is the tenth king after Salivahana (i.e. 21sf king of the Panwar line).

He went on an expedition to the northern countries up to Herat and conquered them (Bhavishya 3-3-3-ito 4).

The western historians undoubtedly read the detailed history of the Agnivamsis in the Bhavishya Maha Purana and have taken from it short accounts of a few kings like Bhoja. prithvi Baja etc. and have incorporated them into their histories. It is a wonder that they have not given even the lists of the kings of ‘the four dynasties-not even mentioned Vikramaditya and Salivahana the most important emperors who founded their eras that are still widely used in India. Further these western scholars treated Vikrama and Salivahana as mythical personsjt is a pity that Native scholars blindly followed their western masters and is unable to come out of the trap even after a century of historical research. It is high time that our historians should open their eyes to the truth held out in the puranas.

Short Bibliography

1. Bhavishya Purana.

2. Rajafarangini, Trans. R.S. Pandit, Sahitya Academy, Delhi.

3. Ancient Hindu History, Vol I, Koto Venkatachelam.

4. Kashmir History Reconstructed. Kota Venkatachelam.

5. The Historicity of Vikramaditya and Salivahana Kota Venkatachelam.

6. “Vikramaditya of Ujjain” Raj Bali Pandya. Varanasi 1954.

7. The study of Indian History and Culture, vol IV, Dr.S.D.KulkaIni.

8. Early History of India, V.A.Smith.

9. The Dynasties of Kali Age, F.E.Pargiter, Reprint, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.


The Pernicious effects of the misinterpreted Greek Synchronism in
Ancient Indian History – a critique on Pandit Kota Venkatachalam

Key note address By

Koslya Vepa Ph.D

Convenor, ICIH 2009, Executive Director, Indic Studies Foundation, California, USA
What do we mean by the Greek synchronism?

It was F E Pargiter, who introduced the notion of a Synchronism in Indian Historiography, in one of the first such works to appear in a European language, which lent credulity to the Puranic texts, he was the first to analyze them in detail and publish his findings in a book.3 Even so, Pargiter had fallen prey to the propensity of the colonial overlord to tamper with the data instead of reporting on it in a dispassionate manner with Vairagya Vlveka. In so doing he follows the pattern of British Indian civil servants, who with literally dozens of domestic servants to relieve them of daily chores and ample time and a security enabled through palatial and sumptuous salaries at the cost of the impoverished Indian, were able to indulge in the favorite pastime of rewriting and reinterpreting Indian History in a form more palatable to the European audience. But Pargiter exhibits a degree of adherence to the evidence not evident in most other writers from the Occident. Despite his scholarship, the constant contact with Indians who were mostly in a subordinate role and generally obsequious in their behavior to most Occidentals, had taken its toll on objectivity and there is palpable condescension in the narrative that he spins and like other English historians, he does not seem to have sought the opinion and review of Indic Pundits.

The concern about synchronism was a natural one and stemmed from the need for understanding the relationship between various overlapping dynasties that spanned a millennial time frame. Hailing as they did, from a small island, they were not used to seeing the sheer plethora of dynastic families that ruled over the different parts of the subcontinent during the millennia. More importantly, the tendency to disbelieve any dates or the absolute chronology was so strong, that they were looking for external synchronisms, especially with respect to an Occidental. The difficulty was that there was not much of a civilization in the Occident during the millennia prior to 1000 BCE, with the exception of the countries surrounding the eastern Mediterranean. As a result, there is no record that is accessible to us even of travelers from Greece or Babylon during the time frame in question. This is not to say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is just that more work needs to be done to see if there were other travelers to India during the time period under consideration.

Sir William Jones

The real pioneer of European Indology was Sir William Jones (1746-April 27, 1794), reputedly a scholar, gifted linguist and founder of the Royal Asiatic Society and by all accounts a man of superior intellect. It appears he was a confidante of Warren Hastings (1732-1818). Jones ostensibly became an ardent admirer of India. He wrote, “I am in love with Gopia, charmed with Crishen (Krishna), an enthusiastic admirer of Raama and a devout adorer of Brihma (Brahma), Bishen (Vishnu), Mahisher (Maheshwara); not to mention that Judishteir, Arjen, Corno (Yudhishtira, Arjuna, Karna) and the other warriors of the Mahabharata appear greater in my eyes than Agamemnon, Ajax and Achilles appeared when I first read the iliad”4.


3. Pargiter, FE, “Ancient Indian Historical Tradition” Oxford University Press, London, 1922, Chapter XII, page 139.

4. Mukharji, S.N., Sir William Jones: A Study in Eighteenth Century British Attitudes to India, Orient Longman, 1987.

Above Sir William learning Sanskrit from the Pundits

Brief Highlights in the life of Sir William Jones

Studied at Harrow School

Entered University College, Oxford 1764

Admitted to the Temple September 19, 1770

Called to the Bar, 1774

Fellow of the Royal Society, 1776

Appointed Judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature, Fort St William, 1783

Authored The Chronology of the Hindus, The Indian Zodiac, The Lunar year of the Hindus

Died of inflammation of the Liver 1794, when he was shy of 50

This is the story we are told. What is the truth of the matter? He remained true to the Biblical dogma Genesis which he took to be a literal account. His chronology for ancient India, including the dating of Chandragupta Maurya to the period of Alexander’s invasion of India was dictated at least in part by the Biblical dogma. Jones may not have had an ulterior motive in doing this, since these were the times prior to the advent of Charles Darwin. All the same, his disinclination to go against his scriptures renders his conclusions suspect. In 1786, while delivering his third lecture, Sir William made the following statement which aroused the curiosity of many scholars and finally led to the emergence of comparative linguistics. Noticing the similarities between Sanskrit and the Classical Languages of Europe such as Greek and Latin he declared:

“The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine all three of them, without believing them to have sprung from some common source which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanskrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family…”5 There is cognitive dissonance in this stance of Sir William, who on the one hand praises the Sanskrit language as a significant work of the human intellect while at the same time not inviting a single Indian to participate in deliberations of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal. What is more they were effectively barred from participating in the meetings.


5. Jones, Sir William, Collected Works. Vohume III: 34-5.

He had a good understanding of Vedanta as exemplified in the following quote:

“The fundamental tenet of the Vedanta school to which in a more modern age6 the incomparable Sankara was a firm and illustrious adherent, consisted not in denying the existence of matter, that is, of solidity, impenetrability, and extended figure (to deny which would be lunacy), but in correcting the popular notion of it, and in contending that it has no essence independent of mental perception; that existence and perceptibility are convertible terms.” These words adequately express the compatibility of empirical reality and transcendental ideality. 7

One must understand the milieu of the times, to fathom the motivations of the individuals and nuances of what happened. Who were these people who came to India so eagerly? What motivated them to do so? Prodosh Aich has documented the real story behind the study of Indology, the subject that Sir William was credited with initiating. There are many questions that he answers in the book Lugen mit Langen Beinen (Lies with Long Legs)8. For example the preponderance of individuals who served in the upper echelons of the British East India company were awarded the title Sir (or a Knighthood) before being sent to India, we presume to impress the Indians. A gentleman with the title Sir in front of his name was a Knight of the British Empire, reminiscent of the Knights of King Arthur. A Knight did not belong to the hereditary nobility, except on rare occasions. In order to become a Lord and sit in the House of Lords, one had to own a substantial estate and land was scarce in England and hence, while it was possible to impress the Indian by awarding a Sir, it rarely resulted in being elevated to the Peerage. We mention this to emphasize that the vast majority of official who came to India came from modest circumstances and only became wealthy after their stay in India. In other words, the instances where the individual was famous or a scholar before he came to India was rare indeed. So it was in the case of Sir William, whose primary motivation in coming to India was to achieve wealth, at a greatly accelerated pace, than he could hope to achieve in England.

As far as his mastery of languages is concerned, there appears to be considerable exaggeration when he is credited with knowing 32 languages. He apparently knew Greek and Latin and had learned Arabic and Persian. In fact so great was his ignorance of Indic languages that he was unable to distinguish any of the languages spoken in Bengal when he arrived in Calcutta in 1782. When he was advised by Charles Wilkins to learn Sanskrit, he is quoted as saying ‘Life is too short and my necessary business too long for me to think at my age — he was then 38- of acquiring a new language, when those which I have already learned have such a mine of curious and agreeable information.

Thus began the study of Indo European languages as one family. Such a study falls under the rubric of a field known as Philology. Wikipedia defines Philology as “Philology is the study of ancient texts and languages. The term originally meant a love (Greek philo-) of learning and literature (Greek -logia). In the academic traditions of several nations, a wide sense of the term “philology” describes the study of a language together with its literature and the historical and cultural contexts which are indispensable for an understanding of the literary works and other culturally significant texts. Philology thus comprises the study of the grammar, rhetoric, history, interpretation of authors, and critical traditions associated to a given language. Such a wide-ranging definition is becoming rare nowadays, and “philology” tends to refer to a study of texts from the perspective of historical linguistics.

Inadvertently Sir William set in motion a chain of events beginning with the search for a Proto lndo European Languages or PIE for short. The puzzling observation here is that it never occurred to him, as far as we are aware that possibly, Sanskrit itself could be the grand ancestor to all the languages of the lndo European languages. Till then Europeans had assumed that the oldest language related to the European languages was Hebrew. Given the anti Semitic feelings that were always simmering underneath the surface in Europe, there was general relief that the roots of their heritage lay elsewhere than in Hebrew, but Sir William may have


6. It must be noted that the current conventional dating of Adi Sankara which puts him in the eighth century CE, (a dating that prompted Sir William to use the term ‘modem age’ is not borne out by the results of Astronomical dating carried out by Prof Narahari Achar. See for instance the Proceedings of the Dallas conference on Distortions in Indian History, titled Astronomical Dating and Select Vignettes from Indian History, published by the Indic Studies Foundation and available at, and edited by me. The more plausible date is 509 to 477 BCE during the reign of Hala Satavahana, with whom he had an audience.

7. Sir William Jones On the Philosophy of the Asiatics (“Asiatic Researches”, vol. iv, p. 164).

8. Prodosh Aich “Lies with Long Legs”, Sanskriti, New Delhi, 2004.

realized that the notion of the unwashed millions of the subject peoples of India possessed the linguistic technology (in Panini’s Ashtadhyayi) to explain the grammars of their own language would perhaps be equally unacceptable. Whatever the case may be, there are two major disservices that he did to the Indic Civilizat One was the possible misdating of Chandragupta Maurya by several centuries and the other was postulating the assumption of a PIE, which implied an Urheimat (an ancestral home) from where the Indo Europeans fanned out to the four corners of the Eurasian landmass. By so doing he laid the seeds for a fractured historical narrative for the Indics, which was not supported by any Indian legend or folklore. In short he saddled lndics with perpetually having to refute dual falsehoods, a false chronology and an imposed ‘Aryan Invasion what has been light heartedly called the Aryan Tourist theory.

When it came to synchronisms, the only significant data that could be utilized by Sir William for a synchronism was the invasion of Alexander. This was the earliest date that he could come up with, and the data he had was the notes kept by Megasthenes, the ambassador sent to India by Seleucus Nicator, one of the generals of Alexander who broke away from the main Alexandrian empire to spin of his own Kshatrapy (Sk. For Regional Kingdom).

We will assume for the moment that the accepted date of the invasion when he was in the Indus valley is indeed 326 BCE. There are severe difficulties with this dating, but unless we make the assumption that this is a correct date we will not be able to proceed. Nevertheless, at the outset it must be stated, in all candor, that name of Alexander does not appear in any literary text in India and that therefore this is hardly a judicious choice for a synchronism. In this instance it is appropriate to recall the ancient adage that ‘Fools will barge in where Angels will fear to tread and one cannot fault Sir William for expressing great joy in his discovery that Megasthenes was the ambassador of Seleucus Nicator to the Maurya Empire. We quote Sir William.

Sir William Jones, President of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, gave his tenth anniversary discourse on February 28, 1793. The topic was, “Asiatic history, civil and natural,” and it was published in the fourth volume of Asiatic Researches, first printed in 1807, reprint 1979. This was his third attempt to destroy the culture and history of Bharatvarsh by mutilating the historic dates. It bears mentioning that Indians were not allowed to be members of the Royal Asiatic Society and it was not until a hundred and forty years later that they would be allowed to participate

Jones says in his speech,

“I cannot help mentioning a discovery which accident threw in my way, (I) thought my proofs must reserved for an essay which I have destined for the fourth volume of your Transactions. To fix the situation that Palibothra which was visited and described by Megasthenes, had always appeared a very difficult problem.”

“…but this only difficulty was removed, when I found in a classical Sanscrit book, near 2000 years old, that Hiranyabahu, or golden-armed, which the Greeks changed into Erannoboas, or the river with a lovely murmur was in fact another name for the Son itself, though Megasthenes, from ignorance or inattention, has named them separately. This discovery led to another of greater moment; for Chandragupta, who, from a military adventurer, became, like Sandracottus, the sovereign of Upper Hindostan, actually fixed the seat of his empire at Pataliputra, where he received ambassadors from foreign princes; and was no other than that very Sandracottus who concluded a treaty with Seleucus Nicator; so that we have solved another problem, to which we before alluded, and may in round numbers consider the twelve and three hundredth years before Christ.” (pp. xxv to xxvii).

He tells us in his speech that he has found a classical Sanskrit book of about 2,000 years old. The other thing he says is that Chandragupta was no other than the very Sandracottus who is described by Megasthenes to have made a treaty with Seleucus around 312 BC; and, to establish that Chandragupta belonged to the Maurya dynasty, he mentions about some poem by Somdev which tells about the murder of Mahapadma of the Nanda dynasty and his eight sons by Chandragupta in order to usurp the kingdom. In this way Jones created a fictitious connection between Chandragupta Maurya and Sandracottus. He says in his speech,

“A most beautiful poem by Somadev, comprising a very long chain of instructive and agreeable stories, begins with the famed revolution at Pataliputra, by the murder of King Nanda with his eight sons, and the usurpation of Chandragupta; and the same revolution is the subject of a tragedy in Sanscrit, entitled the Coronation of Chandra.” (p. xxviii)

These were the basic points of his speech that was called the Discovery of the identity of Chandragupta Maurya as Sandracottus. But the problem is that such a formulation was completely erroneàus in all aspects and there are several hypotheses that he makes that are no longer valid. What are these Hypotheses?

Who was ruling in India during the visit of Megasthenes?

In order to examine these hypotheses we must digress to the characterization of Megasthenes by Greek Historians such as Arrian, Strabo and Diodorus. Megasthenes (ca. 350 BC – 290 BC) was a Greek traveler and geographer from lonia in Asia Minor or present day Turkey. He became an ambassador of Seleucus I of Syria to the court of Sandracottus (mistakenly believed to be Chandragupta Maurya) of India, in Pataliputra. However the exact date of his embassy is uncertain. Scholars place it before 288 BC. Arrian explains that Megasthenes lived in Arachosia, with the satrap (5k. Kshatrap) Sibyrtius, from where he visited India:

“Megasthenes lived with Sibyrtius, satrap of Arachosia, and often speaks of his visiting Sandracottus, the king of the Indians.” Arrian, Anabasis Alexandri [1]

We have more definite information regarding the parts of India which Megasthenes visited. He entered the country through the district of the Pentapotamia of the rivers of which he gave a full account (thought to be the five affluents of the Indus, forming the Punjab region), and proceeded from there by the royal road to Pataliputra. There are accounts of Megasthenes having visited Madurai (then, a bustling city and capital of Pandya Kingdom), but appears not to have visited any other parts of India. His observations were recorded in Indika, a work that served as an important source to many later writers such as Strabo and Arrian. He describes such features as the Himalayas and the island of Sri Lanka. He also described India’s caste system.

Surviving text of Indika

The problem from an Indic perspective is that very little of the Indika survives intact today and we are left with second hand accounts by the aforementioned Greek Historians. In fact McCrindle in “Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arian “says that the Greek writers such as Megasthenes were not highly regarded and were prone to lying. Strabo was of the opinion that Megasthenes simply created fables and as such no faith could be placed in his writings. In Strabo’s own words: “Generally speaking the men who have written on the affairs of India were a set of liars. Deimachos is first, Megasthenes comes next.” Diodorus also held similar opinions about him.

So who and what should we believe? It was Dr. Schwanbeck who we are told again, had collected all the fragments that were extant at that time, and who finally comes to the conclusion that Megasthenes can be largely vindicated of the charge of mendacity (that was leveled at a host of other Greek historians).

The Greek records mention Xandramas and Sandrocyptus as the kings immediately before and after Sandracottus. These names are not in any way phonetically similar to Mahapadma Nanda and Bindusara, who were the predecessor and successor of Chandragupta Maurya, respectively. However, if Sandracottus refers to Chandragupta “Gupta”, Xandramas reckons to be his predecessor Chandrashree alias Chandramas (the last of the main dynasty of Andhra Satavahana Kings) and Sandrocyptus to be Samudragupta. The phonetic similarity becomes quite apparent and also, with the assistance of other evidence, confirms the identity of Sandracottus to Chandragupta Gupta. The ancient Greeks like the Occidentals of today were either incapable of pronouncing Sanskrit names or refused to make the necessary effort to do so.

What does the Puranic evidence tell us

The Puranas are the main means by which the transmittal of Hindu tradition took place and form the central core of the literature through which the values of the civilization are transmitted to successive generations. In fact we are told in the Mahabharata that, ‘the Veda is afraid of him who has not studied the Epics and Puranas, for he would indeed kill it with his ignorance of its truth propounded in them.’


9. Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian by Megasthenes, E. A. Schwanbeck, Arnan. A translation of the fragments of the Indika of Megasthenes, collected by Dr. Schwanbeck and of the first part of Indika by Arrian.

Characteristics of the Puranas

The Puranas are a class of literary texts, all written in Sanskrit verse, whose composition dates from the time of Veda Vyaasa, who lived at the time of the Mahabharata. The Puranas are regarded by some as the Veda when studied under a magnifying glass. The word “Purana” means “old” and in fact Panini assigns the meaning “complete” (cognate with puma) Generally they are considered as following the chronological aftermath of the epics, though sometimes the Mahabharata, which is generally classified as a work of itihaasa (history) is also referred to as a Purana. Some Occidental scholars, such as van Buitenen10, are inclined to view the Puranas as beginning around the time that the composition of the Mahabharata came to a close. Certainly, in its final form the Mahabharata shows puranic features, and the Harivamsa, which is an appendix to the Mahabharata, where the life of Krishna or Hari is treated at some length, have sometimes been seen as puranas. The special subject of the Puranas is the powers and works of the gods, and one ancient Sanskrit lexicographer, Amarasinha, regarded by some as a Jain, and by others as a Buddhist who was reputed to be a courtier of Vikramaditya circa 80 BCE , defined a Purana as having five characteristic topics, or Pancalaksana in the Amarkosha thusly “(1) The creation of the universe, Sarga; (2) Its destruction and renovation, Prati-sarga; (3) The genealogy of gods and patriarchs, Vamsa; (4) The reigns of the Manus forming the periods called Manavantaras; (5) the history of the Solar and Lunar races of kings, Vamsanucharita.”

sargascha prathisargascha vamsamanvanthar Ani cha I

VamsAnucharitam chaiva purAnAm panchalakshanam II

No one purana can be described as exhibiting in fine (or even coarse) detail all five of these distinguishing traits, but sometimes the Vishnu Purana is thought to most closely resemble the traditional definition.

Vyasa composed the Puranas in 400,000 “Grantha”. A Grantha is a stanza consisting of 32 syllables. Of these the Skanda Purana alone accounts for 100, 000. It is perhaps the world’s biggest literary work. The remaining 17 Puranas add up to 300, 000 Granthas. Apart from them Vyasa composed the Mahabharata, which comprised also nearly 100,000 Granthas.

Each Purana is devoted to a particular deity. There are Saiva, Vaisnava and Sakta Puranas. The 18 Puranas: Brahma Purana (Brahma), Padma Purana (Padma), Narada Purana (Naradiya), Markandeya Purana, Visnu Purana (Vaisnava), Siva Purana(Saiva), Bhagvata Purana, Agni Purana (Agneya), Bhavisya Purana, Brahma-Vaivarta Purana, Linga Purana, Varaha Purana (Varaha), Skanda Mahapurana, Vamana Purana, Kurma Purana (Kaurma), Matsya Purana (Matsya), Garuda Purana (Garuda) and Brahmanda Purana.

In the Puranic and other literature, there is no allusion anywhere to an invasion or inroad into India by foreign peoples up to the time of Andhra kings; and the only person who bore the name similar to Sandracottus of the Greeks, and who flourished at the time of Alexander, was Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty, established a mighty empire on the ruins of the already decayed Andhra dynasty and existing 2811 years after the Mahabharata War, corresponding to 328 B.C. His date is currently placed in the fourth century A.D., which obviously does not stand. It is also interesting to note that the accounts in the life of Sandracottus of the Greeks, and the political and social conditions in India at that time, match those of in the era of Chandragu Gupta. With this observation, it is therefore the case that the Greek and Puranic accounts unanimously agree on the issue of the identity Chandragupta Gupta and Sandracottus.


10. Dimmitt, Cornelia; J. A. B. van Buitenen (1978). Classical Hindu Mythology: A Reader in the Sanskrit Purauns. Philadelphia: Temple Umversity Press. pp. 373. ISBN 8170305969.

To provide a complete picture of the Dynastic lists and the names of the individual Kings of the Magadha Empire, we have added the lists until the end of the Gupta empire in appendix C. According to Puranic evidence, there had expired 1500 years after Parikshit, when Mahapadmananda was coronated. Between Parikshit and the Nandas, there were 3 royal dynasties, namely the Brihadratha, Pradyota and Sisunaga families.

The ten kings of the Sisunaga dynasty ruled for 360 years, beginning from 1994 B.C. and ending with 1634 B.C. At this time, an illegitimate son, Mahapadma-Nanda, of the last Sisunaga emperor, Mahanandi, ascended the throne of Magadha. The total regnal period of this Nanda dynasty was 100 years. After this, with the assistance of Arya Chanakya, Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne of Magadha, and that is in the year 1534 B.C. This date can be arrived and confirmed using many independent accounts. The Mauryas ruled for a total of 316 years, and were replaced by the Sungas. The Kanvas who succeeded the Sungas were themselves overthrown by the Andhra, who in turn ruled for a period of 506 years. Then followed the reign of the Sri Guptas for a period of 245 years, also referred to as the (last of the) Golden ages of Bharata. It was Samudragupta of the SriGupta dynasty, who was known as Asokaditya Priyadarshin. The inscriptions of Asoka belong to this Gupta emperor and not to the Asoka Maurya who came to power 218 years after the Buddha. Narahari Achar of Memphis University has confirmed many of the dates including that of the Buddha, using Planetarium software, the algorithms in which are based on Celestial Mechanics, has established that the Puranic dates are correct based on the sky observations that were recorded by the ancients. This must be regarded as an independent verification since the principles of celestial mechanics were unknown to the ancient lndic.

The Hypotheses of Sir William Jones

He made the following inferences from the work of Megasthenes, which were in retrospect colossal errors:

1. That the puranic chronology was completely erroneous

2. That the Sandracottus mentioned in Megasthenes’ Indika was Chandragupta Maurya. He based this on two observations of Megasthenes

3. That Pataliputra11 was situated at the confluence of two rivers which he wrongly inferred to be the Sone and the Ganges. There are two wrong inferences in this statement.

Megasthenes never mentions Pataliputra, but he uses the term Palibothra as the capital. Further Megasthenes mentions the two rivers as the Ganga and the Erannoboas (which was the Greek word for Yamuna) the equivalent Sanskrit word is Hiranyabahu which was the name of Yamuna during antiquity. While Megasthenes mentions the Sane elsewhere in his work, he clearly does not associate it with Palibothra. But Sir William deliberately chose to associate the capital Palibothra with the confluence of the Sone and the Ganga.

We are indebted to Sunil Bhattacharjya for bringing this to our attention.12 We quote the following passage from his paper:

“Even though Megasthenes had specifically mentioned Sone separately yet Sir Jones conveniently stated that Megosthenes mentioned about Sone negligently. But there was none in those days to protest against such horrendous accusation hurled at Megasthenes. Present day well-informed historians know that there was indeed the city of Pratisthanpur at the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna, which was also mentioned by the great poet Kalidasa of the 8th century BCE in his drama “Vikramorvashia”. The city of Pratisthanpur was destroyed completely about one thousand years ago by a devastating fire and from that time onward that city has been known as Jhusi (or Jhunsi), a name derived from the Hindi word Jhulasna or to burn. Megasthenes stated that in those days all the buildings / houses near the rivers and the sea were made of wood and Palibuthra, being at the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna, was no exception and that the structures with brick and clay were built only in places far away from the rivers and the sea. Thus it appears possible that the fire destroyed all the traces of the ancient wooden structures, if any of these at all survived till the time of the devastating fire. Jhusi is located towards the east of Allahabad, just across the river Ganga. Archaeologists have found grains and other artifacts in the mounds


11. Pataliputra is not mentioned in the Puranas and did not enter the picture until the reign of Asoka. The capital of the Magadha Kingdom was always Rajagriha also known in the Mahabharata as Girivraja.

12. Sun Bhattacharjya “The dotted record and its effect on the Ancient Indian chronology, including the antiquity of the Veda and the Bhagavad Gita” Paper presented at the History session at the WAVES conference, 2008, Florida.

of Jhusi, which dates back to before the 4th century BCE. The Asoka pillar found in Jhusi had inscriptions of Samudragupta and it was shifted to the Allahabad Fort and the emperor Jahangir also made his inscriptions on that. There is also inscription of Asoka in that and it was of Samudragupta after he was converted to Buddhism and he assumed the name of Asokaditya. All the Gupta kings had their second names ending in “-aditya”

After studying the fragments of Ta Indika in detail, Pandit Bhagavad Datta13 offers another similar plausible explanation, and the following conclusions “Yamuna was flowing thru Palimbothra, known in ancient times as Paribhadra, the capital of the Prassi kingdom. Palimbothra was 200 miles from Prayag on the way to Mathura. The Kshatriyas were known as Paribhadrakas or Prabhadrakas. Their King was Chandraketu. The capital was Paribhadra was near Sindhu Pulinda which is in Madhya desa and is today termed as Kali Sindha. The Karusha reservoir was between Sindhu Pulinda and Prayag”.

After Sir William, Max Mueller anointed the identification of Sandracottus with Chandragupta Mauryaa and proceeded to announce the sheet anchor of Indian History was Alexander’s invasion and the subsequent visit of Megasthenes, neither of which events have great significance in Indian history. M.Troyer did not agree with this conclusion and noted this fact in the introduction to his translation of Rajatarangini of Kalhana. He even communicated his views to Prof. Max Mueller in a letter but did not receive a reply from him. Max Mueller ignored the objections of Troyer and others such as Colebrook.

What does Megasthenes say about the Kings who ruled at that time

He calls Sandracottus the king of the Prassi and he mentions the names of Xandramus as predecessor and. Sandrocyptus as successor to Sandracottus. There is absolutely no resemblance in these names to Bindusara (the successor to Chandragupta Maurya) and Mahapadma Nanda, the predecessor.

He makes absolutely no mention of Chanakya or Vishnugupta, the Acharya who helped Chndragupta ascend the throne.

He makes no mention of the widespread presence of the Baudhik or Sramana tradition during the time the Maurya Empire.

He claims the capital is Palimbothra or Palibothra, and that the city exists near the confluence of the Ganga and the Eranaboas (Hiranyabahu). But the Puranas are clear that all the 8 dynasties after the Mahabharata war had their capital at Girivraja (Rajagriha)14 located near the present day town of Rajgir. There is no mention of Pataliputra in the Puranas. So, the assumption made by Sir William that Palimbothra is Pataliputra has no baiss in fact and is not attested by any piece of evidence, If the Greeks could pronounce the first P in (Patali) ti could certainly have pronounced the second p in Putra, instead of bastardizing it as Palimbothra. Granted the Greeks were incapable of pronouncing any Indian names, but there is no reason why they should not be consistent in their phonetics.

The empire of Chandragupta was known as the Magadha Empire. It had a long history even at the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In Indian literature, this powerful empire is amply described by this name but it is absent in the Greek accounts. It is difficult to understand as to why Megasthenes did not use this name and instead used the word Prassi which has no equivalent or counterpart in Indian accounts.


13. Pandit Bhagavad Datta “Bharatvarsh ka Brihat ltihaasa”, Part I, Delhi, 1951 (in Hindi).

14. Rajagriha Rajagrha (Sanskrit) The ancient capital of Magadha, famous for its conversion to Buddhism in the days of the Buddhist kings. It was the royal residence from Bimbisara-raja to Asoka, and the seat of the first Synod or Buddhist Council held 510 BC. The famous Saptaparna cave, in which the Buddha’s select circle of arhats were initiated, was in this famous city. Rajgir is the current name of the city and a notified area in Nalanda district in the Indiar state of Bihar. The city of Rajgir (ancient Rajagriha or Rajag[ha; Pali: Rajagaha) was the first capital of the kingdom of Magadha, a state that would eventually evolve into the Maurya Empire. Its date of origin is unknown, although ceramics dating to about 1000 BC have been found in the city. The epic Mahabharata calls it Girivraja and recounts the story of its king, Jarasandha, and his battle with the Pandava brothers and their allies Krishna. It is also mentioned in Buddhist and Jain scriptures, which give a series of place-names, but without geographical context. The attempt to locate these places is based largely on reference to them and to other locations in works of Chinese Buddhist pilgrims, particularly Faxian and Xuanzang. It is on the basis of Xuanzang in particular that the site is divided into Old and New Rajgir. The former lies within a valley and is surrounded by low-lying hills. It is defined Ii an earthen embankment (the Inner Fortification), with which is associated the Outer Fortification, a complex of cyclopean walls that runs (with large breaks) along the crest of the hills. New Rajgir is defined by another, larger, embankment outside the northern entrance of the valley and next to the modern town.

The Colossal Error in Indian Historiography

This is indeed a remarkable tale even when viewed from the different perspectives of the Indic and the Occidental. That a person with such a scant knowledge of Sanskrit, would have the audacity to rewrite the entire history of the Civilization based merely on the scraps and remnants of a travelogue written by an individual who is not even highly regarded by the revered Greek historians is astonishing and bespeaks a degree of hubris that matches the grandeur of the Himalayas. In fairness to Sir William, it must be said that he himself may be utterly surprised at the seriousness with which his speculations have been subsequently anointed. This is in addition to the great weight that is given to Greek historians writing about India despite their atrocious bastardization of Sanskrit terms. This is a gentle reminder to the Occidental that he would do well to do in Rome as the Romans do and learn to pronounce and spell Sanskrit words accurately before pontificating on the merits of ancient Indian scholarship.

Even if Sir William believed he had good cause to stand by his conjectures, what of the Indics of the modern era? Have the Indics taken leave of their senses? Surely such a sloppy conjecture would be reason enough to fail a candidate for the PhD qualifying exam. The Indics should have cringed when they were told that the undecipherable scrap of paper left of the Indika was more credible than the Puranas written in a language with very little ambiguity, but such are the depths to which the Indic has sunk15. He is apt to believe the words of a conqueror who has zero accountability to tell the story accurately, and who is himself insisting it is a conjecture, than the words of the Great Rishis of yore, who wrote in the precise language of Sanskrit. There is a palpable sense of frustration when we see that more than 50 years after Independence we still teach the chronology that was erroneously derived from the torn fragments of Ta lndika.

British Colonial Indology (1780 CE — 2000 CE)

In reality this field of study was dominated by German scholars. Interest in Indology only took shape and concrete direction after the British came to India, with the advent of the discovery of Sanskrit by Sir William Jones in the 1770’s. Other names for lndology are Indic studies or Indian studies or South Asian studies. Almost from the beginning, the Puranas attracted attention from European scholars. But instead of trying to understand the Puranas and the context in which they were developed, the Occidental went about casting doubts on the authenticity of the texts, and in fact altering the chronology which they could find in a particular Purana.

The extraordinary level of interest by German scholars in matters lndic is a very interesting narrative in its own right and we need to reflect upon the highlights of this phenbmenon. The German speaking people experienced a vast increase in intellectual activity at about the same time that Britain colonized India. We do not understand the specific factors that came into play during this time, other than to remark on the tremendous intellectual ferment that was running concurrently during the French revolution, and the keen interest that Napoleon showed in matters scientific including the contributions of the orient. Clearly the remarks that Sir William made about Sanskrit as well as the high level of interest that he provoked in the Sanskrit language, contributed to the overall sense of excitement. But why was it Germany and not Britain, the center of research on the Oriental contributions. The answer lies in the intense search for nationhood that was under way in Germany during that period. When Sanskrit was discovered, and it dawned on the Germans that the antiquity of Sanskrit was very great, and that Sanskrit and German were somehow related, the Germans suddenly had an answer to the question of their own ethnic and linguistic origins. Sir Henry Maine an influential Anglo Indian scholar and former Vice Chancellor of Calcutta university, who was also on the Viceroys council, pronounced a view that many Englishman shared about the unification of Germany.

“A nation has been born out of Sanskrit”

From the beginning, the great interest that Germany showed in Sanskrit had more to do with their own obsessions and questions regarding their ethnic and linguistic origins. It had very little or at least far less to do with the origin of the ancient lndic, about whom they had considerably less interest. And yet, that does not stop the proponents of the AlT in India, whose knowledge of European history appears to be rudimentary at best, from asserting that AlT is an obsession of nationalistic Hindus. Such is the fate and the perversion of history that conquered nations can aspire to. Different aspects of this fascinating chapter, on the postulation of an Aryan race and its corollaries the Indo European, and Indo German people are described for instance by


15. Sreedharan, E.,”A text book of Historiography 500 BC to AD 2000” Orient Longmans, Hyderabad (AP), lndia, 2004.

various authors Trautmann16, Rajaram17 and Arvidsson18 and very recently by Prodosh A1ch19. The interesting but curious aspect of this phenomena is that while the concept of the Aryan race has been well nigh discared by most of the modern generation of the Occidental world, it lingers on in the narrative of Indian History, relic of the heyday of Europe’s dominance on the world scene, when racist theories were abundant to explain this dominance as being a consequence of their heritage as an Aryan people.

In contrast to the Germans and the French, whose interest in matters Indic was catalyzed by their observance of the ubiquitous presence of the Indic civilization in South East Asia, the British had a particular reluctance to study the nature and extent of the Indic civilization. First and foremost amongst their reasons for this neglect was the reluctance to admit that a subject people had any worthwhile civilization to speak of, let alone one that was of far greater antiquity than their own. Britain was the last of the 3 major powers in Europe to have a chair in Sanskrit, and it was almost 50 years after the death of Sir William that England got around to establish a chair at Oxford, the famous Boden chair.

The Pernicious effects of a False history

One of the criticisms leveled at the new breed of Indian historians who wish to uncover the authen history of India after the morass of inconsistencies to which it has sunk, is that they are motivated by political considerations and the further charge is made that they are ‘nationalistic’. While I fail to see any violation of ethics in being nationalist, this is to us a perplexing charge to make, as it is apparent that political motivatiions have been always dominant in the pursuit of Indological studies during the colonial era, right from the outset since the time of Sir William Jones, when he discovered the existence of Sanskrit. One such political motivation was the need for the European to define his identity outside the framework of Semitic traditions which dominated the religious life of Europe. The notion that the North European Viking owed much of his civilization to the Mediterranean Semite was not palatable to most of the elite among the countries of Northern lands of Europe for reasons which we do not have the time to go into now. So, the discovery of Sanskrit was accompanied by a big sigh of relief that the languages of Europe did not after all derive from Hebrew but from an ancestor language which was initially assumed to be Sanskrit. In the immediate aftermath of the discovery of Sanskrit by Sir William Jones, there was a great gush of admiration and worship of the sublime nature of the Sanskrit texts such as Kalidasa’s Sakuntala. But as the European realized that the present day practitioners of Sanskrit were not blonde and blue-eyed (remember ideas of racial superiority were dominant in 18th century Europe despite the advent of the enlightenment and the renaissance) this was found to be equally unpalatable.

The European lndologist therefore came upon the ingenious explanation that the Sanskrit culture of thel subcontinent was not native to the subcontinent but was impregnated by a small band of nomadic Viking like marauders who then proceeded to transform themselves within the short space of 200 years into the intellectual class of India20. This hypothesis (because that is what it was) had of course no basis in fact, but it served the purpose and killed several birds with one stone. It denied India the autochthonous legacy of the dominant culture of the subcontinent, and helped create a schism in the Indian body politic, and further imp that the native lndic was incapable of original thought and certainly was not capable of producing a language like Sanskrit. It filled the obsessive need during those decades that the European had for an ancestor that was not Semitic in origin. Lo and behold the ancestor did not come from India but from a long lost Shangri-La of whom there were no survivors (so that their hypothesis could never be contradicted). Thus was born the mythical Aryan, whose only qualification was that he should hail from a land that was anywhere but India, preferably from a region not very densely inhabited or conscious of their antiquity. Further it gave the excuse for the British to claim that they were indeed the later day version of the Aryans destined to lord it over lesser, more unfortunate people by reason of the fact that they were Aryans. Seefo instance Trautmann (1997) or Chakrabarti21 (1997).


16. Trautmann, Thomas, “Anjans and British India”, 1997, University of California press.

17. Rajaram, Navaratna “The Politics of History, Voice of India, 1995.

18. Stefari Arvidsson 2006:38 Aryan Idols.

19. Prodosh Aich Lies with Long Legs, 2006, Samskrti, New Delhi.

20. I remain aghast at the sheer audacity of this claim, which remains a conjecture, a conjecture that has survived over 200 years despite the absence of any tangible archaeological or other proof, particularly so, when the Indic regard the development of the whole edifice of Sanskritic culture to be the single most important identifying feature of his civilization.

21. Chakrabarti, D “Colonial Indology, Sociopolitics ofthe Ancient Indian past” Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, P ltd., New Delhi, 1997.

In short, the study of India, during the colonial era has always been accompanied by a healthy dose of imperialist dogma and by disdain for a people who they felt could so easily be vanquished in battle by handful of Englishmen. In my view, these attitudes and presuppositions of the Occident are deeply entrenched in the psyche of the Occidental, fortified as they are by text books which retain the caricaturized view of the Indic that we elaborate later in this essay. This is in addition to the normal human tendency to exhibit a degree of the ‘Not Invented Here’ syndrome or the propensity to devalue the acquisition of knowledge by people and civilizations other than their own. This is a train of thought that needs to be explored further, but we do not wish to be sidetracked from the main topic. We hasten to add that the fundamental scholarly impulse and intellectual curiosity that drives most scholars still motivates a substantial section of the lndologists, regardless of nationality, despite much pressure from European academia to toe the line and not to stray from the conventional wisdom. But this stream of objective scholars died out pretty soon after and became almost extinct in the nineteenth century, and in general, with a few exceptions amongst the French, the European Indologists toed the party line that Indic contributions were shallow and insubstantial and were a derivative of the work done by the Greeks.

In fact the British presence in India was steadily increasing long before the Battle of Plassey in 1757 CE, but so great was the insularity of the colonial overlord that it took almost three hundred years for a relatively well educated scholar like Sir William Jones to show up in India after Vasco cia Gama landed of the coast of Goa in 1492 CE, and notice the similarities between Sanskrit and the European languages. Prodosh Aich has done extensive research into primary sources and has come to the conclusion that the vaunted linguistic scholarship of Sir William was to put it mildly much exaggerated. We shall examine the background of Sir William especially his early years to see wherein lay the truth.

The discovery of Sanskrit by Sir William and the coming of the British had a terminally fatal effect on the conduct of scientific studies in India. It cut off the Indic from his own native source of traditional learning and replaced it with the traditions of a land far away with which he had no physical contact, and could not relate; with the result that literacy fell to 6 percent at the turn of the 20th century. Education was tightly controlled by the government and all support to schools that did not teach English was summarily stopped, except in states that were ruled by a local Maharajah such as Travancore Cochin, Baroda and Mysore. India was turned into a vast Gulag where no ideas other than those of the British were allowed to penetrate and the Indian was effectively barred from traveling to foreign lands, except on a one way trip to a distant land as indentured labor, lest they return with the subversive notions of freedom and democracy which as Churchill remarked on more than one occasion were not applicable to the subject populations of their Colonies. So great was the travel restriction that the Indic internalized this consequence of the rule of the Colonial Overlord, to be a characteristic of the assumed native propensity to aversion of adventure and exploration. There was no money allocated for research and no encouragement of savants, who had little opportunity to pursue further research. So the steady supply of lndic scientists which lasted till about 1780 CE finally died out and lndic science was almost extinguished from the land.

This is not to say that there have been no benefits accrued from the change in the medium of instruction to English. lndic youngsters were placed in an advantageous situation when it came to getting admission to graduath studies in North America, in part due to the fortuitous circumstance, that a substantial part of the new world now spoke English. This coupled with the investment in higher education made by Jawaharlal Nehru India’s first Prime Minister catapulted India into the leadership ranks of countries who were players in the new Information Technology. But the negatives remain. The vast majority of the Indian population is not a participant in this new bounty, because they do not have the access to the expensive schools that purvey access to such an education.

The most telling impact of the newly coined endeavor called philology, that was the result of this unwanted gush of attention, engendered ever since the discovery of Sanskrit, was the manner in which the lndia was viewed by the rest of the world and even more importantly the internalization of the British and European view of India by the average literate English educated lndic. Till then the Indic was widely respected throughout the world and his geographical origin was synonymous with scholarship. Today, it is commonplace in India to deride somebody who expresses pride in his tradition and his civilization as being jingoistic. The Coionial overlord went to extraordinary lengths to undermine the Civilizational commonalities amongst the people of India by various and diverse means. Anything that had a negative impact was played to the hilt. The antiquity of Indian history was systematically whittled away and the new dates had to conform to the notion that India did not contribute anything of value to civilization and that all she knew in the area of science and mathematics, was learned from the Greeks. The Indian was uniformly characterized as a shiftless indolent individual with very few redeeming qualities.

So great was the change and so lasting in its effect that today vast numbers of Indian youth have almost the same opinion of India and Indic traditions that the Colonial overlords had, of India in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. There has been a massive change in the psyche of the Indic, much of it for the worse, a fact that was brought Out in vivid portrayals by V S Naipaul when he coined the phrase ‘the wounded civilization’ om his references to the subcontinent.

Examples of the internalization of the European views of India abound in India today. Even eminent Indian historians like RC Majumdar have expressed some of these views In writing without substantiating how they arrived at such conclusions. We give below a sample. It is ironic that these viewpoints are usually expressed by Indics rather than non Indics.

The general British view of the Indic during the Colonial Era:

 The Caricaturization of the Indic

 There is a strong undercurrent in the Occident that it is the religious beliefs of the Indic that are the root cause of his misfortunes.

 The lndic is inherently incapable of adventurous behavior and will not venture beyond the confines of the Indian subcontinent (Kaalapaani syndrome)

 The Indic is incapable of original, rational and creative ideas. The Indic is incapable of independent thinking and is unquestioning in his adherence to authoritarian diktats such as those in the Vedic texts and is only capable of rote learning (presuming it is conceded that the Indic is capable of learning at all.)

 The caste system is an artifact of the Indic religious belief system, and that the Indic is inherently opposed to egalitarian ideas and is wedded to the racial and ethnic stratification of his own society.

 The Indic is especially unique and egregious in the manner in which he exploits his fellow Indics.

 The lndic is fundamentally not tuned to making progress and advancing in the modern world, and is lost in an ancient mind set.

 Everything good and worthwhile in the Indian subcontinent has been imported by the invaders, and the only indigenous characteristics are those like caste that are inherent to the Indic civilization.

 The lndic is fatalistic and will not make an effort to change his destiny which is written in stone the moment he is born.

 The Indic is lazy and indolent

 The Indic has no sense of history and is even poorer at keeping records of his historical past

 As a consequence of the above the Indic is socially backward, possibly morally corrupt and perennially hence dependent upon Westernization to reform the current problems in Indian society.

From such a viewpoint it was indeed a short step to assume as Karl Marx did, that the Indic was destined to be ruled by others. The germ of such a vast change in psyche was the goal of Thomas Babington Macaulay and he would have been rather pleased to see the consequences of his minute on education where he proposed changing the medium of instruction to English in the 1830’s in order to produce a class of Brown Englishman who would occupy positions intermediate between those of the Colonial overlords and the unwashed masses of the subcontinent. In the same vein, HH Wilson, the first occupant of the Boden Chair in Sanskrit, wrote as follows,

“From the survey which has been submitted to you, you will perceive that the practical religion of the Hindus is by no means a concentrated and compact system, but a heterogeneous compound made up of various and not infrequently incompatible ingredients, and that to a few ancient fragments it has made large and unauthorized additions, most of which are of an exceedingly mischievous and disgraceful nature. It is, however, of little avail yet to attempt to undeceive the multitude; their superstition is based upon ignorance, and until the foundation is taken away, the superstructure, however crazy and rotten, will hold together.”

Power over a vast area like India does strange things to people, one of which is the loss of ‘common sense’, not to mention the loss of humility, and one can see the process of creating the mythological Indian has already begun as early as 1833, the process of remaking the Indic mindset had commenced in earnest. There is an immense irony in this state of affairs and that is that India is well on its way to becoming the largest English speaking nation in the planet. If present trends continue the number of English speaking people residing in India will exceed that of the Unites States within 20 years22. The implications are enormous. For instance, India will become the largest producer of English books in the planet, a state of affairs that may already be true because of the huge market of South and South East Asia.


It is obviously not our contention that the Greek synchronism by itself was responsible for the terrible shape the Indic found himself in, at the start of Independence, but there is no question that the erroneous conclusions that Sir William made while he was in search of an external synchronism, played a major role in the subsequent transformation of the Indic from a self confident individual to a mass of contradictions. In particular he could not bring himself to admit that the genealogical tables in the Puranas, had the sanction of millennia of tradition. From such a diagnosis certain remedies suggest themselves.

One such remedy is to develop a new set of curricula along with a University for training the future leaders of Bhaarat. The curriculum should be a blend of the traditional Veda Patashala and other subjects such as Latin and Greek with sufficient emphasis on Linguistics. Such an individual will be equipped with a Box of tools or a tool kit, albeit one that encompasses a sophisticated ensemble of subjects, epistemologies and technologies to tackle the problems of society. Such an individual would feel equally at home whether she was chanting the Veda, or confronting world leaders equipped with a formidable array of Epistemes. Unless the Indics are proactive, there is a very real danger that the Vedic episteme will wither away as is happening now and we will read about our past in illustrated coffee table books whose only knowledge of the welisprings of the Indic civilization is restricted to Cows, Curry and Caste. But again I wish to caution the reader that the main motivation for such a Vishva Vidyalaya is not merely to preserve the superficial accoutrements of Vedic knowledge such as chanting, but to apply the episteme to find solutions to a wide variety of societal problems.

While this may take a certain period of time, it is essential to set the stage for a new breed of Indic leadership that adheres to a minimum set of universally accepted Core Values (see appendix A for an example). We are emphatic that it will take a single minded individual like Kautilya to make such a reality happen but that should not daunt the Indic from such an endeavor. The alternative to the creation of such a leadership will eventuate in the slow decay of the Indic civilization until it only resides in Museums and illustrated coffee table books and will encourage the Occidental Indologist to enter the fray once again with the same disastrous consequences that have brought us to such a precarious state today. The objective is not to prevent others from studying the Indic civilization but we should never again be in a situation where the Occidental or any individual with scant knowledge of the civilizational ethos becomes the main interpreter of our past.

We conclude, with a call to action and an exhortation reminiscent of a recent American President:

“Let it resound in the distant regions of this planet, whether there are those that wish us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival of the cherished values and traditions of the Hindu.”


22. I mention this important artifact not in glee or in adulation of Lord Macaulay, nor even in alarm, but merely to reflect on the consequences. Our preference would have been the gradual introduction of English and certainly not as a mandatory requirement, which resulted as we shall see shortly in dire consequences.

Sage Yajnavalkya

Sage of Mithila advanced a 95-year cycle to synchronize the motions of the sun and the moon. He is also credited with the authorship of the Shatapatha Brahmana, in which the references to the motions of the sun and the moon are found. A date of 3200 BC is sometimes suggested by the astronomical evidence within the Shatapatha Brahmana, while some Western scholars dispute not only the chronology but also his historicity. Mithila was a kingdom in ancient India. Yajnavalkya is also a major figure in the Upanishads. His deep philosophical teachings in the Brhadaranyaka, (Brihat — Aranyaka) Upanishad (The Great Forest Upanishad), and the apophatic teaching of ‘neti neti’ etc. is found to be startlingly similar to Buddhist Anatta doctrine and to modern science.

Yajnavalkya married two women. One was Maitreyi and the other Katyayani. Of the two, Maitreyi was a Brahmavadini (one who is interested in the knowledge of Brahman and more inclined towards the pursuit of higher knowledge). When Yajnavalkya wished to divide his property between the two wives before starting for the fourth Ashrama of his life (sanyasa), Maitreyi asked whether she could become immortal through wealth. Yajnavalkya replied that there was no hope of immortality through wealth and that she would only become one among the many who were well-to-do on earth. On hearing this, Maitreyi requested Yajnavalkya to teach her what he regarded as the higher knowledge. Then Yajnavalkya elaborately described to her the sole greatness of the Absolute Self, the nature of Its existence, the way of attaining infinite knowledge and immortality, etc. This immortal conversation between Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi is recorded in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishal.

The Upanishad is one of the older, primary (mukhya) Upanishads commented upon by Shankara. …

“All things are dear, not for their sake, but for the sake of the Self. This Self alone exists everywhere. It cannot be understood or known, for It alone is the One that Understands and Knows. Its nature cannot be said to be positively as such. It is realized through endless denials as ‘not this, not this’ The Self is self-luminous, indestructible, and unthinkable”.

The central theme of the discourse is the nature of Brahman in the Vedantic (and subsequently Yogic) forms of Hinduism. Brahman is the signifying name given to the concept of the unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality that is the Divine Ground of all being in this universe. Sanyasa symbolizes the conception of the mystic life in Hinduism where a person is now integrated into the spiritual world after wholly giving up material life. Thus, it is the consensus that the Wisdom of Yajnavalkya is revealed to a greater extent in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad where he imparts his teachings to his wife Maitreyi and King Janaka.

He also participates in a competition arranged by King Janaka to select the great Brahma Jnani (one who knows Brahman) and wins after defeating several learned scholars and sages. This forms a beautiful chapter filled with lot of philosophical and mystical question-answers in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad. In the end, Yajnavalkya took Vidvat Sanyasa (renunciation after the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman) and retired to the forest. The Brhadaranyaka is the prime Upanishad among the many Upanishads written in ancient India known very widely for its profound philosophical statements. … In Ancient India, Janaka was the King of the Mithila Kingdom.

Yajnavalkya was one of the greatest sages ever known. His precepts as contained in the Upanishads (The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad) stand foremost as the crest-jewel of the highest teachings on knowledge of Brahman. His knowledge of the skies and the periodicities of the planets was far ahead of his time. It is possible reading his works may give us clues as to the identity of the person who conceptualized the Sunya.

Appendix A

The Core Values

Each set of core values, while containing many that are regarded as universal should also contain, those that are specially suited to the Gunas of the individual, the point being that each individual should customize them according to his strengths and weaknesses. These are placed here merely for illustrative purposes

1. Integrity (1) Sattwa, Suddhi. A hankering for the truth is essential in this kind of endeavor (or any field of endeavor). Truth is conceptualized in many ways. What is the real truth? What is the ultimate truth? What is metaphysical truth or, what lies beyond? In seeking answers to all these questions, what is stressed upon is that one should be true to oneself, not just when interacting with another outside the Self.

The study of History (or any other endeavor) must be accompanied by a hankering for the truth. Such a narrative must have few if any inconsistencies and none which are major.

2. Celebration of Diversity (ability to synthesize opposing viewpoints, inability to do so is a sign of weakness and a sign of Avidya where one falls prey to Ahankara). “Ekam sat Vipraa, bahudha vadanti.” “Truth is one, the wise call It by various names.”

For many if not the vast majority, diversity signifies primarily if not exclusively diversity of ethnicities or races. But such a viewpoint ignores the very real diversity that exists in differing ideologies, opinions, experiences regardless of ethnic or class diversity. We maintain that the real test of being completely at home in a diverse environment, lies in synthesizing diverse viewpoints, while not necessarily agreeing with them.

Celebration of Diversity or at least the recognition of such diversity and its enthusiastic acceptance must remain a fundamental obligation of all nation states and the responsibility of all the individual citizens of a nation state and not just those of its citizens who are deemed to belong to a majority. Those who view themselves as a minority have to bear such an obligation in equal measure and cannot shirk such a responsibility with a plea that they are a minority and hence do not have to shoulder the same responsibilities as the rest of the populace. At the same time celebration of diversity does not mean that one should tolerate the intolerant.

3. Courage (dhairya, dhiratva) to think outside the box and adopt new paradigms (Viswakarma), to admit mistakes, show remorse and apologize where applicable and move on to persevere in the face of great odds and to fight against evil (Thithiksha). This also includes a reverence for the traditions of our ancient civilization and the courage to defend such traditions against tyranny and terrorism. We should be explicit in stating in a fashion reminiscent of an American President,

“Let it resound in the distant regions of this planet, whether there are those that wish us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival of the cherished values and traditions of the Hindu

4. Detachment or Vairagya; when faced with the consequences of one’s action, Hinduism asks the individual to stand aside and become a witness (sAkshl bhAva). Rather than respond with extreme excitement or deep depression, the Dharma teaches the individual to ponder the consequences without intervention, with a certain detachment. Whether in victory and failure, one must reflect, understand, and inquire. The nature of our thoughts influences our approach to life and helps us motivate ourseif without external aids. Vairagya is a core value which is perhaps emphasized to a greater degree than it is in the Occident

5. Viveka, to discriminate between what is good and what needs to be discarded. To preserve enduring traditions and values and discard those which are no longer relevant using Viveka.

6. Compassion for those who need help and who cannot help themselves and those who are disadvantaged in society and who need a helping hand. The value of giving, lies not merely in the fact that we may of help, but also because recognizing the divinity in others, acce’erates our quest to know our Real Self.

7. Reverence for all life forms in particular human life is a central core value. The taking of a human life is a grave matter and is permitted to societies (and nations) only under conditions of extreme provocation, such as self defense. To wage war to reclaim lost territory or to avenge past wrongs becomes highly problematic under the prevailing charter of internationally acceptable behavior. It is all the more imperative that when one is forced into war that the fight be fought with valor, courage and single minded determination to win, since the alternative could be very costly, as India has learned from past experience.

8. Tolerance for Ambiguity. Contrary to Einstein, the world and the events that take place in this world are not deterministic. One can only describe certain phenomena in a probabilistic paradigm. The certainty in ones belief system may be a luxury only Prophets can afford. For, the rest of us we have to rest content with a degree of belief and tolerate the inherent ambiguities of many facets of life.

9. Respect for the individual and his/her individuality. We thank lshwara for blessing the human species with the gift of diversity and we believe in dealing with each individual based on his/her actions and behavior and non on the basis of their status or class or Varna in society.

10. It is our belief that a study of history in general and the history of the Indic civilization in particular has lessons to teach us. We make no apology therefore for our emphasis on history in our studies, and our quest to unravel an account of Indic history that is accurate. It behooves us therefore to study history in order to cull thoseac policies, principles and values that have stood the test of time, while at the same time learning from those instances deemed generally to be failures. In short the purpose is not so much to dwell on the ‘glories’ of the past but to learn and continue to be inspired so as to aspire to reach even greater heights.

11. Reverence for Knowledge, both Para and Apara Vidya and a determination (Thithiksha) to pursue the studies of the ancient knowledge in Samskrtam. The manuscript wealth of India exceeds over 5 million; about a million of these have been catalogued. These staggering numbers indicate that there is much that we are not cognizant of when it comes to the knowledge of the ancients.

12. It is our strong belief bolstered by extensive studies of our ancient scriptures, and vetted by the stringent requirements of Logic, that the single greatest gift that the Sanaatana Dharma bestows upon us is the freedom to be our Self and the freedom to exercise choices (Freewill). Freedom however is accompanied by responsibilities, the responsibility to ‘Know thyself’ and to be accountable for our actions.

Appendix B

Proposed Skeleton or Scaffolding of Indian Chronology Key Dates23

Legend Individual or Detailed Description Date

Geologic Event End of Glaciation 10,000 BCE

Geologic Event. We Melting of Glaciers. There are believed

are in the warming half to be various cycles, shortest being

cycle between Glacial Eras 40,000 years

Gelogical Event Formation of River Civilisations 8000 BCD

Era. The begining of The Vedic Era. The Ten Mandalas of the Rig were composed over a period of 500 years 7000 to 4000 BCE

Recorded history in oral

traditions.(Srautic Parampara)

Era Sarasvati Sindhu Civilisation Mehrgarh Culture, early phase 7000 BCE

War Dasarajna War, the battle of the ten kings 7000 BCE

Dynasty The lkshvakus and the Ramayana 6000 BCE

Era, paradigm shift, a phenomenal
efflorescence of knowledge,
the Vedic Episteme Brahmana Era, Beginning of 5000 BCE

Era Puranic Era 5000 BCE-3000 BCE

Birth Veda Vyaasa 3200-3300 BCE

Observation Vernal Equinox In Observation of Nakshatra in which the
Rohini Vernal Equinox occurs -3100 BCE

War The Great Bharata War Nov 22, 3067 BCE

Era Era of the Sulva Sutras (3102±35 BCE –
error caused by
changes in Julian

Paradigm shift to Likhit Parampara Era of the Sulva Sutras, Sutras of the
cord, development of geometry,
trionometry 4000 – 2000 BCE

Birth Apastambha -3000 BCE

Birth Baudhayana -3200 BCE

Era Kali Yuga 3102 BCE

Death Sri Krishna Nirvana 3102 BCE

Writings, scripts had coalesced
into codified symbols Pingala 2900 BCE

Writings Panin’s Ashtadhyayi, codification of
Vyakarana and other Vedangas 2900 BCE

Paradigm shift Use of Decimal Place Value system
(Panini, Pingala). Catalysed Indic
contribution to algebra, number theory,
infinite series, spherical trigonometry 2900 BCE

We include this table to remind ourselves of the vast history that awaits our research, and which the Occidental usually dismissed within a few pages, less space than he would allocate to the Moghal Empire which lasted less than 2 centures.

Era Sarasvati Mature Phase 3000 BCE–1700 BCE
Sindhu Civilisation

Dynasty (Magadha) Brhihadratha Dynasty 3138 BCE-2132 BCE
(22 kings, 1006 years)

Birth Aryabhata 2765 BCE, 337 Yugabda

Writings Yajnavalkya, Brihat-Aranyaka -3000 BCE Astronomical
Upanishad evidence
Satpatha Brahmana

Writings Aryabhata wrote the 2742 BCE
Aryabhatiyum when
he was 23 years old

Dynasty Pradhyota Dynasty 2132 to 1994 BCE
(5 kings, 138 years)

Dynasty Sisunaga Dynasty 1994-1634 BCE
(10 kings, 360 years)

Lifespan Gautama Buddha 1887-1807 BCE,
astronomical evidence

Birth Mahaveera 1862 BCE

Dynasty Nanda Dynasty 1634-1534 BCE
(Mahapdmananda and his sons)

Coronation Chandragupta Maurya 1534 BCE-1500 BCE

Coronation Asoka Maurya 1472 BCE

Dynasty Maurya(12 kings, 316 years) 1534-1218 BCE

Dynasty Kushan Empire 1472 BCE

Coronation Ashoka Gonanda 1448 BCE

Coronation Kanishka 1298 BCE

Dynasty Sunga Dynasty 1218-918 BCE
( kings, 300 years)

Writings Patanjali’s Mahabhashya 1218 BCE

Writings Nagafjuna 1294 BCE

Reign Kanishka 1298-1237 BCE

Writings Kalidasa-1 1158 BCE

Dynasty Kanva Dynasty 918-833 BCE
(4 kings, 85 years)

Era Andhra Satavahana 833 BCE-327 BCE
( kings, 506 years)

Birth Kumarda Bhatta (Mimamsa) 557 BCE

Era Sakanripa Kala 550 BCE
(era of Cyrus the great
of Persia)

Birth Adi Sankaracharya 509 BCE-477 BCE
(Has an audience
with Hala Satavahana

Harsha Vikramaditya Alexander of Macedonia 336 BCE

Coronation Chandragupta of 327 BCE
Gupta dynasty

War Alexander initiates an inconclusive
battle with Purushottam, regional
kahatrap in the Punjab and is
forced to retreat short of his
goal of vanquishing the great
empire of India 326 BCE

Dynasty Imperial Gupta Dynasty
(7 longs, 245 years) 327 BCE- 82 BCE

Coronation Samudragupta 320 BCE

Writings VarahaMihiraPancha Siddhanta 123 BCE

Reign Vikramaditya 102 BCE -78 BCE

Era Vikrarna Saka,
Named after Vikramaditya 57 BCE

Writings Kalidasa-Il author of Raghuvamsa,
Jyotirvidabharana 57 BCE

Birth Brahmagupta 30 BCE

Era Salivahana Calendar
(Punwar dynasty) 78 CE

Writings Bhaskara II Aka Bhaskaracharya
Siddhanta Siromani 486 CE

Dynasty Punwar Dynasty 82 BCE- 1193 CE
(23Kings, 1111 years)

Era Christian Era 0 (Yugabda 3102)

Era Salivahana (Saka Calendar) 78 CE

Writings Huen-Tsang 625 CE

Writings Kalidasa-III (lived in Rhoja s time) 638 CE

Dynasty Pala Empire 750-1174 CE

Coronation Bhoja Raja’s Coronation 648 CE

Coronation SriharshaSaiiaditya 648 CE

Dynasty Chola Empire 848 CE-1279 CE

Beginning of Islamic Era Prithviraj Chamahana the last
major Indic dynasty in North India 1192 CE

Era Delhi Sultanate 1192 CE-1526 CE

Era The Hoysalas 1040 CE-1346 CE

Reconquista begins and the Toledo the great Muslim 1085 CE

Fall of Toledo center of learning falls into
the Christian hands

Era The Kakatlyas 1083CE-1323 CE

India’s First Modern Historian Kalahana (Kashmiri Historian) 1148 CE

Era Bahmani Confederatlon 1390 CE-1596 CE

Era Vijayanagar Empire 1339 CE-1625 CE

Era The Moghal Empire 1526 CE-1757 CE

Dynasty The Maratha Confederacy 1674 CE-1818 CE

Dynasty The Sikh Confederacy 1716 CE -1849 CE

Dynasty The British Empire, the British
Royalty were mostly of
German Ancestry 1757 CE -1947 CE

Era The Modern Republic 1950 CE

Appendix C

Select Dynasties who ruled India

There is no attempt at completeness here and this list or lists are not exhaustive by any means. But the dynastic lists available to us are far more complete, than our English Language text books would have you believe. So when Indian History Books written by Englishmen, studiously avoid mentioning dynastic lists, methinks they have a reason and that being the need to indulge in and foster the illusion that the lndic had to sense of history. Our response is what is the gold standard for the respective eras we are talking about? How many accurate Dynastic lists do we have in the world going back to 3000 BCE and earlier?

Descendants of the Kuru Pandavas
(from Yudhistira 3067 BCE – 1634 BCE)

Yudhistira Parikshit

Janamejaya Sataneeka

Ashwamedadata Adhseema Krishna

Nichaknu Ushna

Chitra ratha Suchirata

Krushnimanta Sushena

Suneetha Nrupegakshu

Sukhibala Pariplava

Sumaya Medhavi

Ripunjaya Urva

Tigma Bruhadradha

Kasudana Saranika II

Udayana Kihinara

Dandapani Nivamitra


Table From Dating In Indian Archaeology
Problems and Perspectives, Bharateeya Itihaasa Sankalan Samiti, T P Verma Ed.



1900 BC

2800 BC

2800 BC

3500 BC

4000 +BC

Dynastic Lists of the Magadha Empires

Dynasty Number of kings Period Total numbers Cumulative
of years ruled Total

Brhadratha 22 3136 to 2132 BCE 1006

Pradhyota 5 2132 to 1994 BCE 138 1144

Sisunaga 10 1994 to 1634 BCE 360 1504

Nanda 9 1634 to 1534 BCE 100 1604

Maurya 12 1534 to 1218 BCE 316 1920

Sunga 10 1218 to 918 BCE 300 2220

Kunwa 4 918 to 833 BCE 85 2305

Andhra Satavahana 33 833 to 327 BCE 506 2811

Imperial Gupta 77 327 to 82 BCE 245 3055

Punwar or Pramara 24 82 BCE to 1193 CE 1275 4330

Totals 206 3136 BCE to 1193 CE 4330

The Brihadratha Dynasty

Serial Name of King Regnal Period Begins Kali Era Begins BCE
No. KE or Yugabda

1 Marjari 58 36 before KE 3138

2 Srutasrava 64 22 3080

3 Apratipa or Ayutaya 36 86 3016

4 Niramitra 40 122 2980

5 Sukrutha or Sukshatra 58 162 2940

6 Brihatkarma 23 220 2882

7 Syenajit 50 243 2859

8 Srutanjaya 40 293 2809

9 Mahabala or Vibhau 35 333 2769

10 Suchi 58 368 2734

11 Kshemya 28 426 2676

12 Anuvrata or Suvrata 64 454 2648

13 Dharmanetra or Sunetra 35 518 2584

14 Nirvriti 58 553 2549

15 Suvrata 38 611 2491

16 Dhrudasena or Mahasena 58 649 2453

17 Sumati or Mahanetra 33 707 2395

18 Suchala or Subala 22 740 2362

19 Sunetra 40 762 2340

20 Satyajit 83 802 2300

21 Veerajit or Viiswajit 35 885 2217

22 Ripunjaya 50 920 2182

Total 1006 -36 to 970 KY 3138-2132 BCE

The Pradyota Dynasty

Serial Name of King Regnal Period Begins Kali Era Begins BCE
No. KE or Yugabda

23 Pradyota or Balaka 23 970 2132

24 Palaaka or Paalaka 24 993 2109

25 Visakhayupa 50 1017 2085

26 Jamaka or Suryaka 21 1067 2035

27 Nanivardhana 20 1088 2014

Total 138 970-1108 2132-1994

The Sisunaoga Dynasty

Serial Name of King Regnal Period Begins Kali Begins BCE
No. Era KE or Yugabda

28 Sisunaga 40 1108 1994

29 Kakavarrna 36 1148 1995

30 Kshemadharma or 26 1184 1918

31 Kshemajit 40 1210 1892

32 Vidhisarta or Bimbisara 38 1250 1852

33 Ajatasatru 27 1288 1814

34 Darsaka or Vamsaka 35 1315 1787

35 Udayana or Udasina 33 1350 1752

36 Nandivardhana or 42 1383 1719

37 Mahanandi 43 1425 1677

Total 360 1108-1468 1994-1634

The Nanda Dynasty

Serial Name of King Regnal Period Begins Kali Era Begins BCE
No. KE or Yugabda

38 Mahapadmananda 88 1468 1634

39 Sumalya etc, 9 brothers 12 1556 1546

Total 100 1468-1568 1634-1534

The Maurya Dynasty

Serial Name of King Regnal Period Begins Kali Era Begins BCE
No. KE or Yugabda

40 Chandragupta Maurya 34 1568 1534

41 Bindusara 28 1602 1500

42 Asoka 36 1630 1472

43 Suparsva or Suyasa 8 1666 1436

44 Dasaradha or Bandupalita 8 1674 1428

45 Indrapalita 70 1682 1420

46 Harshavardhana 8 1752 1350

47 Sangata 9 1760 1342

48 Salisuka 13 1769 1333

49 Somasarma or Devasarma 7 1782 1320

50 Satadhana 8 1789 1313

51 Brihadradha or Brihadaswa 87 1797 1305

Total 316 1568-1884 1534-1218

The Sunga Dynasty

Serial Name of King Regnal Period Begins Kali Era Begins BCE
No. KE or Yugabda

52 Pushyamitra 60 1884 1218

53 Agnimitra 50 1944 1158

54 Vasumitra 36 1994 1108

55 Sujyeshta 17 2030 1072

56 Bhadraja or Andhraka 30 2047 1055

57 Pulindaka 33 2077 1025

58 Ghoshavasu 3 2110 992

59 Vajramitra 29 2113 989

60 Bhagavata 32 2142 960

61 Devabhuti Kshemabhumi 10 2174 928

Total 300 1884-2184 1218-918

The Kanva Dynasty

Serial Name of King Regnal Period Begins Kali Era Begins BCE
No. KE or Yugabda

62 Vasudeva Kanva 30 2184 918

63 Bhumimitra 24 2223 879

64 Narayana Kanva 12 2247 855

65 Susarma 10 2259 843

Total 85 2184-2269 918-833

The Satavahana Andhra Dynasty

Serial Name of King Regnal Period of Reign Period of Reign
No. Period in Kali Era BCE (Before the
(Years) (Solar Tropical Year) Common Era) Simukha

66 Simukha Saatakarni 23 2269-2292 833-810

67 Sri Krishna Saatakarni 18 2292-2310 810-792

68 Sri Malia Saatakarni 10 2310-2320 792-782

69 Puurnothsanga 18 2320-2338 782-764

70 Sri Satakarni 56 2338-2394 764-708

71 Skandha stambhi 18 2394-2412 708-690

72 Lambodara Saatavaahana 18 2412-2430 690-672

73 Apiitaka Saatavaahana 12 2430-2442 672-660

74 Meghaswaati Saatavaahana 18 2442-2460 660-642

75 Saata Swaati Saatavaahana 18 2460-2478 642-624

76 Skanea Saatakarni 7 2448-2485 624-617

77 Mrigendra Saatakarni 3 2485-2488 617-614

78 Kuntala Saatakarni 8 2488-2496 614-606

79 Soumya Satakarni 12 2496-2508 606-594

80 Saata Saatakarni 1 2508-2509 594-593

81 Puloma or Puloma 1 36 2509-2583 557-519

82 Megha Satakarni 38 2545-2583 557-519

83 Arishta Satakarni (in the tenth
year of his reign in B.C. 509,
Sri Sankara was born) 25 2583-2608 519-494

84 Haala Saatavahana 5 2608-2613 494-489

85 Mandalaka Saatavahana 5 2613-2618 489-484

86 Purindrasena Saatavahana 21 2618-2639 484-463

87 Sundara Saatakarni 1 2639-2640 463-462

88 Chakora Saatakarni ½ 2640-2640 462-461
Mahendra Saatakarni ½ 2641-2641 462-461

89 Siva Saatakarni 28 2641-2669 461-433

90 Gautamiputra Saatkarni 25 2669-2694 433-408

91 II Puloma Saatakarni 32 2694-2726 408-376

92 Sivasri Saatakarni 7 2726-2733 376-369

93 Sivaskanda Saatakarni 7 2733-2740 369-362

94 Yajna Sri Saatakarni 19 2741-2759 362-343

95 Vijayasri Saatakarni 6 2759-2765 343-337

96 Chandra Sri Saatakarni 3 2765-2768 337-334

97 III Puloma Sri Saatakarni 7 2768-2775 334-327

The Imperial Gupta Dynasty

Serial Name of King Regnal Period Begins Kali Era Begins BCE
No. KE or Yugabda

98 Chandragupta I or
Vijayaditya 7 2775 327

99 Samudragupta or
Asokaditya 51 2782 320

100 Chandragupta II or
Vikramaditya 36 2833 269

101 Kumaragupta I or
Mahendraaditya 42 2869 233

102 Skandagupta or
Pratapaditya 25 2911 191

103 Narasimha gupta 5 2936 166

104 Baladitya 35 2941 161

105 Kumaragupta II Kramaditya 44 2976 126

Total 245 2775-3020 327-82

Source : Chronology of Ancient Hindu History Part 1. author and publisher, Bharata Charitra Bhaskara, Vimasakagresara, Pandit Kota Venkatachala paakayaaji Kali 5058, AD 1957 – Arya Grantha Mala, Publication No. 23


The Andhra Dynasty of Magadha Empire
833 B.C. – 327 B.C.
(Total No. of years 506 years as enumerated by Pandit Kota Venkatachalam)

Dr.Pappu Venugopal Rao Phd.,
Editorial Board

The Aandhra Dynasty.
B. C. 833 – 327 B. C.
Total No. of years 506 years.

1. Simhaka Sri Svaatikarna or in other form Simuka Srisaatakarni (K.R.V.) Sisuka – M.P.) Sipraka or Kshipraka (Vi. P) Sindhuka Va. P and Br.P.) is the founder of the Aandhra Dynasty of Magadha kings. He traced his origin to the pure Aandhra Dynasty of kings founded by Saatavahana at Deccan with Pratishstana as his capital. His family name was Balin (K. R. V,) Balika (B, P) Ballpuchchaka (Vi, P). He is said to have been employed as a. minister under the last two kings of the Kanva Dynasty, who appear to have been puppets in his hands. With the aid of the Aandhra forces in his service; ho slew Susarman, the last king of the Kanva Dynasty and made himself master of whole of the kingdom of Magadha not only by usurping the throne of the Kanvas, but also all that remained of the leatter Sungas who were ruling a small portion of the kingdom of Magadha sirnultaneo usly with the Kanvas with Vidisa as their capital. According to all the Puranas he is said to have reigned for 23 years from 2305 to 2328 A.Y., or 833 to 810 B.C.

2. Krishana Srisaatakarni or Krishnagar or Sri Saantakarni (ViP., B.P.) or Sri Saata karni (VaP., and Br.P). The younger brother of Srimuka reigned for 18 years, arcording to all the Puranas from 2328 to 2346 A.Y. or 810 to 792 B.C. This king vulgarly known as Kanha, is ssaid to have extended his kingdom as far as thw town of Nasik, near the source of the Godavary in the Western Ghats.

3. Sri Malla Saatakarni son of Krishna reigned for ten years from 2346 to 2356 A.Y. or 792 to 782 B.C. (Vide Telugu edition cf M.P., and K.R.V.). One edition of M.P. and K.R.V.) One edition of M.P. and Br.P. give to this king a reign of 18 years, while the Va.P., gives him a reign of 56 years.

4. Purnotsarga son of Sri Maila Satakarni reigned according to all the Puranas for 18 years from 2356 to 2374 A.Y. or 782 to 764 B.C.

N. B. According to Mr. Vincent A. Smith. ‘Purnotsanga’ or his predecessor is said to have assisted Kharavela. king of Kalinga, by sending a force of all arms to enable him to recover his independence in the East. So Kharavela’s time must be 782 B.C. The B.P. calls him Paurnamasa.

5. Sri Saatakarni (Va. P, M.P. and Br.P) or Saatakarni (V.P. K.R.V.) son of 4 reigned for 56 years from 2374 to 2430 A.Y. or 764 to 708 B.C. While all the Puranas uniformly assign to this king a period of 56 years, Mr. Va. A. Smith assigna to him only a reign of 40 years for reasons best known to himself.

N. B:— As all the Aandhra kings of Magadha claimed to belong to Saatavahafla, most of them assumed the title of Saatakarni. They are censequently often referred to by one or other of these designations without mention of the personal name of the monarch, and it is thus some times impossible to ascertain which king is alluded to. So in order to distin guish this king from other Saatakarnis. the epithat ‘Sri’ is affixed to his name. Some Puranas spell this name as Saatakarni, which most, therefore, be taken as a variant for Saatakarni wherever it occurs.

6. Skandhastambhin K.R.V. and one version of M.P. Srivasvani another version of M,P.). or ‘Sochyasthuthi’ (Telugu edition of M.P.) son of 5reigned for 18 years from 2439 to 2448 A.Y. or 708 to 690 B.C. The other Puranas do not mention this name.

7. Lambodara, son of reigned for 18 years, according to all the Puranas from 2448 to 2466. A Y. or 690 to 672 B.C.

8. Apiitaka or Aapiitaka (M.P. and K.R.V.) Aapiilaka Apiilava Va.P and Br.P., Ivilaka, Divilaka Vivilaka or Pilaka, according to various versions of ViP) Chhibilaka or Vikala B.P. son of 7 reigned according to all the Puranas for 12 years from 2466 to 2478 A.Y. or 672 to 660 B.C.

9. Meghasvaati Vi.P. B.P. and K.R.V.) Sangha Sanghasvati one version of M.P.) or Saudaasah Br.P.) son of 8 reigned for 18 years from 2478 to 2496 A.Y. or 660-642 B.C.

10. Saatasvaati (K.R.V. and one version of M.P) or Swaati ( Telugu M. P) son of 9 reigned for 18 years from 2496 to 2514 A. Y. or 642-624 B.C according to K.R.V. one version of M.P. and Tel. M.P. The other Puranas omit this name.

11 Skandasvaatikarna or Skandasvati or son of 10 reigned for 7 years from 2614-2521 A.Y.,or 624 to 617 B. C. according to K. R. V., M. P , and Br, P.). The other Puranas omit this name.

12. Mrigendras vaatikarna ( M. P.) M rigendrasas takarna (K.R. V) son of 11 reigned according to these Puranas for 3 years from 2521 to 2524 A. Y., 617 to 614 B. C. The other Puranas omit this name.

13. Kuntala svaatikarna (M.P. or K.R.V.) son of 12 reigned according to these two Puranas for 8 years from 2524 to 2532 A.Y., or 614 to 606 B.C. The other Puranas omit this name.

14. Saumya Svaatikarna or Saumya Saatakarni (K.R.V.) or Pushpasena (M.P.) son of 13 reigned for 12 years, according to K.R.V. and one version of M. P., from 2532 to 2544 A.Y. or 606 to 594 B.C. The Telugu edition of M.P., does not give the number of years of this king and its reading “Pushpasenascha bhavitaa tasmaat saumyo bhavishyati” is evidently a mistake for (Pushpasenascha bhavitaa Saumyo dwaadasa vai samaah which we find in the complete manuscript version of correct M.P. The other Puranas omit this name.

15. Saatasaata karni (K.R.V.) or Svaatikarna (M.P.) son of 14 reigned accordingy to these Puranas for 1 year from 2544-2545 A.Y. or 594-593 B.C. The other Puranas omit this name.

16.Puloma Saatakarni or Puloman I (K.R.V.) or Pulomavi – M.P. Tel,) or Pulomavit Rad M.P Patuman (Vi.P., and Br.P.) or Patumaabi Paduraavi, or Yaduraavi (Va.P.) or Atamaana (B.P.) son of 15, reigned for 36 years from 2545 to 2581 A.Y. or 593 to 557 B.C. (K.R.V. & M.P.) Br.P., and one version of Vayu Purana give him only a reign of 24 years. But the reading of Va.P. (Poona Edition) about this king and the rest is not only incorrect but also very imperfect.

17. Megha Saatakarni (K.R.V. and the correct M.P.) son of 16 reigned according to these Puranas for 38 years from 2581 to 2619 A.Y. or 557-519 B.C

N. B:— The other Puranas omit this name.

18. Arishta Saatakerni (K.R.V.), Arishtakarni (M.P.) Arishtakarna Vi.P.) Arishtakarman (B.P. and Br.P.) Nemikrishna Va.P). Gorakshasvasri Gaurakrishna Naurikrishna, Vikrishna or (according to the various readings of Radcliff copy of M.P.) son of 17 reigned according to all the Puranas for 25 years from 2619-2644 A.Y. or 519 to 494 B.C.

19. Haala son of 18 reigned for 5 years according, to all the Purànas from 2644 —2649 A Y., or 494—489 B.C. We learn from Chitsukha’s Brihat Sarikaravijaya and Sadasivendra’s Jagadguru Ratnemala that Sri Adi Sankaracharya, the author of the famous Bhashyas on the Prasthanatraya, was a contemporary of this king. King Hala’s association with literary tradition possess special interest, as marking stage in the development of Hindu Literature. He is said to have bestowed special attention to the development of the Prakrit or Vernacular literature of the country. The Katantra grammar, arranged with special reference to the needs students more familiar with the Vernacular speech than with the so called classical language is attributed to one of the ministers of this king. Haala himself is credited with the composition of the Anthology of erotic verses, called the “Sapta-Sataka or “The Seven centuries written in the ancient Maharashtri dialect.”

20. Mandalaka (K. R.V. and M. P.,) Pattalaka (Va.P and Br.P.,) Palalaka (Vi.P). Talaka (B.P.) Pulaka (Va.P) Manthalaka according to one version of M.P.) or Bhaavaka one Version of Br.P.) son of 19 reigned according to all the Puranas for 5 years from 2649 to 2654 A.Y. or 489 – 484 B.C.

21. Puriindrasena (K.R.v. and M.P.) Puriishasena, Purikashena, Putrikashena, (Va.P) Pravillasena one version of Vi.P and Brahmanda Purana, Putrikashena (one version of Vi.P) Purishabhiru one version of B.P. and Pulindasena one version of Vi.P. Br.P) Puriishataru one version of B.P). son of 20 reigned for 21 years from 2654 to 2675 A.Y. or 484 to 463 B.C. (Vide M,P., K.R.V., Va.P., and Br.P.) one version of Br.P. gives him a reign of 12 years, and V.A. Smith gives him only 5 years. In this king’s time Saptarshi Mandala (or the Great Bear) completed one cycle of 2700 years commencing from the entrance in Magha in 3176 B.C. and begins its 2nd. Cycle Magha again in 476 B.C.

22, Sundara Saatakarni (K.R.V. and Br.P.), Sundara Saatakarnin (V.P.) Sundara Svatikarna Sundara Sri Karna Correct M.P.) Sunanda or Sunandana (B.P.) or Simply Satakarni Va.P) son of 21 reigned according to all the Puranas for 1 year from 2675 to 2676 A.Y. or 463 to 462 B.C.

23. Chakora Saatakarni (Br.P.), Chakora saata karni (Va.P.) Vaasishtiputra Chakora saata karni (K.R.V.) Chakora (B.P. Vikarni (one version of M.P.) Chakora Sri Karna another version of M.P.) Raajadasvaati Rad M.P.) son of 22 reigned according to all the Puranas fro 6 months only from 2676 to 2676 ½ A.Y. or 462 to 461 ½ B.C. Mr. Vincent A. Smith calls this king Yilivayakura I.

23. (a) Mahendra Saatakarni (K.R.V. and one version of M.P.) Mahendra Sri Karna (M.P.) son of 22 reigned according to these Puranas for 3 months only from 2676 ½ to 2677 A .Y. or 461 ½ to 461 B.C. M.P. gives him 3 years, which is evidently a mistake. So that we may roughly give to these two kings No. 23, 23 (a), a period of one year for their joint reign. The other Puranas omit this name.

24. Siva Saata Karni (one version of M.P. Siva Swati (B.P. Vi.P. and M.P.), Sivaswamin (Va.P). Svaatishena (Br.P.) Maadhariiputra Sakasena Saatakarni (K.R.V.) son of 23(a) reigned according to all the Puranas for 28 years from 2677 2705 A.Y. or 461-433 B.C.). Mr.V.A. Smith calls him ‘Sivalakura’.

25. Goutamiputra Sri Satakarni (K.R.V. Gautamiputra Va and M.P.), Gomatliputra (B.P.) and one version of. Vi P) sone of 24 reigned for 25 years from 2705 to 2730 A.Y., or 433 to 408 B.C. (Vide K.R.V. and correct M.P). The other Puranas give him only 21 years. (Vide Va.P. Br.P. and M.P.) Mr.V.A.Smith calls this king Vilivayakura II, and gives him a reign of 25 years as determined approximately by inscriptions.

26. Puloman II (M, P.) Vasishti- putra Sri Puloma Satakarni (K.R.V.) son of 25 reigned for 32 years from 2730—2762 A. Y., or 408—376 B.C (Vide K.R.V. and M.P.) The Va, P. omits this name, and Br,P, calls him Yantramati, and assigns to this king a reign a 34 years. Mr.V. A, Smith calls this king Pulomayi II and assigns to him 32 years as determined by the inscriptions one version of M.P., gives him only a reign of 28 years. Wiuth the end of this king, 376 B.C. the first cycle of the Saptarshi Era of 3076 B.C. came to a close.

27. Siva Sri Saatakarni (Vi.P., M. P., and Br.P.) Medasiras —B, P.) Sivasri Vaasishtiputra Saatakarni (K.R.V.) or simply Sivasri (M.P.) son of 26 reigned according to all the Puranas for 7 years from 2762 to 2769 A.Y., or 376-369 B.C. It is said in all the Puranas that the 2nd cycle of the Saptarshi or the Loukika Era commenced with the reign of this 27th king of the AAndhra Dynasty.

28. Sivaskanda Saatakarni (K.R.V., M.P., Br.P.) simply Sivaskanda (Vi.P) (B.P.) son of 27 reigned according to all the Puranas for 7 years from 2669 to 2776 A.Y. or 369 to 362 B.C. The Va.P. omits this king and the two previous kings.

29 Yajna Sri Saatakarni (Va. P. M.P. and Br.P.) or Simply Yajna Sri ViP., and B. P) more fully Gautamiputra Yajna Sri . Vi.P. and B.P) more fully Gautamiputra Yajna Sri Saatakarni (K.R.V.) son of 28 reigned for 19 years from 2776-2795 A.Y. or 362 to 343 B.C. (Vide K.R.V. and M.P.) Mr. V.A. Smith gives him a reign of 29 years.

30. Vijaya Sri Saata Karni (K.R.V.) or simply Vijaya (B. P., Va. P., M.P., and Br.P.) or Dviyajna (Vi.P.) son of 29 reigned according to all the Puranas for 6 years from 2795 to 2801 A.Y. or 343 to 337 B.C.

31. Chandra Sri Saatakarnj (M.P.) Danda Sri Saatakarni (one version of Va.P.) and Br.P. Vaasishtiputra Chadrasri Satakarni K.R.V. son of 30 reigned for 3 years from 2801 to 2804 A.Y. or 337-334 B.C. One version of M.P. gives him a reign of 10 years.

32. Puloman III (K.R.V.) son of 31 reigned according to all the Puranas for 7 years from 2804-2811 A.Y. or 334-327 B.C.

Mr. V. A. Smith calls him Pulomayi III, with whom the long series of the Aandhra kings came to an end.

Thus these thirty two kings of the Aandhra Dynasty beginning with Srimukha and ending with Puloman III ruled the kingdom of Magadha altogether for a total period of 506 years from 2305-2811 after the Great Mahabharata War or after the coronation of Yudhistira or from 833 B.C. to 327 B.C. In summing up the reigns of the kings of the Aandhj’a Dynasty, the various Puranas enumerate as many as l9 to 32 kings, and, give them total period of 456 to 506 years. It is only the Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta and the correct Matsya Purana that enumerate all the thirty-two kings with their respective individual regnal periods, and they closely with each other in many respects.

Thus, it will be clear from Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta that these 32 kings of the Aandhra Dynasty reigned for a total period of 506 years. although in summing up their total period of reigns, it states in round figures that they ruled for full 500 years (instead of 506 years); and while they are yet on the throne their kingdom passed into the hands of the Guptas who are known as Srj Parvatiya Andlra-Bhrutya kings. Chandnsgupta, son of Ghatotkacha Gupta and grandson of Sri Gupta, who appears have come from Sri Parvata or Nepal, and originally entered the service of Vijayasri Satakarni as one of his generals and with whose help, he managed his tottering kingdom. The last two kings of the Aandhra Dynasty—Chandrasri and his son enjoyed little power, and were mere puppets in the hands of their, Generals, Ghatotkacha Gupta and his son Chandragupta, the latter of whom, under the disguise of protecting the country on behalf of Puloman III, the minor of Chandra Sri, murdered the prince and ascended the throne of Magadha under the title of Maharajadhiraja in the year 2811 of the Yudhishtira saka or 2775 Kali or 327 B. C. just when Alexander the Great was attempting to enter into the Great continent of India through the Hindu kush Mountains.

The Aandhra (Saatavahana or Saatakarni)
Dynasty of Magadha . . . . . . . . . . 506 years.
Kali 2269 – 2775 Kali.
B.C. 833 – 327 B.C.

No. Name of the King. Years Kali Era B.C.

1. Sindhuka or Sisuka Sritnukha 23 2269—2292 833 —810

2. Sri Krishna Satakarni 18 2292 —2310 810—792

3. Sri Malla Satakarni 10 2310—2820 792—782

4. Purnothsanga 18 2320—2338 782—764

5. Sri Satakarni 56 2338—2394 764—708

6. Skandhasatambhin 18 2394—2412 708—690

7. Lambodara 18 2412—2430 690—672

8. Apitaka 12 2430—2442 672—660

9. Meghas wait 18 2442—2460 660—642

10. Sataswati 18 2460—2478 642—624

11. Skanda Satakarni 7 2478—2485 624—617

12. Mrugendra Satakarni 3 2485—2488 617—614

13. Kuntala Satakarni 8 2488—2496 614—606

14. Sournya Satakarni 12 2496—2508 606—594

15. Satasatakarni 1 2508—2509 594—593

16. Puloma Satakarni or Puloma I 36 2509—2545 593—557

17. Megha Satakarni 38 2545 —2583 557—519

18. Arishta Satakarni 25 2583 —2608 519—494

(In this king’s reign in 509 B.C. Sree Sankara was born)

19. Hala Satavahana 5 2608—2613 494—489

20. Ma ndalaka 5 2613—2618 489—484

21. Purindrasena 21 2618—2639 484—463

In this king’s reign in 477 B.C. Sri Sankara attained Nirvana.

22. Sundara Satakarni 1 2639—2640 463—462

23. Chakora Satakarni ½ 2640—2640 ½ 462—4611 /2

23. (A) Mahendra Satakarni ½ 2640 ½ —2641 4611/2—461

24. Siva Satakarni 28 3641—2669 461—433

25. Goutami Putra Sri S 25 2669—2694 433—408

26. Puloma 11 32 2694—2726 408—376

27. Siva Sri Satakarni 7 2726—2733 376—369

28. Sivaskanda Satakarni 7 2733—2740 369—362

29. Yajna Sri Satakarni 19 2740—2759 362—343

30. Vijaya Sri Satakarni 6 2759—2765 343—337

31. Chandrasri Satakarni 3 2765—2768 337—334

32. Puloma III (minor) 7 2768—2775 334—327

Puloma III was murdered by his regent and Commander-in-Chief Charidragupta of the Gupta Dynasty. Chandragupta had his coronation at Pataliputra the chief city of his new kingdom, and annexed a part of Magadha only to his dominion Ayodhya etc. The relatives of the Royal Dynasty of the Satavaharias retained the remaining portion of Magadha.

The viceroys in the other parts of che Empire declared their independence and proclaimed themselves as the independent kings kings of their respective provinces. Chandragupta also became one of them an independent king over his Patahputra kingdom with the annexed part of the empire, but could not become emperor. The writers of the Puranas in their accounts of the Magadha Empire then turn their attention from the disrupted Magadha empire and proceed to describe the petty kings of Saks, Yavana, Huna etc provinces of north—western Bharat who ruled their respective states as contemporaries to the Aandhra kings,

On account of these descriptions of Saka. Huna etc. Kings (excommunicated Hindu Kshatriya kings of uttarapatha) and numerous small Mlechcha (excommunicated kshatriya kingdoms, some infer a state of anarchy in the country at that time. But there is no description of any anarchical condition in the Puranas. All the Puranas unanimously

declare that the Aandhra Empire (of Magadha) broke up into many small independent kingdoms and describe the disrupted condition of the Empire in which there was no central power to keep the rulers of the different parts of the country under control. But there is no suggestion of anarchy.

There were kings in the different parts of the country and they maintained the rule of law in their respective kingdoms-according to every one of the Puranas. The Saka, Yavana, Huna kings are not foreigners. They are Hindus of Bharat. They are not Greeks or Indo-Greeks. The word ‘Yavana’ does not mean Greet.

Since the Saka, Yavana, Huna, and Romaka provinces on the northwest of Bharat were all within Bharata Varsha, the kings and the people of these parts, belong to the four castes of Aryans who were excommunicated from Aryan Society on account of their discarding the Vedic Dharma, they are generally called ‘Mlechchas’.

During the time of the Aandhra Emperors of Magadha country was prosperous and the people enjayed peace. Many temples, Mutts and Bouddha Viharas (monasteries) and such other constructions of Architectured and Artistic merit were built which evoke the wonder of the world even to this day.

Chandragupta and his son Samudragupta, who be1onged to the Lichehavi Kshatriya dynasty of Nepal and served under the last two kings of the imperial Aandhra dynasty of Magadha grew very powerful and on the pretext of protecting Chandrasri and his minor son Puloma III (the last Aaridhra kings) of the imperial line, got them into their control and did away with them gradually one after other. Then Gupta Chandragupta assumed the title of Maharaja dhiraja and occupied a portion of Magadha in Kali 2775 or B C. 327. He was the founder of the Gupta Era, It was wrongly fixed at 320 A.D., instead of 327 B.C. by VA. Smith and other writers on account of the mistake committed by them in identifying Chandragupta Maurya as the contemporary of Alexander the Great.

The writings of V. A. Smith and other European scholars of early Indian history and their Indian followers are all very confusing and misleading. The Puranas give a connected, and continuous account of the kings of Magadha from the founding of the kingdom of the Mggadha, and after the Mahabharata war. All these scholars rely on the authority of the Vayu, Matsya and Brahmanda Puranas and all these Puranas state definitely that the Magadha kingdom was ruled in succession by the Barhadradha, Pradyota, Sisunaga. Nanda, Maurya, Sunga, Kanwa and AAndhra dynasties.

On the authority of the Puranas, V. A. Smith writes -:

“The most systematic record of Indian Historical tradition is that preserved in the dynastic lists of the Puranas, five out the eighteen works of this class, namely the Vayu, Matsya, Vishnu. Brahmanda and Bhagavata contain such lists.” “The Brahmanda and the Vayu as well as the Matsya, which has large later additions, appear to be the best earliest and most authoritative.” (Vide The early history of India. By. V.A. Smith 4th Ed. Chapter 1, Introduction, p.4.)

“Modern European writers have been inclined to disparage unduly the authority of the Puranic lists, but closer study finds in them much genuine and venerable (inexhaustible) tradition,” (Do. p.12.)

“The Matsya version is in some respects the best of those three the Vayu, Brahmanda, Matsya”, (Do. P.12)

“I may add that Puranas in some shape were already authoritative in the fourth century B. C. The Author of the Arthasastra ranks the Atharva Veda and Ithihasa as the

fourth and fifth Vedas. (Book I, Ch. 3) and directs the king to spend his afternoons in the study of Ithihasa, which is defined as comprising six factors, namely, 1. Purana 2, Ithivrutta (History) 3.Akhyayika (ta1es) 4. Udaharafla (lllustrative stories) 5. Dharmasastra and 6. ArthasaStra.” (Book I, Chap 5, V. A. Smith’s History page 24.)

According to the Puranic Chrono1ogy, the author of the Arthasastra, Kautilya or Chanakya or Vishnugupta lived in 1534 B. C., not in the 4th century B. C. as stated above by V. A. Smith. So, the Puranas were authoritative in the 16th century B. C,

V A. Smith admits that even before the fourth century BC. (before Arthasastra was written by Kautilya) the eighteen Puranas were recognised as authoritative (authentic records) in the country. While thus recognising the authority of the Puranas sometimes (in general) these European scholars reject them as unreliable, and being due to interpolation or erron or tamperirga such of the texts as run counter to their own preconceived theories.

V. A. Smith admits also that the identification of Chandragupta Maurya as the contemporary of Alexander of Macedon could not get support from any Archaelogical evidence.

“Unfortunately no monuments have been discovered, which can be referred with certainty to the period of Chandragupta or his son, and the archaeologist is unable to bring the tangible evidence afforded by excavation to support the statements of the Greek observers.” (Early His, of India by V. A. Smith, P.142.)

Mr. V. A. Smith also quotes with approval the opinion expressed by pargiter on the importance of the Bhavishya Purana.

“Mr. F. E. Pargiter in his valuable work;” The dynasties of the Kali Age (Clarendon Press 1913) has succeeded in obtaining more definite results. He suggests that the Bhavishya Purana in its early form was the original authority from which the Matsya, Vayu. and Brahmanda derived their dynastic lists. The versions of the lists as now found in the Matsya, Vayu Brahmanda Puranas, grew out of one and the same original text” (V. A. Smith’s Early History of India, P. 23.)

But instead of rejecting Pargiter’s conclusions when he treated the Puranas with scant courtesy, meddled with the texts and distorted them, and misinterpreted them, he gives him high praise as he deducted correct and definite dates.

Again he admits (page 28 of his Early His. of India.) that “Modern research has brought to light innumerable facts the highest scientific value conversing pre-historic India but points out that “the impossibility of assigning dates to the phonomena discovered excludes them from the domain of the historian, whose vision cannot pass the line which separates the dated from the undated,” and declares rather arbitrarily “that line, in the case of India, may be drawn. At the earliest, throught the middle of the 7th century B.C.”

So the deliberate objective of these European scholars has been to bring the entire history of India within the past 2600 years beyond which their vision cannot extend. They have therefore fabricated a fictions history of our country on the basis of preconceived theories, prejudices and ignorance and their writings have become the models and authorities for the western educated Indian historians. But even these European scholars have pleaded that they only did their best in attempting to reconstruct the early history of India and their writings may contain many errors, mistakes and mis-statements on account of their being foreigners and hence out of touch with the native tradition, they therefore advised it was desirable that Indians with an intimate knowledge of the native tradition and social organization should write the history of their country. It is therefore our duty now to study our ancient literature (the Vedas, Sastras, Puranas) with due regard and respect for our traditions and to rewrite and publish the true history of our country.


missing image file
missing image file




(1951 A.D.)


The western historians identified the Xandrames, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus of the Greek writers as Mahapadma Nanda, Chandragupta Maurya and Bindusara. There is practically no resemblance between the names (except in the case of Chandra Gupta)

The names given in the writings of the Greek Writers correspond very clearly to Chandrasri (Chandramas) the last king of the Andhra dynasty, and Chandragupta and Samudragupta of the Gupta dynasty. If they had recognized the Kali era of our Puranas and the Mahabharata, which commenced 36 years after the Mahabharata war i.e. B.C. 3102 and if the dynasties of kings and the periods of time assigned to them in the Puranas had been accepted straight without any suspicion or interference would have been obvious that about B.C.326 the Hindu rulers were Chandrasri, Chandragupta and Samudragupta and these were the Xandrames or Chandramas, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus of the Greet writers.

There were some western scholars and Indian scholars however, who pointed out that Xandrames or Chandramas, Sandra cottus and Sandrocyptus are not to be identified with Mahapadma Nanda, Chandragupta Maurya and his son Bindusara and that there is no similarity in the names.

But in general the western scholars ignored them and stuck to their assumption and the conclusions based on them without setting right the original mistake and so the times of many historical events have continues to be wrongly fixed to the present day. M.Troyar in his translation of Rajatarangini has argued ably and very logically against the assumption of Max-Muller and his followers and declared the identity of Chandrasri, Chandragupta and Samudragupta with the Xandrames (or Chandramas), Sandro-cottus and Sandro-cyptus of the Greek historians. The first Indian scholar to point out that the conclusions of the western scholars are not correct, that the Hindu princes mentioned by the Greek writers should be recognized in the founders of the Gupta empire, that the account of the Hindu Royal dynasties according to our Puranas reckoning by the Kali Era tallies exactly was an Andhra by name Kuppaiah. vide pp. 198, 199 of Kuppaiah’s History of Ancient India).


Girivraja has been the capital of Magadha ever-since the foundation of that kingdom, seven thousand years ago. All the Royal dynasties beginning with Barhadradha and ending with Andhra ruled over Magadha with “Girivraja” as the capital. None of these dynasties had Pataliputra as the capital. With the Andhra dynasty, ended the Magadha empire haying “Girivraja” as the capital.

Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty killed “Chandrasri” the last Magadha emperor of the Andhra dynasty and annexed a portion of Magadha to his own kingdom Pataliputra but could not get mastery over the Magadha empire. So, he left ‘Girivraja’ and was annointed at “Pataliputra”. Chandragupta Maurya, Bindusara, Ashoka and other Maurya kings had “Girivraja” but never Pataliputra as their capital. The Puranas have uniformly mentioned “Girivraja” as the capital of Magadha, but nowhere is Pataliputra mentioned in them. It was only in the time of the Guptas that Pataliputra developed an empire. It was insignificant in the time of Chandragupta Maurya.

Magasthenes and Dionysius and other Greek Ambassadors were in the court of Samudragupta and Chandragupta II of the Gupta dynasty at “Pataliputra”. Chandragupta Maurya was the emperor at Girivraja and not at “Pataliputra”. As Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty was wrongly identified with Chandragupta Maurya, so also Pataliputra the capital of the Guptas was wrongly identified as the capital of Chandragupta Maurya.

Age of Mahabharata War . . . 3138 B.C.

1. Barhadradha dynasty . . . 1006 years

2. Pradyota “ . . . 138 years

3. Sisunaga “ . . . 360 years

4. Nanda “ . . . 100 years

1604 years 1604 years

End of the Nanda dynasty & the beginning of the 1534 B.C.

Maurya dynasty with Chandragupta as the 1st king.

The invasion of Alexander . . . 327 B.C.

Difference . . . 1207 years

So, in Indian history a period of 1207 years was lost by the wrong synchronisation of Chandragupta of the 4th century B.C. as Chandragupta Maurya of the 16th century B.C. The hearsay version of the origin of Chandragupta Maurya was attributed to Gupta Chandragupta by the Greek historians and the Chinese travellers who visited Indian nine or ten centuries after the invasion of India by Alexander. This is one of the many mistake which they had committed in reproducing their hearsay versions. A confusion would have thus arisen and Chandragupta Maurya was reckoned as contemporary of Alexander. Our history has thus become incorrect and inaccurate.

The five Yavana kings who are referred to in the 2nd and 13th edict of Asoka, were the Yavana Kshatriya kings of Abhisara, Urasa (or Uraga), Simhapura, Divyakataka, and Uttara Jyotisha of the 15th centure B.C. All these five Yavana Kshatriya provinces are located in Bharat. It was wrongly supposed by historians that these were Greek Kings of the 3rd century B.C. These five kingdoms cover modern Afganistan, the western part of the Kashmir, and the North-western part of the present North-western Frontier province.

The fact that the Greek ambassadors resided at Pataliputra makes it clear that they were in the court of Gupta kings. The reference to Pataliputra as the capital of the Mauryas in the Sanskrit drama Rudrarakshasa has misled our historians in this respect.

All the Puranas state that the capital of the Magadha empire is “Girivraja” and that all the emperors ruled only from that capital. The name of Pataliputra is not hinted at all in any Purana. It would be sheer injustice to the Puranas which mainly deal with historical facts, to build up historical theories contrary to their contents, on the strength of fictions and dramas whose plots need not be truly historical. V.A. Smnith writee in this connection as follows:—

“Many alleged incidents of the revolution in Magadha are depicted vividly in the ancient political drama entitled the “Signot of Rakhasa” (Mudra Rakshasa) written, perhaps, in the fifth century after Christ. But it would be obviously unsafe to rely for a matter of fact historical narrative on a work of imagination composed some seven centuries after the events dramatized”. (vide Oxford History of India by V.A. Smith 2nd Ed. 1923. Page.73)

Prof. Kasinath Trimbak Telong in his introduction of Mudrarakshasa page 22, 7th Ed. 1928 writes:

“The scene of the play is laid for the most part in the city of Pataliputra or Kasumapura, as it is also called. Now it may be argued, I think with some ground of reason, that the geography of our play must have been based not upon the state of things which existed in the time of Chandragupta and which probably there were no materials for ascertaining at the date of the play, but upon the state of things which actually existed at the time when the play was itself composed.”

In the Puranas of Ceylon it is stated that the first convention of Buddists was held in the year of Buddha’s a demise at Rajagriha (i.e.Girivraja) the capital of the Magadha empire”.

(Vide Asoka’s Dharma Sasanams by Ch.Narayanarao)

This shows that the capital of Magadha was Rajagriha (or Girivraja). In Ashoka’s time Pataliputra was a place where the Budha Sangha Parishat was situated.

Pataliputra is nowhere said to be the State capital of Ashoka, but it is said to be the religious capital. Much mis-understanding has arisen out of ignoring the importance of the word ‘religion’ in the following passage : –

“Ashoka, who was third in succession from Chandragupta, and who made Buddhism the State religion, in his inscription on the rock at Dhauli in Katak, gives it (Palibothra) the title of Metropolis of the religion” i.e. “Buddhism”.

(Mc.Crindles Ancient India as described by Megasthanesis and Arrian. P.212 foot-note).

Megasthenes the Greek ambassador in the court of the Gupta kings (Samudragupta and Chandragupta II) in his description of Pataliputra stated that there were councils of elected representatives of the people for the governance of the capital and other towns in the empire.

Nowhere do we find in Kautilya’s Arthasastra (which was intended for Chandragupta Maurya) that there were or should be councils of people’s elected representatives or nominated councils by the king. Mr.Mamidipudi Venkata Rangaiah in his introduction of Kautilya’s Arthasatra (Telugu) writes about the city administration (in Chandragupta Maurya’s time) described in Kautilya’s Arthasastra thus : –

“The Jails, Police Station etc., should be in charge of “Nagarika” (Officer appointed by the king). It appears that there was no system of Self-Government in those days, as now, to carry on these functions of city administration. There were no councils elected by the people to assist the Nagarika. Moreover, the councils referred to by Nagasthenes in his account of the administration of Pataliputra are not mentioned at all by Kautilya in his Arthasastra. Therefore the Nagarika may be said to be all powerful”.

(page 34.)

There is practically no similarity between this and the system of the city administration described by Megasthenes in the 4th Century B.C. This shows that the Chandragupta of Kautilya (1534 B.C.) was not the Chandragupta of Megasthenes. (3rd century B.C.)

Moreover, Megasthenes would not have failed to mention Kautilya or his Athasastra if Kautilya had lived in the 4th century B.C. contemporaneously with him or a bit prior to him.

Megasthenes definitely says that “there was no slavery in India”:-

“Of several remarkable customs existing among the Indians, there is one prescribed by their philosophers which one may regard as truly admirable: for the law ordains that no one among them shall, under any circumstances, be a slave, but that enjoying freedom, they shall respect the equal right to it which all possess”. (P.38 of Mc Crindle’s Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian).

Further he tells us that : “Al the Indians are free, and not one of them is a slave”.

“The Indians do not even use aliens as slaves, and much less a countryman of his own”. (P. 68 of Mc.Crindle’s Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian).

Quite in contrast with this we find definite reference to the existence of slavery in Kautilya’s Arthasastra, where Chapter 65 entitled “Dasakalpa is solely devoted to the status of slaves among the Aryas and the Mlechas. So, it can be safely concluded that Megasthenes was not in the court of Chandragupta Maurya whose contemporaneity with Kautilya is questioned by none.

It need hardly be said that Chandragupta of Kautilya who speaks so vividly of slavery in his time (16th century B.C.) is not the Chandragupta of Megasthenes who speaks of the absence of slavery in India in the 4th century B.C.

Chandragupta Maurya owed his accession and maintenance on the throne to Chanakya alias Vishnugupta and he is not known to have possessed any of the great qualities attributed to Sandrocottus by the Greek historians who accompanied Alexander when he invaded India. Their descriptions of the Indian prince who met Alexander are appropriate to Samudragupta of the Gupta dynasty and on this point all our Puranas, the writings of the Buddhists, etc., all are in agreement.

Plutarch the Greek historian wrote : –

“It is nowhere stated in the Hindu or Buddha Puranas (or in the inscriptions) that Chandragupta Maurya led an army of six lakhs and conquered the entire country. This description applies to Samudragupta of the Gupta dynasty.”


In the year 1354 Kali (1738 B.C.) Udayana, the 8th king in the Sisunaga Dynasty constructed the city of Kasumapura on the southern bank of Ganga. This was later on called Pataliputra, Palibothra and Patna. This was the capital of Gupta kings. Chandragupta, Samudragupta and Chandragupta II of Gupta dynasty reigned over it in the end of the fourth century and in the 3rd century B.C. The western historians wrongly assumed that Chandragupta Maurya and the other Maurya kings belonged to his period.

That Megasthenes lived in the court of the Guptas and not of the Mauryas is clearly known from the statements of Megasthenes himself.

The following passage may be quoted from Mc.Crindle’s Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian (pp.65, 66) : –

“At the meeting of this river (Ganga) and another (the Son) is situated “Palibothra”, a city 80 stadia in length and fifteen in breadth . . . . . . . .

The people in whose country this city situated is the most distinguished in all India, and is called the Prasi. The King, in addition to his family name, must adopt the surname of Palibothros, as Sandrocottos, for instance, did, to whom Megasthenes was sent on an embassy”. (Vide Book II Fragm XXV strabo XV 1-35-36. p.702)

The Gupta kings were the Licchavi Kshatriyas of the Solar dynasty. Chandra and Gupta in the name Chandragupta are respectively the names of the individual and the house. But Chandragupta of the people of Palibothra. Videha and Kosala were kingdoms chiefly inhabited by Licchavi kshatriyas of the Surya-vamsi. They were known by the common name of Suryavamsa. There were nine sects of Licchavi kshatriyas, eight of which formed into a confederation and jointly carried on the administration. Gupta Chandra gupta conquered them and got the territory under his rule and made palibothra the capital of his kingdom—which is called the Prasii”.

“ The Prasii surpass in power and glory every other people, not only in this quarter, but one may say in all India, their capital being Palibothra, a very large and wealthy city after which some call the people itself Palibothri, . . . may, even the whole tract along the Ganges”. (Mc. Crindle Ancient India, as described by megasthienes and Arrian P.141.)

As these kings and a large number of their subjects were of the solar race, a custom developed whereby these kings affixed to their names as the title the word “ Aditya” which means the Sun-God the proginitor of their race. The mauryas were Sudras and they nevesr affixed “Aditya” or any other title to their names.

The names of the Gupta kings and their titles are

given below:—

S.No. Name of the king Name of the Family Tittle

1. Chandra — Gupta (Chandragupta) Vijayaditya.

2. Samudra — Gupta (Samudragagupta) Asokaditya.

3. Chandra II — Gupta ( Chandragupta II) Vikramaditya.

4. Kumara — Gupta ( Kumaragupta) Mahendraditya.

5. Skanda — Gupta(Skandagupta) Pratapaditya.

6. Sthira — Gupta (Narasimhagupta Baladidtya.
After attaining majority)

7. Kumara II — Gupta (Kumaragupta II ) Kramaditya.

It thus appears that all the Gupta kings and not the Maurya kings that affixed to their names a title indicative of the race of the kings and the people of Palibothra as described by megasthenes.

“Palibothri must denote here the subjects of the realm of which Palibothra was the capital, and not merely the inhabitants of that city, as Rennel and others supposed, and so fixed its site at the confluence of the Ganges and Jumna.” (Mc. Crindle’s Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian. P.142 footnote).

Therefore it is clear that Megasthenes lived in the court of the Gupta Kings at Palibothra and not of the Maurya Kings who flourished in the 16, 15, 13th centuries B.C. at Girivraja.

From the above discussion we may safely conclude that the Xandrames, Sandrocottes and Sandrocyptus of the Greek writers were not Mahapadma Nanda, Chandragupta Maurya and Bindusara or Amitraghata of the 16, 15 centuries B.C., but Chandrasri (last Andhra king), Chandragupta and Samudragupta of the Gupta dynasty (4th century B.C.)


Article sent by Kota Venkatachelam to be read at the 17th session of “All-India Oriental Conference, Ahmedabad, October 1953.


All the Puranas, epics and historical compositions in Indian literature begin their accounts of the dynasties of the Kings of the different kingdoms with the Mahabharata War. Tha battle at Kurukshetra lasted for 18 days. Yudhishtira who was victorious in the war was crowned Emperor in the same year. The Yudhishtira Era commenced with his coronation. Yudhishtira reigned for 36 years. In the 37th year of the reign of Yudhishtira Lord Sri Krishna passed away. On that day the seven planets were in conjunction in Mesha and the Kali yuga began. The Kali era is therefore reckoned exactly from 2-27-30” hours of the first day of the first month of the year Pramadhi (3102 B.C.). Reckoning from this beginning the Indian astronomers prepare their almanacs from year to year. These almanacs are in vogue through-out the country in all the states from the Himalayas in the North to Cape Comorin in the South.

Western historians also have fixed the commencement of the Kali Era at 2-27-30” Hours in the day on 20th February of 3102 B.C. So the time of the Mahabharata War is indisputably fixed 36 years earlier, i.e. in B.C. 3138. In Kali 26 the Saptarshis, the constellation of the Great Bear, it is stated in the Puranas, left the star ‘Magha’ and passed into the region of the next star, next in retrograde direction, ‘Aslesha’. In memory of Yudhishtira who ascended to Heaven in Kali 26 a new era known variously as ‘Yudhishtira Kala Era’ or ‘Loukikabda’ or ‘Saptarshi Saka’ was inaugurated and has been in vogue in this country, particularly in Kashmir. The almanacs of Kashmir are based on this Yudhishtira Kala Era or Kashmirabda as they call it. Dr.Buhler himself has proved the origin of this era conclusively and, besides, claimed that it helps to fix the origin of the Kali Era indisputably in B.C.3102. His sentences on this question have been quoted in extensor in my treatise on ‘Indian Eras’ in connection with the ‘Saptarshi Era’. (vide chronology of Nepal History Reconstructed p.3, 4 by this author; and also vide, The Indian Eras Vol VI PP.264-268). These three Eras The Kali Era, The Saptarshi Era and the Yudhishtira Era were current in the country and well known to the European Oriental Scholars at the time they were engaged in reconstructing the history of ancient India (1870 AD). But they not only ignored the three Eras but went to the length of proclaiming that in the entire range of the available Indian Literature there was no Era or system of reckoning time and fixing chronology which could be made the basis for Indian History.

The European Historians of ancient India have been persistently dinning into the ears of their credulous Indian disciples that for the purpose of reconstructing the history of ancient India, our Puranic literature was altogether useless and unreliable and that reliance should be placed solely on inscriptions, coins buildings and the accounts of foreign travellers who visited our country in those ancient times. Strictly speaking the ancient history of no Western country is based primarily on such evidence. In fact, no such evidence is available at all with regard to ancient times to enable them to construct the history of India. Even if it be available it is of secondary importance and of confirmatory value and cannot constitute the sole or primary or independent evidence for historical facts. Where is the sense and where the justice in rejecting, for historical purposes the evidence of all our puranic literature professedly dealing with our rich and ancient past, and relying solely on inscriptions, coins and buildings etc. for reconstructing our ancient history? It is only the history of Bharat that has been the singular victim of such an odd theory—a theory which commended itself to the then ruling power at whose instance the said history was written.

Even these orientalists could not produce any inscriptions, coins, Buildings or any genuine historical evidence for their theory of the contemporaneity of Alexander with Chandragupta Maurya. Yet, they made it the foundation of Indian History and from that point they are counting backwards and forwards the reigns of kings as given in our Puranas, ignoring that the starting point of the Puranas was the time of the Mahabharata war. i.e. 3138. B.C. The Greek historians never mentioned either Maurya Chandragupta or Gupta Chandragupta. Then how can we identify the sandrakottas mentioned by them with Chandra Gupta Maurya. In the absence of any evidence inscriptional, numismatic or otherwise, it is improper to identify Sandrokottas of the Greeks with Chandra Gupta Maurya.

As a consequence of this wrong identification and to justify the same, in fixing the exact year of Asoka’s accession the Western scholars attach great importance to the five kings mentioned together in the XIII th.Edict of Asoka.

In the very process of identification of these five contemporary princes of Ashoka they were guided by their original assumption of the time of Chandragupta Maurya as that of Alexander and searched for names of kings of the West resembling the names mentioned in the inscription among the monarchs of the 3rd century B.C. The kings mentioned in the XIII th. edict were not the Greek kings of the 3rd century B.C. They were Yavana kings of Kshatriya origin but excommunicated for non-observance of Vedic Dharma ruling the yavana provinces on the North West frontier of India in the 15th century before the Christ.

But, by the 3rd century B.C., the Greeks had established their empire and Greek kings were ruling in Egypt, Syria, etc. There were historians among them who wrote long and regular histories of Egypt, Syria and Macedon etc. who carefully mention in them even the most trifling details of any interest. No-where in those histories do we find any mention of Ashoka of Bharat or of any religious or humanitarian missionaries sent by him to their countries or of any institutions for the medical treatment of men and animals established by him or his missionaries in their countries.

The identification of the Bharatiya Yavana kings (Edict XIII of Ashoka) of the 15th century B.C., with the Greek kings of the 3rd century B.C., is erroneous and it has to be rejected.

The European orientalists could have discovered the true history of our country if they had started on the basis of the Kali Era and other Indian Eras based on it in vogue in our country. The said approach would have eliminated the scope for reducing the antiquity and building a false chronology which they intended to foist upon us. From the scrappy accounts of the Greek historians who followed Alexander, varied and distorted through centuries of tradition, Sir William Jones took three names of Indian kings and bestowed special attention on them. They were Xandrames, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus the names of three successive kings of the east of Bharat. Then he began to speculate upon the Sanskrit forms for these Greek-made names. Prof.Rapson says unequivocally ‘Chandramas’ in Sanskrit corresponds to ‘Xandrames’ in Greek.

1. It does not require much culture or learning to notice that ‘Xandrames’ corresponds to ‘Chandramas’. To identify it as ‘Mahapadmananda’ or ‘Dhanananda’ is outrageous and an insult to commonsense.

2. Sandrocottus corresponds to Chandragupta. There is no doubt here.

3. ‘Sandrocyptus’ corresponds roughly to ‘Samudragupta’, but this has been identified as ‘Bindusara’ or ‘Amitraghata’ arbitrarily without any basis of the slightest resemblance.

Sir William Jones was not unaware of the existence of Chandrasri, the last king of the Andhra Satavahana dynasty of Magadha. If the ‘Xandrames’ of the Greek writers in identified correctly as this ‘Chandra Sri’ and located in B.C. 327, it will agree with the date we arrive at, by starting with the Mahabharata war in B.C. 3138 and by reckoning the reigns of the preceding dynasties of kings that ruled over Magadha according to all our Puranas. So the Mahabharata War would be indisputably fixed in B.C. 3138 counting backwards from B.C. 327 of ‘Chandra Sri’. This was not agreeable to him and so he began to consider an alternative hypothesis which would reduce the antiquity of Indian history and Civilization. He was in correspondence with Warren Hastings who was the Governor-General of India in 1774. They both came to an agreed solution of their choice. The result was the identification of Sandrocottus, the contemporary of Alexander according to the ancient Greek writers with Chandragupta Maurya of Magadha (of 1534 B.C.) But the Greek writers mentioned along with Sandrocottus two other names ‘Xandrames’ his predecessor and ‘Sundrocyptus’ his successor. Purposely they ignored the ‘Gupta Chandragupta’ whose predecessor was ‘Chandra Sri’ or ‘Chandramas’ and successor ‘Samudragupta’ who could easily identified with ‘Xandrames’ and ‘Samudragupta’. Inspite of the lack of any correspondence between Xandrames and Sandrocyptus with Mahapadmananda and Bindusara, the predecessor and successor of Chandragupta Maurya respectively, the latter was declared to be the contemporary of Alexander and relegated to B.C, 327 thus reducing the antiquity of Indian history by 12 centuries.

It is Professor ‘Max-Muller’ that has finally taken up the subject in 1870 A.D. and boldly, too boldly concluded that Sandracottus or Sandrocyptus of the Greeks was identical with Chandragupta Maurya.

The learned professor is, no double, forces to admit that this identification of Sandracottus of the Greeks with Chandragupta of the Maurya Dynasty is opposed to all Hindu, Buddhistic and Jain traditions and authorities for he definitely says:-

“Every attempt to go beyond and to bring the chronology of the Buddhists and Brahmans into harmony has proved a failure.” (Vide p.135, Ihid, Max Muller’s History)

But the doubt that had started in his mind did not urge him to further investigate into the matter with the result that, all of them became the victims of the same error which had been recorded as a true history of India to be taught to Indian pupils in British schools.

The fact is, all our Puranas give a regular and accurate account of the history of our country from the time of the Mahabharata War. Moreover to facilitate verification and rectification in the event of any mistakes creeping into the chronology of the reigns of the kings of the different dynasties here and there clues have been provided (inserted) based on astronomical data for the important land-marks. In this detailed and cogent account of the history of Magadha and the chronology of its kings given in our Puranas, there is no scope for confusion or doubt. The allegation that the Puranas are mutually conflicting, full of exaggerations and therefore unreliable for historical purposes and that there is no Indian Era for fixing chronology, is therefore a blatant absurdity and the propaganda of interested parties resolved to foist upon us their own preconceived theories for the ancient history of our country.

It is strange, that these European historians, while on the one hand, relying on our Puranas for every detail of the early history of India, the dynastic lists of our kings and their reigning periods, on the other hand discredit their authority and dispute their historical value in accepting the original dates of the Mahabharata War, the Kali Era and the Saptarshi Era—verified, found correct, and adopted by themselves as veritable truth-and all the subsequent events of our history. They base all their chronological determinations of Indian history on their own conjectural contemporeinity of Alexander’s invasion 326 B.C., and the reign of Chandragupta Maurya of Magadha 1534 B.C. in contravention to their proved Puranic dates and attaching undue importance to Mudra Rakshasa, Kathasarithsagara, Sukasaptati Lilavati, Gadhasaptasati and Mrichchakatitka, none of which professes to be historical, but all of which are meant either for mere entertainment or are literary productions professing no loyalty to historical facts.

Prof. M.Troyer even the disputed this identification in his introduction to the translation of Kalhana’s Rajatharangini and communicated his view to Prof. Max-Muller. The learned professor instead of fairly owning and correcting his error, did not condescend to send even a reply. They has been no reply to the arguments of M.Troyer even to this day. Later an Andhra Scholar by name Kuppaiah a first grade pleader in his ‘Ancient India’, had exposed the fallacy in the basic assumption of Max Muller but he too received no attention, Again in 1917 Prof. T.S.Narayana Sastry B.A. B.L., High Court Vakil, in his treatise on “The Age of Sankara” examined this question elaborately and disproved conclusively the false identification of Sandrocottus the contemporary of Alexander with Chandragupta Maurya, but the followers of Jones and Max-Muller have not deigned to furnish an answer to the arguments of the learned author. Now the author of this treatise again throws out a challenge to the believers in the current false history of India based on this dishonest and absurd hypothesis adumbrated by interested and prejudiced foreign scholars, to come forward with their authorities and arguments in support of their views and submit the dispute, in writing, to the impartial judgment of any tribunal competent to deal with the matter.

Issues for controversy

1. The Kali Era Began in B.C.3102

2. The time of the Mahabharata War was 36 years before the Kali Era commenced – so in 3139-3138 B.C.

3. The Saptarshi Era, or Laukika Era or Kashmirabda commenced Kali 26 or 3077-3076 B.C.

4. The Chronology of Indian History should begin with the Mahabharata War, 36 years before Kali or B.C. 3138 and be based on the times of the kings of the Dynasties of our ancient kingdoms available in our Puranas, epics and historical works.

5. The reigning monarch in India at about the time of Alexander’s invasion B.C. 326-322 was Chandragupta of the Gupta Dynasty of Magadha and not Chandragupta Maurya, who was crowned in 1534 B.C. as the king of Magadha.

Besides, these western scholars seem to have meddled with the manuscript records of the accounts of the travels in India of Magasthenes and the Chinese pilgrims of ancient times Faheien and Heun-Tsang etc. While translating the same into modern Languages they seem to have incorporated therein some suggestions such as that the then king of Magadha was the son of a barber woman to strengthen their hypothesis that he was Chandragupa Maurya. The doubt and suspicion are legitimate because they do not pause to consider that these Chinese travellers heard from the people of India, stories of the two Chandra Guptas, several centuries after their occurrence. There might be several inaccuries in the stories narrated by the people. Secondly, these travellers in recapitulating and recording these stories might have further damaged the historical value of these tales by adding further confusions and inaccuracies. It is quite unfair and improper that these versions should be given greater credence than the historical material in the Puranas and other indigenous literature. The Western historians seized every such scrap of flimsy evidence with avidity if only it lends the least support to their own wrong hypothesis.

Astronomical Evidence in Sanskrit Literature for Historical Facts

We now, therefore, adduce some strong astronomical evidence from our Puranas and standard books on astronomy.



The Great Bear was, according to the Puranas, in Magha at the time of the birth of Parikshit (i.e. at the time of the Mahabharata war) and it would be at the beginning of the 24th star century thereafter, in the starting time of the Andhra dynasty of Magadha. In the beginning of the 28th century—the time of the 24th Andhra king—it will be again in Magha in the next revolution.

The Great Bear will be with each star for a period of 100 years. While it was in Magha, the birth of Parikshit, the Mahabharata war, the coronation of Yudhishtira and the beginning of the Yudhishtira Era—took place in one year. (3138 B.C.). The Kali Era began 36 years afterwards. (3102 B.C.) In the 26th year of Kali (3076 B.C.) the Great Bear left Magha and passed to the next star and then began the Sapta-Rishi Era (known as the Yudhishtira Kala Era or the Loukikabda).

The Great Bear remained in Magha for 61 years (36+25) in the Yudhishtira Era and for 39 years previously.

Our astronomical science as well as the Puranas agree unanimously that 2700 years should pass before the Great Bear can complete one cycle of the stars and be again in Magha. Therefore in 2661 of the Kali Era the 24th Andhra King of Magadha “Sivasatakarni” reigned for 28 years – from 2677-2705 of the Yudhishtira Era (or from the birth of Parikshit), as in his reign the Great Bear was again in Magha according to the Puranas. Our Rishis recorded frequently in the Puranas, details of the astronomical phenomena, the positions of planets and stars, with the intention that it might be possible, with their help, to rectify any mistakes that might arise in the figures assigned to the reigns of the different kings and dynasties in the Puranas as they were handed down orally from generation to generation of scholars, or due to any misunderstanding of the writer when they were reduced to writing or errors in printing when the manuscripts were later printed.

But the Western scholars deliberately ignored this information and refrained from making any use of it in verifying their interpretation of the Puranas or calculating the reigns of the kings mentioned therein.


(Printed in 1877 by Puvvada Venkatarayarya in Telugu script)

(1) “Ata Urdhvam pravakshyami maghdha ye Brihadradhah
Purvena ye Jarasandhat sahadevanvaye nrupah” (269-18)

And now we proceed to enumerate the kings of Magadha of the Brihadradha dynasty, and in Chap.271 No.38 to 47 verses:

“From the time of the birth of Parikshit to the coronation of Mahapadmananda 1500 years passed.” (Verse 38)

“Again from Mahapadmananda to the dynasty of the Andhra (who were known as Pulomas) the interval is 836 years.” (Verse 39)

“That period (i.e. 1500+836=2336 years) is the time that passed from the time of the birth of Parikshit to the beginning of the Andhras according to those Rishis versed in the Puranas.” (Verse 40)

“The Great Bear was then (at the time of the birth of Parikshit) in the star century of the towering brilliant Agni (the presiding deity of Kritthika according to Srutarshis) and after 2700 years in the time of the very Andhra kings the cycle repeats itself : (i.e. it will be again in Kritthika.) (Verse 41)

“The Great Bear remains in the region of each star of the Zodiac for a period of 100 years.” (Verse 42)

“The Great Bear goes round the cycle of the Zodiac in 7 ½ celestial years.” (i.e. 7 ½ X 360 X 2700 years) (Verse 43)

“As the two stars in the east of the Great Bear (Kratu and Pulaha) rise at midnight, if we see through the middle point of the line joining the two stars, (Kratu and Pulaha) the star in the Zodiac lying on the line, is the star in which the Great Bear is said to be located. This is Krittika. There, in that star, the Great Bear remains for 100 years.” (Verses 44, 45) (This reckoning is according to Srutarshis and Varahamihira)

“This is the way to know the position of the Great Bear in the star. (Verse 46, Ist Stanza)

“At the time of Parikshit the Great Bear was in Magha for 100 years.” (Verse 46, 2nd stanza) (according to Puranas and Vriddha Garga)

If we reckon from the time of the Mahabharata war in 3138 B.C. and proceed to modern times or start with Gupta Chandragupta in B.C. 327 and count backwards all the famous historical events and personalities referred to in Bharatiya literature the dates tally exactly without any difficulty. But if we proceed on the basis of the assumptions of the Western Orientalists that Chandragupta Maurya belonged to B.C. 327 and reckon the times backward, all the references to the times of historic events and personalities in the Hindu, Buddist and Jain literature and all the dates noted in the accepted Bharatiya Eras (proved and accepted by these orientalists themselves) such as the Kali Era (3102 B.C.) the Saptarshi Era (3076 B.C.) and the time of the Mahabharata War 3138 B.C. – all these are rendered absurd and the time of the Mahabharata war is brought forward to 1931 B.C. the Kali era to 1895 B.C. the Saptarishi era to 1869 B.C. No further evidence or arguments would be needed to disprove the correctness of the basic assumption of the contemporaneity of Alexander and Chandragupta Maurya. A genuine disinterested student of history recognizes his mistake when it is pointed out and would accept the error which he cannot controvert but how can we expect such honourable admission from interested and prejudiced foreign historians who were deliberately bent on reducing the antiquity of our history and culture? It is however surprising that the Indian historians too who blindly and implicitly accept with pathetic faith, the interested findings and wrong hypothesis of the European orientalists as varitable historical facts, are not even perturbed by the discrepancies which result in the eras, times of famous personalities, and reigns of famous monarchs and royal dynasties. They have never cared to go into the validity of the basic assumptions responsible for all the confusion. Nay, if any honest scholar should bring the mistake to their notice, they ridicule him and discourage him without caring to examine his contention and stick to their own delusions. Such a dishonorable phenomenon is possible only among many of the modern Indian historians.

Whatever may be their attitude under the British regime, it is up to them now atleast to examine the theory with references to sources referred to and declare without fear the errors of oriental historians and thus help in the reconstruction of genuine History of our Mother-land.

Under the guise of translating and editing Kalhana’s Rajatharangini, General Cunningham, Dr.E.Hultysch, Dr.Buhler, Stein and others meddled with the chronology in it, of all the kings of Kashmir from the time of the Mahabharata war in B.C. 3138 and before rejected some of the kings, (misrepresented or changed), or wrongly identified some of them as foreign princes of central Asia, with a view to out short the period from 3450 B.C. by 1207 + 312 years. In this unholy effort they were guilty of many inconsistencies and fallacies, which we propose to expose in our history of Kashmir, (i.e. Chronology of Kashmir History reconstructed).

In the same manner these European Orientalists have also tampered with the Nepala Raja Vamsavali which give a regular chronological account of the royal dynasties of Nepal from 4159 B.C. Under the guise of translating the Nepala raja Vamsavali discovered in Nepal by Sri Bhagavanlal Indraji, they have meddled with the text and reduced the number and reigns of the kings to adjust the account to tally with their own preconceptions and prejudices. All these translations and conclusions of the Europoean scholars have been accepted as gospel truths by our Indian historians; not one of whom has had the courage to condemn these outrages perpetrated on our national history and honour. We have only to feel regret for this intellectual slavery and cowardice. Most of all, Dr.Buhler is responsible for a series of distortions and perversions calculated to reduce the antiquity of Nepalese history from 4159 B.C. by 1207+1021 years and we have exposed this mischief in our ‘History of Nepal’. Similarly, we find that they have tampered even with the histories of other countries like China, Greece, etc., to justify and substantiate and render plausible their deliberately false history of India. We need not be surprised at it.

We trust that at least now our historians will open their eyes and attempt to write an accurate History of Bharat, after a correct study of indigenous literature. A conference of historians is the most competent authority for instituting a committee of experts including professors learned in the current accepted history and pandits and scholars of the traditional type well versed in Sanskrit and acquainted with our ancient historical literature to go into these controversial questions affecting the very basis of all our history and settle them once for all.






– Dr. Kota Nityananda Sastry

Historian Dr. D.C Sircar contended that Mahabharata and Ramayana are not real and they arc the epics composed by the poets in the periods between B.C. 400 to A.D. 400; B.C. 200 to A.D. 200 respectively. According to him, the Ramayana was composed after Mahabharata.

If we want to know whether the Mahabharata and Ramayana are real or epics composed by the poets, it is the preliminary duty cast on us to know about the Eras.

1)Yudhistira Era or Age of Mahahharata War 2) Kali Era 3) Jayabhyudaya Yudhistira Era 4) Loukikabda or Saptarishi Era or Yudhistira Kala Era, which are in vogue in our country and also closely related to the History of Bharat from the time of the Mahahharata War.

Yudhistira was victorious in the Mahahharata war was crowned as emperor of Bharat in the same year. The Yudhistira Era commenced with his coronation. Yudhistira ruled for 36 years. After 36 years of his reign. Lord Sri Krishna passed away. On that day the seven planets were in conjunction in Mesha and the Kaliyuga began. After knowing the beginning of the Kaliyuga the Pandavas crowned their Grandson Parikshit as emperor of Bharat and they set out on pilgrimage. ln the firrst year of Kaliyuga Vyasa Bhagavan began writing of the Mahabharata styled as ‘Jaya’. From that time ‘Jayabhyudaya Yudhistira Saka’ started. In the 26th year of Kaliyuga in memory if ‘Yudhistira’ who ascended to heaven, a new Era known as ‘Yudhistira Kala Era’ or ‘Saptarishi Era’ or ‘Laukikabda’ has came into existence. It has been in vogue in this country particularly in Kashmir. If we know the commencement of the Kaliyuga or Kalisaka at first, it is very easy to know the commencement of the other sakas which are mentioned above.

Our Indian astronomers prepare their almanacs from year to year reckoning from the commencement of the Kaliyuga till to this date. These almanacs are in use throughout the country in all the states from Himalayas in the north to Cape Comarin in the south. All the Hindus specify this time according to the Kali Era when they begin the traditional rites prescribed for them.

This ‘Kala Sankurtanam’ has been considered essential at the commencement of any ceremony. Like this our Hindus have carefully reciting everyday the progress of time since the starting of the creation by means of ‘Brahmamana’. In that we are reckoning Kaliyuga year after year from the commencement of the Kaliyuga. Now we are in the 5110 ‘SARVADHAR’ year of Kaliyuga. According to the Christian Erd, the commencement of the Kaliyuga comes to (5110 – 2008=) 3102 B.C. Even Dr.Sircar never denies this fact. For this no further proof is necessary.

For example if we take the present Christian Era, we are reckoning the Era, years after year, from the commencement of the Era. Now we are in 2002. In this system of counting the time, there is no chance of making a mistake. It is not possible to shorten or lengthen the Era according to our will. This is the case with our Kaliyuga also.

According to our astronomical sciences, the seven planets 1. SATURN 2. JUPITER 3. MARS 4. SUN 5. VENUS 6. MERCURY and 7. MOON should be in conjunction (together) in the ‘Mesha’. At the commencement of Kali i.e., 5109 years back such a phenomenon had occurred in 3102 B.C.

The well known French astronomer Bailly has also accepted the beginning of Kaliyuga in year 3102 B.C. and expressed his admiration for the knowledge of our Indian Astronomers. The famous Mohammedan astronomer Mr.Alberuni mentioned in his Indian history that 1031 A.D. is equivalent to 4132 of Kali Era i.e. 3101 B.C. (vide Alberunis India, translated by Dr. E.C. Sachaman, llnd vol. 49th Ch., 5-7 pages).

In the Encyclopaedia Brittanica 14th edition 5th volume p.658: –

“The Kaliyuga Era is the principal astronomical reckoning of the Hindus. It is frequently, if not generally, shown in the Almanacs . . . . . . . . .

Its initial point lay in 3102 B.C., and the year 5002 began in A.D. 1900”.

From the above it is clear that the beginning of Kaliyuga is 3102 B.C. The Puranas and the Hindu astronomical works state that Kali era began 36 years after the Mahabharata war. After 36 years of Yudhistira’s reign Lord Sri Krishna passed away. On that day the seven planets were in conjunction in Mesha and the Kaliyuga began. In the same year Pandavas knowing the beginning of Kaliyuga. crowned their grandson Parikshit as Emperor of Bharat and they set out on piligrimage. Kali Era B.C. 3102+36=3138 B.C., is the date of Yudhishtira Era or age of Mahabharata war. “Jayabhyudaya Yudhistira Saka” begins in the year 3102 B.C. (This Saka starts from the commencement of the Kali Saka). In the 26th year of’ Kaliyuga, Yudhishtira ascended to heaven. Then the Laukikabda or Yudhishtira Era or Saptharishi Era started i.e. 3102-26=3076 B.C. All these Eras are widely known in our country and used in all our historical records and Puranas and inscriptions.


After the sixty year rule of Parikshit from the commencement of the Kali

Saka. his son Janamejaya came to the throne. In the 29th year of his reign, he gave gift deeds. In those gift deeds he used the “Jayahhyudaya Yudhishtira Saka”. One of his inscriptions (plate)was published in the Indian Antiquary on pages 333-334, which is published by the government Archaeological Department.

This is the first inscription known which used the Jayabhyudaya Yudhishtira Saka, which had its origin in the first year of Kaliyuga. This gift deed refers to a gift of land ‘Munibrinda Kshetram’ for the worship of Sita and Rama given by Janamejaya, son of Parikshit in the year 89th Plavamga of Jayabhyudaya Yudhishtira Saka- that is Kali 89. (The year Plavamga 89th year of Jayahhyudaya Yudhishtira Saka mentioned in the inscription tallies with 89th year of Kali. If we reckon backwards from the present Kali 5100 towards starting of Kali and again count forwards upto 89th year of Kali we will get Plavamga only).

It is also clear from the same inscription that the Ramayana is more ancient than the Mahabharata because this gift deed was given by Janamejaya, the grand son of Abhimanyu (son of Arjuna) who died in the Mahabharata War in the year 3138 B.C. towards the worship of Sita and Rama.

This is the direct evidence given by Janamejaya who got blood relation ship with the Pandavas. He is the great grandson of Yudhishtira.


This is also published by the Government Archaeological Department in the Indian Antiquary, Vol. V, pp. 67. 71.

In this inscription both Kali Saka and Salivahana Saka were mentioned. From this inscription it is clear that Kali Saka begins in 3102 B.C., after the Mahabharata war and Salivahana Saka in 78 AD. The inscription states after the Mahabharata War in the Kalisaka 3735, in the Saka Kala 556 years having elapsed, this stone temple Jinendra, the abode of glory, was constructed by the order of the learned Ravikeerthi etc. (by Pulakesin No-II).

According to this inscription the commencement of the Kali Era comes to, according to the Christian Era (3735 Kali-634A.D. (i.e.556+78 A.D. commencement of Salivahana Saka) =3101 B.C. If we reckon from the starting points of both the sakas i.e., from the beginning of the Kali to 3735 and from 78 to 634 A.D. we get the cycle year “Vijaya” as the year of construction of the temple. Both the eras tally with ‘Vijaya’

(For full discussion vide pandit Kota Venkatachalam’s “Chronogy of Ancient Hindu History Part 11 (Archeological Evidence misused)”.

In addition to the above inscriptions there are several inscriptions which record time from the Mahabharata War 3138 B.C.

According to the above it is clear that the beginning of the Kali Saka and

Jayabhyudaya Yudhishtira Saka is 3102 BC; the Yudhishtira Saka is 3138 B.C. and the Saptharishi Era is 3076 B.C.

The three eras are well known to the European oriental scholars of the l9th century AD viz.col.Wilford, Lassen, H.H.Wilson, Dr.Weber, Dr.Buhen, Fleet, Cunningham, Huttzch, Dr.Stein, Dr.Beal, Elephenstone, Max Muller, James Legge, Dr.Yule, Burnell, Keelarn and Mr.Crindle etc., including Sir William Jones who has laid foundation to our Indian History in 1774 AD. But they ignored these three Eras but proclaimed that in the entire range of available Indian literature there was no era or system of reckoning time and fixine chronology that could be made the basis for Indian History.

These are the three Eras according to which all calculations in our Puranas and Historical records are made. In order to reduce the antiquity of our Indian history, so as to bring it nearer to the Biblic conception of the creation of the world (4004 B.C.). The western historians, though knowing the existence of these three Eras, ignored them in their writings of Indian history and they declared that they had no alternative to the course adopted by them than identifying Maurya Chandragupta as the contemporary of Alexander and basing the chronology of ancient history of Bharat on this assumption. In fact these orientalists could not produce any inscriptions, coins or any other genuine historical evidences for their theory of the contemporneity of Alexander with Chandragupta Maurya; yet they made it the foundation of Indian History and from that point they are counting backwards and forwards the reign of kings as given in our Puranas, ignoring that the starting point in the Puranas was the time of Mahabharata War i.e. 3138 B.C. This mistake was made at the very point of the calculation of Westerners viz, the Alexandrian invasion 326 B .C. With this basic wrong assumption they had to dismiss without sufficient reason several Indian records and writings as imaginary.

According to Bharatiya literature Chandragupta Maurya belongs to 1534 B.C. and Gupta Chandra Gupta to 327 B.C. The difference is 1207 years. If we reckon from the time of the Mahahharata War i.e., 3138 B.C. and proceed to modern times or start with Gupta Chandragupta in 327 B.C. and count backwards the dates of all the famous historical events and personalities refer to in Indian, Buddhist and Jain literature-they tally exactly without any difficulty. But if we proceed on the basis of the assumption of the western orientalists that Chandragupta Maurya belongs to 327 B.C. and reckon the time backwards all the references to the times of historical events and personalities in the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain literatures and all the dates noted in the accepted Bharatiya years (approved and adopted by these Orientalists themselves) such as the Kali Era 3102 B.C., the Saptharishi Era 3076 B.C., and Yudhishtira Era or the Mahabharata War 3138 B.C.. all these dates appears to be absurd and the time of Mahabharata War is brought forward to 1931 B.C. the Kali Era to 1895 B.C., The Saptharishi Era to 1869 B.C., No further evidence or arguments are needed to disprove the correctness of the basic assumption of the contemporaneity of Alexander and Chandragupta Maurya. The name Sandrocottus mentioned by the Greek Historian who accompanied Alexander is not Chandragupta Maurya of 1534 B.C. but he was the Gupta Chandra Gupta of 327 B.C. of Gupta Dynasty. This crucial mistake of the western scholars resulted in the shifting forward the ancient History of Bharat by 12 centuries.

(For full particulars vide Pandit Kota Venkatachelam’s “The Plot in Indian Chronology”)

Our Historians are now accepting the existence of Gupta Chandra Gupta in B.C. 320-23 (with little difference in times say 1 or 2 years) after recent discovery of the Gupta inscriptions and coins etc.,

Sir Williams Jones knew Chandragupta Maurya belonged to 15th century B.C. It is clear from his own writings (vide Jones works ‘Chronology of Hindus’ Volume IV and also “The Plot In Indian Chronology- by Pandit Kota Venkatachalam).

In order to reduce the antiquity of the History of Bharat, so as to bring it nearer to the Biblical conception of the creation of the world (4004 B.C. Sir William Jones discarded the periods of the reigns of the Barhadradha and Pradyota dynasties immediately after the Mahabharata war 2825 years (This figure includes the four years of difference between the Pradyota and Nanda dynasties as indicated by Jones). Puranas give details of the dynasties and the respective period of reign commencing with the year of the Mahabharata War 3138 B.C. By this curtailment of time Jones could start the History of Bharat from (3138-2825=) 313 B.C. He puts the Chandragupta Maurya coronation in 313-312 B.C. and taking the very same dynasties given in the Puranas, pushes them backwards and forwards and compresses the entire history of Bharat in the small space of 1300 years (from 650 B.C. to 650 A.D.).

This false history of India designed by Jones and adopted by Western Orientalists like Max Muller has been taught and still continues to be taught to our children in schools and colleges. Present historians studied that History and most of them are blindly giving the same thing to us by way of research. One need not be surprised at the statements made by Dr. D.C.Sircar, who is the disciple of the western Orientalists, when he stated that the Mahabharata and the Ramayana arc the epics developed by the poets in the period between 400 B.C. to 400 AD. and B.C. 200-200 A.D. respectively.

Regarding the other points raised by the Dr.D.C.Sircar in support of his statements, it is not necessary to give any reply because those are all based on the modern history which is constructed by the westerners based on their own assumptions.

Dr D.C.Sircar states that in the small area of Kurukshetra it is not possible to stable II Akshauhinis of army (nearly 40,00,000 army consisting of 4 branches of personnel) in either those days of old or now.

This shows the ignorance of Dr D.C.Sircar regarding the procedure of war and strategy.

If we study Puranas thoroughly; then these kinds of thinking wouldn’t have arisen.

Our Puranas declare that the princes descended from Emperor “Yayati” of the Lunar dynasty became the rulers of different parts of the country changing their previous names and naming them after themselves.

As such, the region which is ruled by the King “Kuntala” is called Kuntaladcsa’, Mahishmanta’s kingdom is known as “Mahishmantipura”, King Vidarbha’s region is called “Vidarbha Desa”, King Chedi’s kingdom is called “Chedi Desa’, King Hasti’s kingdom is known as “Hastinapura” King Gandhara’s region is called “Gandhara Desa” and the kingdom which is ruled by king “Kuru” is called “Kurukshetra”.

From this it can be seen that Kurukshctra is a vast kingdom of king Kuru. The present “Kurukshetra” is one of the cities in the vast kingdom of “Kurukshelra”(just like Madras city in Madras State).

If we say that battle took place in “Kurukshetra” means that the war as spread over the entire kingdom of “Kurukshetra” but not the present town “Kurukshetra’ which is small in area.

Usually in war all the troops will not be mobilized at one and the same time and at the same place. They will have reserve and send such sections of the war to the battle front according to the requirements. According to the war strategy needs of warfare they march their troops to all the war fronts in the battlefield. step by step. from the reserve forces, which arc distributed in their kingdom (in three places i.e., in headquarters. on the way to the battle fields, and in the battle field).

If we think with the above aspect in our mind and calculate the army which had participated in all the fronts of the battlefield of Kurukshetra kingdom including the war starting place Kurukshetra, in the period of 18 days it becomes practicable. By this way Kurukshetra kingdom not only accommodates 18 Akshauhins but also accommodates double that strength even. The Kurukshetra battle was fought in the kingdom of Kurukshetra, including Kurukshetra town, but not in the small area of Kurukshetra town alone.

For example, if we say on the auspicious day of Kumbhamela two lakhs of people look bath in the bathing ghats of holy Ganges at Haridwar, it cannot be contested on the ground that the bathing ghats cannot take in so many piligrims. It is simple common sence not all piligrims go at one time for bathing they go by batches.

We have to take the number of people who are coming and going after taking bath throughout the day for consideration. The bathing ghats arc small, can accommodate many lakhs of people in that way though not all of them at the same time.

‘Therefore, if the present historians want to take any decision whether the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are real or not, it is their duty to decide whether the present History studied by them is constructed on wrong or right foundations and that too when they were written by westerness?

“Bharatha Charitra Bhaskara”Pandit Kota Venkatachalam of Vijayawada 3 (A.P) India, with a standing of forty years in the field of Indian history. studied both the Puranas and Modern Histories written by westerners and their Indian h1 lowers and he proved the inccuracies in the present History by citing astronomical, inscriptional, puranic and historical evidence and with his irrefutable arguments in his books.

Now it is the paramount duty of our Research Scholars of our Indian History to construct the correct History with the help of the books published by Pandit Kota Venkatachalam who laid the correct foundation to our History.

So long as the Himalayan blunder i.e., conteporaneity of Maurya Chandragupta with Alexander is not rectified in our Indian History, every event in our Indian, Buddhistic and Jain literatures, will stand in controversy. If this blunder is rectified, every detail in our ancient Puranas and Buddhistic and Jain literatures will be found to be correct.


Age of Adi Sankara as expounded by Pandit Kota Venkatachalam

By R.Purnachandra Rao M.A.L.L.B

Jivobrahmouva na parah The individual soul is not different from brahman

– Adi Sankaracharya

The greatest contribution of Adi Sankaracharya in the field of Bharatiya thought is his emphasis on, ‘Tattvamasi – That thou art’. Advaita Vedanta does not recognise any difference between the individual soul, ‘Vyashtirup of the Godhead and the universal self Samishtirup of Brahman.

Among all the eminent philosophers of Bharat Adi-Sankaracharya ranks as the greatest. He epitomises intellect in Bharat at its best. Such an excellent scholar, a brilliant dialectician and a compelling debater was not known to have existed before to illuminate the dark middle ages. He was a philosopher of the calibre of the ancient rishis like Yajnavalkya and Athri and sages like Patanjali and Kapila. The prestigious position that Bharatiya philosophy enjoys among the great philosophies of the world is an incomparable legacy of Adi Sankaracharya.

For more than 5000 years the Hindu religion had its roots in the Vedas and Upanishads. Many evolutionary changes took place whereby Buddhist, Jain and Charvaka ideologies among others originated in Bharat. Consequently composite views that were at the same time old and new, famous and not so famous, sometimes mutually self- contradictory and paradoxical, some even indicative of religious degeneration were projected by masses across the length and breadth of Bharat.

Adi Sankaracharya re-asserted and re-orientated the religious axis towards the Vedic thought. He was responsible for the pervasive influence of Hindu religion. For re-enunciating the basic doctrinal features of theVedas, Upanishads and the Gita Sankaracharya was accredited and revered as a world teacher.

The fact that the doctrines, principles, values and beliefs of Hinduism are so extensively known and entrenched in Hindu society today, is a tribute to Sankaracharya and his untiring and unceasing efforts to revive Hinduism.

It is paradoxical that the age of such a great saviour should be steeped in doubts and controversies. The age of Sankara or for that matter that of Buddha, Mahabharata war or of Mourya Chandra Gupta are all highly controversial subjects on the wide canvas of Ancient Indian History and no full stop is yet put on the dates doled out by the western Historians to suit their convenience and efforts to put everything within the framework of Biblical perspective.

However, seen from the unbiased point of view and the research material available that buttresses the same — thanks to great personalities like Sri. T.S.Narayana Sastry, Pandit Kota Venkatachalam and others it is clearly established that Adi Sankaracharya was born in Kaladi in the State of Kërala in Southern Bharat in 509BC (Kali 2593) in the year Nandana, learnt all the vedas by the eighth year of age, lived with his Guru and Paramaguru between 12 and 16 years and with their permission he wrote Bhashyas on 14 Upanishads, Brahmasutras, Bhagavatgita, Vishnu sahasra namastotra, Mandukya karikas,and many more stotras, lived for 32 years and attained Niryana in Ka1i2625 in the year Raktakshi.

The learned Sri.Narayana Sastry’s ‘AGE OF ADI SANKARA’ is one such wonderful research works. According to this… one of the main reasons for the confusion arose on account of identifying the later Acharyas of some of the Peethas with Adi Sankaracharya.

Pandit Kota Venkatachalam in his ‘CHRONOLOGY OF NEPAL HISTORY RECONSTRUCTED’ profusely quotes Sri Narayana Sastry and States . . . . . . .

‘There have been many Sankaracharyas all over the Advaitic Maths in India and many of them have been famous writers of works on the Advaita philosophy and religion. In the Kamakoti-Peetha alone one of the five Maths established by Adi Sankaracharya and originally located at Kanjeevaram but subsequently removed to Kumbhakonam, there have been upto this time(1950) 68 Acharyas who all bore the title of Sri Sankaracharya and among them there have been no less than eight Acharyas who also actually bore the name of. Sankara. Of these again the 38th Acharya was in addition considered, like the first Sankaracharya, an incornation of Shiva, possessed of a genious and personality in no way inferior to his illustrious predecessors, so much so that he has been identified by the later writers with the first Sankaracharya himself, the greatest of the expounders of the Advaita Philosophy and Religion. This identity in name,in title, in function, in status and in views has given room to no small confusion between the Adi Sankaracharya and his successors. There are innumerable works, and it is really impossible at this distant period of time to determine with certainity which of them were the handworks of Adi Sankaracharya, and which were written by his successors.

But it is really fortunate that all scholars should uniformly agree in ascribing the Bhashyas on the Prasthana-Traya to the first Sankaracharya. It is also a matter of great satisfaction to us to find that we have sufficient materials for determining the main incidents of his remarkable life’.

In some of the Sankara-Vijayas and other works the lives of many of the Sankaracharyas-especially the life of Adi Sankara of Kaladi and that of Abhinava Sankara of Chidambaram — are blended together by ascribing the incidents in the life of these to one and the same person.

It is still possible to separate and distinguish the main incidents of the life of Adi Sankara the admitted author of the Bhashyas on the Prasthana-traya from those of his successors with the help of lot of research material available.

A word about the great research of Sri. T.S.Narayana Sastry as stated by Pandit Kota Venkatachalam in his ‘Chronology of Ancient Hindu History’ part I may not be out of place if only to stress the pains he has taken in bringing out the realities to surface.

‘The material discovered and unearthed by him and presented to us by Sri. T.S.N arayana Sastry is really invaluble for the reconstruction of the true history of Bharat. The enormous cost of his researches may be estimated from the regrettable fact that after his demise in 1917 his residence at Madras was sold for Rs.1,25,000 to repay the debts he had contracted, with the interest accrued thereon, for acquiring the library and other equipment he needed for his researches. His scholarship, devotion to research, readiness to sacrifice for it and persistence in his endevour deserve adequate recognition and the gratitude of the nation which he has not received so far, presumably due to the indifference and lukewarmness of the modern historical research scholars, which is very much to be regretted. We, for our part hasten to tender to his memory, our heart felt appreciation and gratitude’

Maxmuller takes Sankara Mandara Sourabha as evidence the age of Sri Sankara to 788AD.

According to this verse Sankara was Born in 788A.D (3889 Kali) in the year Vibhava and tidhi Vaisakha suddha Dasami. However according to subsequent research it is clearly established that Sankara Mandara Sourabham was written 1000 years after Sankara’s birth and the Sankara of 8th century A.D described in this book was not Adi Sankaracharya but he was the 38th Peethadhipathi in the list of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetha counting from Adi Sankaracharya as discussed in the foregoing paras.

Pandit Kota Venkatachalam, Vijayawada, of our times, in his treatise ‘Chronology of Nepal History Reconstructed’ states that the birth of Sri Sankaracharya as Kali year 2593 i.e 509BC. He has also been able to prove through deep research many landmarks of the dates in Sankara’s life period some of which are as follows . . . . . . .


I Birth of Sri Sankara (Cycle year Nandana) 2593 509

II Upanayana of Sankara 2598 504

III In the beginning of his 8 year he lost his father Sivaguru 2601 501

IV Completed the study of four Vedas and Vedangas 2601 501

V Got permission of his mother to enter the Holy order of
Sanyasa(Karthika sukla Ekadasi cycle year PLAVA) 2602 500

VI Initiated by Govinda Padacharya into Karma sanyasa
at Amarakanta on the bank of the Narmada river 2603 499

VII Philosophical study from Govinda Padacharya 2603 499

VIII Visited his ParamaGuru Goudapadacharya who was
aged l20 yrs at that time at Badarikasrama on Himalayas
and stayed there for four years to study the Philosophy
at his Paramguru 2609 493

IX By the order of his Paramguru Goudapadacharya
Sri Sankara wrote a Bhashya on Goudapada Karikas
and sixteen Bhashyas on Prasthana traya etc in this
period of four years

X Initiation of Vishnusharma by Sankara who was his
Sahapatti at Kaladi and who followed him in all his activities.
His Sanyasa name is CHITSUKACHARYA (author of Brihat
sankara vijaya) the first work written on Sankara’s life. 2609 493

XI Death of Sankara’s mother Aryamba 2608 493

XII Nirvana of Govindacharya 2608 493

XIII Initiation of Sanandana into Sanyasa (his Sanyasa
name is Padmapadacharya) 2608 493

XIV Sankara going to prayaga to propagate advaita
philosophy 2609 493

XV The Brahmin who was suffering from leprosy and
cured by Sankara at Prayaga is the third disciple.
His nama is Udanka 2609 493

XVI The fourth disciple was the dumb man who was the
son of Prabhakaradhvarin by name Prithvidhara.
His Sanyasa name given by Sankara was
Hastamalakacharya 2609 493

XVII Sankara in his 16 year met Kumarilabhatta for the
first and the last time in Ruddhapura near Prayaga in
the act of self immolation by Kumarila 2609 493

XVIII The great Brahmin Mandana Misra was an independent
Brahmin chief or Raja of an important state with
Mahishmatipura as the seat. He was the disciple of Kumarila
Bhatta and a staunch adherent to karmakanda of Vedas.
After a great discussion he became the disciple of Sankara
and became a sanyasi leaving his Gruhastashrama. His sanyasa
name was Sureswaracharya 2611 491

XIX Sri Sankara founded the Dwaraka Mutt with Hastamalaka
as its first Adhipati 2611 491

XX Sankara visited Nepal and destroyed the Buddha
faith (vide the Indian Antiquary vol.XIII pg 417ff) 2614 488 to 487

XXI Founded Jyotirmutt in the Himalayas with Throtakacharya
as its first Adhipati 2616 486

XXII Founded the GovardhanaMutt of Puri with
Padmapadacharya as its Adhipati 2617 485

XXIII The Sarada Mutt at Sringeri was founded with
Sureswaracharya as its first Peetadhipati 2618 484

XXIV The Kamakoti Peetha at Kanchi was founded with
Adi Sankaracharya himself as the first Acharya 2620 482

XXV Niryana of Sri Sankara in his 32 year
(cycle year Raktakshi) 2625 477


Pandit Kota Venkatachalam in his Chronology of Nepal History Reconstructed also states that. . . on the life of Sankara we have no less than ten Sankara — vijayas or Biographies of Sankaracharya, purporting to have been written by the followers of his school of philosophy; and these may be mentioned in the following order according to their probable date of composition: –

1. The Sankara- Vijaya of Sri. Chitsukacharya known under the name of Brihat Sankara Vijaya.

2.The Sankara- Viyaya of Anandagiri, the well- known commentator of Bhashyas and Vartikas of Sankara and Suresvara known under the name of Pracheena Sankara- Vijaya.

3. The Sankara-Vijaya of Vidyasankara or Sankarananda , the author of Atma Purana and of Dipikas on the Upanishads, Bhagavatgita and Brahmasu, known under the name Vyasachaliya.

4. The Sankara-Vijaya of Govindananda, one of the Pandits of Kerala, known under the name of Acharya Charita or Keraliya Sankara-Vijaya.

5. The Sankara-Vijaya of Raja Chudamani Dikshita known under the name of Sankarabhyudaya

6. The Sankara-Vijaya of Anantanandagiri known under the name of Guru Vijaya or Acharya —Vijaya

7. The Sankara-Vijaya of Vallisahayakavi, known under the name of Acharya-Digvijaya

8. The Sankara-Vijaya of Sadananda known under the name of Sankara Digvijaya sara

9. The Sankara-Vijaya of Chidvilasa known under the name of Sankara Vijaya Vilasa.

10. The Sankara Vijaya of Madhava known under the name of Samkshrpa Sankara.

Of these the Brihat Sankara-vijaya of Sri. Chitsukacharya one of the direct disciple and co-student of Sankara is the most famous and authoritative. The author was associated with Sankara from the ge of 5 in his studies at school received iniation at his hands and always kept him company thereafter throughout his wanderings and exploits all over the country and composed his great work the BRIHAT-SANKARA VIJAYA to immortalise the achievements of his friend and percepter. The date of birth of Sri Sankara is specified in this authoritative treatise.

Besides these various Sankara — Vijayas we have Punyasloka Manjari and Guru- Paramparas preserved by various Advaitic Maths in which a brief account of chief incidents of Sankara’s life were recorded by his own immediate disciples. We have also a brief reference to Sankara’s wonderful life recorded in an indirect manner in Goudapadollasa, Harimisriya, Patanjalivijaya, Brihad Rajatarangini, Hayagreevavadha, Maniprabha, Gururatnamalika, Sushuma,Vimarsa and other works. Of these the last three are of invaluable interest to the historian of Sankara. There are also holistic references to the life of Sankara in works of Jains, Madhvas and Vaishnavas such as Jina-Vijaya, Madhva-Vijaya, Mani-Manjari etc.


The website of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham ‘’ interalia states as follows…

‘About 2500 years ago when the spiritualisation of the people greatly reduced, all the Gods and the Rishis went to Kailash and pleaded with Lord Shiva to revive the world. Lord Shiva agreed with their request and informed that he will be born in this world. Lord Brahma, Indra and others also agreed to be born in this world to help Lord Shiva …’

The lists of the heads of these religious establishments is maintained in the Peethas which are complete and continuous from the time of the founder Sri. Adi Sankaracharya and are the traditional documents of unquestioned authority and authenticity. All information is dated accurately. According to these lists of Kanchi Peetham – the Peetha was established in 492B.C by Sri. Adi Sankaracharya himself. He

occupied it for 6 years. He was succeeded by Sureswaracharya and occupied for the next 70 years. The entire list is there with dates.

Similarly in respect of Dwaraka Peetha – This Peetha was established in 491B.C. The first Acharya was ‘Brahma Swarupa’. He was for 42years (491 to 449B.C).

The lists of Kanchi kamakoti Peetham and Dwaraka Peetham are annexed to this article.

In his book ‘Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham’ Sri Ganesam not only gives the list of all the Acharyas occupying the Peetham from Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada (477 B.C.) up to date, but also their place of births and place of attainment of Samadhi.

The date of birth of Sri. Sankara according to these authorities is given by the verse,

(Thishye prayatya nalasevadhi bana netre

Yonandane dinamana udagadhvabhaji

Radhe dite rudu vinirgata mangalagne pya

Hutavan Sivaguruh sacha Sankareti)

Meaning: anala=3, sevadhi9, bana=5, netra=2, which comes to 2593 of Kaliyuga (or 509B.C.) — read in reverse as is the practice in old tradition. On Sunday vaisakha sukla panchami in the constellation of Punarvasu and Lagna of Dhanus in the year Nandana a son was born to Sivaguru and he was named Sankara by his father in 2593 Kali (which corresponds 3102-2593=509 B.C.) (vide ‘epochs of the History of Bharata Varsha’ by Jagatguru Sri Kalyananda Bharati mantacharya swamiji Maharaj).

This date tallies with that given by Brihat sankara vijaya.


The Jinavijaya is a composition by a jaina. It contains among other things a brief account of the life of Kumarila Bhatta (The great expounder the karma kanda of the Vedas) whom the jains held as their bitterst opponent. Therein we find a reference to the birth of Kumarila and the extraordinary meeting of Sankara with Kumarila just before the death of the later.

There could be no partiality in the writer in favour of his opponents.


verse referring to Kumarila’s birth

(Rishirvara stadapurnam martyakshau vamamelanath

Yekikruthya labhetamkah Krodhisyat tathra vatsarah

Bhattacharya kumarasya karmakandaka Vadinah

Jneyah pradurbhavastasmin varshe Yudhishtire sake).

We shall get the year Krodhi if we calculate the figures rishi=7,Vara=7, purna=0, Martyaksha=2 in the reverse that year 2077 of the Yudhishtira Saka(of the jainsthat commences 468yrs after Kali).that Kumarila Bhattacharya the special advocate of Karmakanda was born. Hence Kumarila was born in 2077+468=2545 of Kali or 557B.C.(quoted by the learned T.S. Narayana sastry, BA, B.L in his ‘age of Sankara’)


Referring to the extra-ordinary meeting of Sankara and Kumarila on his funeral pyre, the Jina Vijaya declares:

Verse referring to the meeting of Sankara with Kumarila Bhatta

(Paschat panchadase varshe sankarasya gate sati

Bhattacharya Kumarasya darsanam krutavan Sivah.

(quoted by T.S. Narayana sastry)

There upon when 15 years had elapsed from his birth Sankara met Bhattacharya for the first and the last time. Chitsukacharya in Brihat

Sankara-Vijaya says that Kumarila was 48 yrs older than Sankara.


Refering to the date of Sankara’s Niryana the Jinavijaya states

(Rishirbana stadha bhumirmarthyakshau vamamelanath

Yekatvena labhetamkam stamraksha vatsarah)

When we calculate the figures Rishi 7, Bana 5, Bhumi 1, and Martyaksha 2 in the reverse order and obtain the total number of years 2157 in the Yudhishtira saka we arrive at the year Tamraksha (Raktakshi) as the year of Sankara’s death.

It is plain from this that Sankara died in the year Raktakshi corresponding to the year 2157 of Yudhishtira saka-i.e 2157+468=2625 of Kaliyuga corresponding to 477B.C. which i.e. exactly the date given of Sankara’s death in various Sankaravijayams. We know that Sankara died in his 32nd year and so he must have been born in the year 2593 of Kaliyuga, 2125 of Yudhishtira saka corresponding to 509B.C.


Pandit Kota Venkatachalam quoting ‘A short History of Kashmir By

P. Gwasha La!’ states

Gopaditya (the Kashmir king) who reigned from 368-308B.C founded Agraharas and built the temples of Jyetheswara and Sankaracharya.

In his ‘Chronology of Kashmir History Reconstructed’ the Pandit also quotes ‘The Hindu report dated l7-07-1949 as follows

‘Sankaracharya- this shrine is situated in the city of Srinagar. Sankaracharya is an ancient temple crowning the Takti-Sulaiman hill and starting l000 feet above the valley. The temple and the hill on which it stands take their name from Sankaracharya — the great South Indian Teacher of Monism who came to Kashmir from Travancore. This temple is built by King Gopaditya and was repaired later by the liberal minded Muslim king Zain-UL-Abdin’.

The real time of Gopaditya is 4 17-357 B.C. Therefore it is evident that Sri

Adi Sankaracharya lived before Gopaditya’s time i.e between 509-477 B.C.


In the reign of Vishadeve varma the 18th king of 5th Suryavamshi dynasty the first Sankaracharya travelled from south to Nepal defeated the Buddhist priests there in religious discussions and reduced the influence and hold of the Buddhism. The reigns of all the kings is given clearly from the first king of 5th Suryavamshi dynasty from Bhumivarma( 13 89Kali) to the 18th king Vishadeva varma(Ka1i 2554- 2615). The birth of Sri Sankara was in Ka1i 2593 (509 B.C) and visit to Nepal in Ka1i 2614 or 488-487 B.C. These figures tally remarkably accurately. Thus it is verified that Sri.Sankara lived towards the end of the sixth century B.C and the beginning of 5th century B.C. (Chronology of Nepal history reconstructed)



Pandit Kota Venkatachelam in his work “AGE OF MAHABHARATA WAR” brings out an interesting inscriptional evidence of Sankara’s age….. The Tamrapatranasasana issued by king Sudhanvan of Dwaraka, one of royal disciples of Sankara and published in Vimarsa by His Holiness, the present Sankaracharya of Dwaraka Math contains a brief and authenic account.

Emperor Sudhanva ruled over Gujarat in the 5th century B.C. while Adi Sankara was touring in the western regions of Bharat, carrying on his glorious campaign against the heterodox religious school of thought like Buddha,Jaina and Kapalika, a historic assembly of religious leaders(of all denominations of religion) was held under the auspices of this Emperor Sudhanva. All the religious leaders unanimously elected the Emperor to preside over the discussions and to decide the victor in the controversies. There Sri Sankara was able to refute the arguments and defeat the exponents of all the heterodox religions one after another.Thus more than a thousand religions including Bouddha and Jaina were disproved and condemned by Adi Sankaracharya with irrefutabla arguments. The sanatana dharma based on the authority of Vedas was declared the victor and the only true religion by the President Sudhanva who was also the judge. He had been an adherent of the Jaina religion. But now that all his doubts had been cleared, he renounced his adherence to the Jaina religion, and overwhelmed with wonder at the vast erudition and profound philosophical wisdom of Sri Sankara, he sought refuge with the great religious truth from him. A memorandum presented by the emperor Sudhanva to Sri Sankara was inscribed on copper-plate and this inscruption was first published by Sri Kanuparti Markandeya Sarma in his biography (published in 1928). It was copied from that publication by Mudigonda Venkatarama sastry and obtained from the later by the author Pandit Kota Venkatachalam.

This inscription is dated the year 2663 on the Yudhishtira Saka. The same year the journey of Sri Sankara on earth came to a close. The great Acharya lived only for 32 yrs . Thus the years of his birth and demise works out to be 2631 and 2663 of Yudhishtira saka or B.C 509 and 477.


Apart from Kanchi the four great religious institutions known as the great Sankara peethas were established by Adi Sankara as follows in the years noted against each:

At Dwaraka(Saradamatha) in B.C.491

At Badari(Jyotirmatha) in B.C. 486.

At Jagannadha or Pun in B.C. 485.

At Sringeri in B.C. 484

These great religious institutions developed their own branches in turns and they have been in existence. The lists of the successive heads of these Peethas are all preserved in the respective Peethas and reckoning back with the help of these lists we can arrive at the time of foundation of the Peethas.


Pandit Kota Venkatachalam in his Chronology of Kashmir History Reconstructed asserting that Buddha’s time must have been considerably anterior to Sri. Sankara’s time states as follows…..

‘Though we do not find any references in the commentaries and treatises of Adi Sankaracharya to any discussion in which he was engaged directly with Buddha or Buddhistic philosophers or monks, Sri Sankaracharya refers definitely to the principles of Buddhistic metaphysics and religion in his famous commentaries on the Brahmasutras, only to contradict and refute them by elaborate arguments’

The wrong identification of Mourya Chandragupta as the contemporary of Alexander by the Western historians has vitiated the entire chronology of ancient history of Bharat including the date of Lord Buddha who was brought down from 18th century B.C to 5th century B.C. Since Adi Sankara was born much later than and not a contemporary to Buddha his age was brought down from 5th century B.C to 7th century A.D taking meagre evidences into account to prove this.

In his ‘Age of Buddha, Milinda and Amtiyoka and Yugapurana’ Pandit Kota Venkatachalam dealt with this subject at length. He cites various inscriptions evidences and writings from the research works of Sri. Somayajulu and others as follows…

I. Mr. A.V. Thyagaraja Aiyar in his ‘Indian Architecture’ states that tomb in Athens discovered recently contains an inscription which reads as follows: .

‘Here lies Indian Sramanacharya from Bodha Gaya a sakya monk taken to Greece by his Greek pupils and the tomb marks his death at about 1000 B.C’. If Buddhist monks have gone to Greece in 1000 B.C…. the date of Kanishka must be at least 1100 B.C., and that of Asoka 1250 B.C., and that of Chandragupta Mourya 1300 B.C.(vide A. Somayajulu’s ‘Dates in ancient history of India’)

Hence Buddha must have lived 8 centuries earlier than Chandragupta Mourya.

II. Sir William Jones believes in 1027 B.C. on the strength of The Chinese, Tibetian accounts, Abul Fazal’s writings and Dabistan Document(vide Jone’s works vol IV)

III. According to Max-Muller the Chinese accounts assign 850 B.C. for Asoka. The interval between Buddha niryana and Asoka’s end is 371 years. So Buddha’s niryana falls in 850+371=1221 B.C.(vide his History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature Allahabad Ed.)

IV. According to the same author the Ceylonese accounts assign 315 B.C. for Asoka then Buddha niryana falls in 686 B.C.

V. E.J.Rapson’ date of Buddha Niryana 483 was only provisional even according to himself(vide Cambridge History Of India)

VI. According to Rajatarangini Buddha Niryana occurred 150 years before Kanishka. Thus we get the figure 1294+150=1444 B.C.,1294 B.C. being the date of Kanishka according to Rajatarangin.

VII. According to Fa-Flien Buddha Niryana was in 1050 B.C.

VIII. Mr.A.P.Sinnett in his ‘Esoteric Buddhism’ assigns 643 B.C. for Buddha’s birth.

It should be noted that these theories negating one another are based on flimsy grounds. If one theory among these viz, that of the 5th century B.C., is now reigning the field, it is a mere accident. This theory of 5th or 6th century is perhaps the weakest one even among these flippant theories, the other theories being better founded. Even the author of this theory(E.J.Rapson)said that it is provisional. What a wonder that this theory should now appear to be the accepted theory of Buddha’s date!

The learned Somayajulu writes:

All Jains and Hindus agreed that in 528 B.C. Vardhamana Mahaveera died and that Kumarila Bhatta(557-477 B.C..) was Vehemently attacking the Jains all over India and was followed by Sankaracharya (509-477 B.C.). The interval of time between Sankara and Buddha was about 1400 to 1500 years. Hence no Buddha lived in 6th century B.C. The scanty accounts kept by the inhabitants of Ceylon are no authorities for fixing the date of Buddha and for calculating all dates in Indian History on that basis. The Japanese acquired Buddhism in 7th century A.D., hence the Japanese calendar is no genuine authority for fixing the date of Buddha as it is only a second hand information. The western scholars piled conjecture upon conjecture according to their whims and fancies. The history now taught in Indian schools is simply a heap of such misrepresentations and baseless conjectures’(vide A.Somayajulu’s Dates in Ancient History Of India).

Pandit Kota Venkatachalam states that the puranic account in this respect is never contradicted by any authoritative document and that 1807 B.C. stands as the correct and incontrovertible date of Buddha’s demise.

In ‘Dates of the Buddha’ by Sri. Shriram Sathe writing introduction to the book Sri. M.N.Pingley, All India President of Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Yojana states as follows . . .

‘In 1956 A.D. the 2500th anniversary of the Nirvana of the Buddha was celebrated in many countries. All of them followed the Burmese date of the Nirvana, 544 B.C. and not 483 B.C., the date arrived at by the western orientalists of the 19th century A.D. and presently taught the Indian Educational institutions. The date of Nirvana followed in Tibet is 835 B.C. The western scholars, in the beginning of their oriental studies had collected some thirty dates ranging from 5th century B.C. to 25th century B.C…….”

Sri.M.Radhakrishna Sarma, Professor and Head of the Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archeology, Osmania University, .Hyderabad writing his opinion about the same book states interalia . . . . . .

. . . . . . . If this date of Chandragupta Mourya, fixed on the basis of Chandragupta Mourya- Sandrocottas identification and contemporanity with Alexander, is questioned, as some scholars do, the whole chronological framework of ancient history followed by majority today will collapse. Sri.Sriram Sathe in his works including the present one ‘Dates of Buddha’ is commendably trying to educate the public on this Problem’.

It is said that Sri. Shriram Sathe approached personally His Holiness

Sri.Dalai Lama the present spiritual Guru of Buddhists to seek his blessings and requesting to write foreword to this book. In his foreword His Holiness Sri Dalai Lama also concedes the confusion on the dates of Buddha. He says . . . . . .

One point over which there are markedly differing opinions concerns the Dates of Lord Buddha’s life, though none effectively changes the essential impact of his teaching. However in the wider context of world history and the interdependent development of human knowledge it would be helpful if an accepted convention could be agreed upon’. (Acopy of his foreword is annexed to this article).

Thus according to the available literature and the deep research work of great scholors it was clearly proved that Buddha belongs to 18th century B.C.(1887 to 1807) which does not negate the fact that Adi Sankara belonged to 5th century B.C much later than Buddha when Buddhism was in a very decadent stage.


Sri.Modali Sivakamayya M.A. Head of the English Department, Andhra Jateeya Kalasala, Masulipatnam writing about the life of Pandit Kota Venkatachalam in Ancient Hindu History part II of Kota Venkatachalam says

…….. His success in this effort has been neither complete nor even considerable but he hopes for the power of truth to vindicate itself in God’s goodtime and for the spirit of Nationalism to assert itself and realise, at least after some generations more of political freedom, freedom from the more dangerous and more tenacious intellectual slavery to the west which we had imbibed and developed during centuries of foreign rule….. “MAY TRUTH PREVAIL’ is Pandit’s last word on the subject.”

After his exhaustive efforts in research Pandit Kota Venkatachalam makes an appeal to the young indologists wherein he gives his good wishes to all those interested in bringing out the genuine history of Bharat. (A copy of his appeal dated 1-1-1957 is annexed).



S. Name of Acharya Period Date of Demise
No. of Cyclic
Occup Years Month Paksha Christian
ation and day year

Est. of Peetha 482 B.C

1. Sri Sankaracharya 6 Raktakshi Vaisakha S.11 476 B.C.

2. Sureswaracharya 70 Bhava Jyestha S.12 406 “

3. Sarvajnatman 42 Nala Vaisakha K.14 364 “

4. Satyabodha 96 Nandana Margas K.8 268 “

5. Jnanananda 63 Manmatha Margas S.7 205 “

6. Suddhananda 81 Nala Jyestha S.6 124 “

7. Ananda jnana 69 Krodhana Vaisakha K.9 55 “

8. Kaivalyananda 83 Sarvadhari Makara 1 A.D. 28

9. Kripa Sankara (II) 41 Vibhava Kartika K.3 ” 69

10. Suresvara 58 Akshaya Ashadha 0 “ 127

11. Chidghana 45 Virodhikrit Jyestha K.10 “ 172

12. Chandrasekhara I. 63 Ananda Ashadha S. 9 “ 235

13. Sachchidghana 37 Khara Margas S. 1 “ 272

14. Vidyaghana I S.E.239 45 Dhatu Margas – “ 317

15. Gangadhara I 12 Sarvadhari Chytra S. 1 “ 329

16. Ujjvala sankara (III) 38 Akshaya Vrishabha S.8 “ 367

17. Sadasiva 8 Bhava Jyestha S.10 “ 375

18. Surendra (Kali 3486) 10 Tarana Margas S.1 “ 385

19. Vidyaghana II 13 Hevilambi Bhadrap K.9 “ 398

20. Muka Sankara (IV)
(S.E.359) 39 Dhatu Sravana 0 “ 437

21. Chandrachuda I 10 Vyaya Sravana K.8 “ 447

22. Paripurna Bodha 34 Raudri Kartika S.9 “ 481

23. Sachchitsukha 31 Khara Vaisakha S.7 “ 512

24. Chitsukha I 15 Prabhava Sravana K.9 “ 527

25. Sachchidananda Ghana
(S.E21.470) 21 Prabhava Ashadha S.1 “ 548

26. Prajnaghana 16 Svabhanu Vaisakha S.8 “ 564

27. Chidvilasa 13 Durmukhi Newyearday S.1 “ 577

28. Mahadeva I 24 Raudri Kartika K.10 “ 601

29. Purnabodha 17 Isvara Sravana S.10 “ 618

30. Bodha I 37 Ananda Vaisakha K.4 “ 655

31. Brahmananda Ghana I 13 Prabhava Jyestha S.12 “ 668

32. Chidanandaghana 4 Prajotpathi Margas S.6 “ 672

33. Sachchidananda II 20 Khara Bhadrap K.6 “ 692

34. Chandra sekhara II 18 Saumya Margas – “ 710

35. Chitsukha II 27 Dhatu Ashadha S.6 “ 737

36. Chitsukhananda 21 Hivilambi Asvina 0 “ 758

37. Vidyaghana III 30 Prabhava Pushya S.2 “ 788

38. Abhinava Sankara (V)
(Kali 352941) 52 Siddharthi Ashadha – “ 840

39. Sachchidvilasa 33 Nandana Vaisakha 0 “ 873

40. Mahadeva II 42 Bhava Vaisakha S.6 “ 915

41. Gangadhara II 35 Saumya Sravana S.1 “ 950

42. Brahmananda Ghana II 28 Isvara Kartika S.8 “ 978

43. Anandaghana 36 Pramadi Chaitra S.9 “ 1014

44. Purnabodha II 26 Pramathi Bhadra K.13 “ 1040

45. Paramasiva I 21 Sarvari Asvina S.7 “ 1061

46. Bodha II 37 Isvara Ashadha – “ 1098

47. Chandrasekhara III 68 Parthiva Chaitra – “ 1166

48. Advaitananda Bodha 34 Siddharthi Jyestha S.10 “ 1200

49. Mahadeva III 47 Parabhava Kartika K.8 “ 1247

50. Chandrachuda II 50 Durmukhi Jyestha S.6 “ 1297

51. Vidyatirtha 88 Raktakshi Magha K.1 “ 1385

52. Sankarananda 32 Durmukhi Vaisakha

53. Purnananda Sadasiva 81 Pingala Jyestha S.10 “ 1498

54. Mahadeva IV 9 Akshaya Ashadha K.1 “ 1507

55. Chandrachuda III 17 Svabhanu Mina S.11 “ 1524

56. Sarvajna Sadasivabodha 15 Vilambi Chaitra S.8 “ 1539

57. Paramasiva II 47 Parthiva Sravana S.10 “ 1586

58. Atmabodha 52 Isvara Tula K.8 “ 1638

59. Bodha III 54 Prajotpathi Bhadra 0 “ 1692

60. Advayatma Prakasa 12 Svabhanu Chaitra K.2 “ 1704

61. Mahadeva V 42 Krodhana Jyestha S.9 “ 1746

62. Chandrasekhara IV 37 Subhakrit Pushya K.2 “ 1783

63. Mahadeva VI 31 Srimukha Ashadha S.12 “ 1814

64. Chandrasekhara V 37 Sadharana Kartika K.2 “ 1851

65. Mahadeva VII 40 Virodhi Phalguna – “ 1891

66. Chandrasekhara VI 17 Parabhava Magha K. 8 “ 1908

67. Mahadeva VIII 7 days ’’ Phalguna S. 1 “ 1908

68. Srimat Paramahamsa
Parivrajakacharya Sri
Chandra Sekharendra
Sarasvati Sankaracharya
Swamigal, the present

Age of Lord Buddha, Milinda & King Amtiyoka

Chronological Table of Dwarka Peetha

Establishment of Dwarka Peetha By Sri Adi Sankaracharya-Cycle year Sadharana Magha Sukla Saptami to Dasami-in the year 2648 of Yudhishtira Saka of 3138 B.C. or 491-490 B.C.

S.No. Name of Acharya Years occupied From B.C. to B.C.

1. Brahmaswarupacharya 42 489-447

2. Chitsukhacharya 1 24 447-423

3. Sarvajnacharya 2 59 423-364

4. Brahmanda Thirtha 49 364-315

5. Swarupabhijnanacharya 67 315-248

6. Mangalamurthyacharya 52 248-196

7. Bhaskaracharya 23 196-173

8. Prajnanacharya 43 173-130

9. Brahmajyotsnacharya 32 130-98

10. Anandavirbhavacharya 3 65 98-33

11. Kalanidhithirtha 58 B.C.33-25 A.D.

12. Chidvilasacharya 36 A.D.25-61

13. Vibhuthyanandacharya 35 61-96

14. Sphurtinilayapada 49 96-145

15. Varatanthupada 46 145-191

16. Yogarudhacharya 111 191-302

17. Vijnana Dindimacharya 34 302-336

18. Vidyathirtha 43 336-379

19. Chichchakti Desika 46 379-425

20. Vijnanes warathirtha 28 425-453

21. Tuthambaracharya 61 453-514

22. Amareswaraguru 36 514-550

23. Sarvasukhathirtha 61 550-611

24. Swanandadesika 60 611-671

25. Samararasika 70 671-741

26. Narayanasrama 37 741-778

27. Vaikunthasrama 49 778-827

28. Thrivikramasrama 26 827-853

29. Sasisekharasrama 49 853-902

30. Thryambakasrama 8 902-910

31. Chidambarasrama 33 910-943

32. Kesavasrama 59 943-1002

33. Chidambarasrama II 23 1002-1025

34. Padmanabhasrama 25 1025-1050

35. Mahadevasrama 40 1050-1090

36. Sachchidanandasrama 59 1090-1149

37. Vidyasankarasrama 58 1149-1207

38. Abhinavasachchidanandasrama 28 1207-1235

39. Nrishimhasrama 33 1235-1268

40. Vasudevasrama 35 1268-1303

41. Purushottamasrama 33 1303-1336

42. Jnanaradhanasrama 14 1336-1350

43. Hariharasrama 3 1350-1353

44. Bhavasrama 10 1353-1363

45. Brahmasama 15 1363-1378

46. Vasanasrama 17 1378-1395

47. Sarvajnanasrama 36 1395-1431

48. Pradyumnasrama 6 1431-1437

49. Govindasrama 28 1437-1465

50. Chidasrama 53 1465-1518

51. Visveswarasrama 32 1518-1550

52. Damodarasrama 7 1550-1557

53. Mahadevasrama 1 1557-1558

54. Aniruddhasrama 9 1558-1567

55. Atchyutasrama 4 1567-1571

56. Madhavasrama 56 1571-1627

57. Anandasrama 31 1627-1658

58. Viswarupasrama 5 1658-1663

59. Chidghanasrama 1 1663-1664

60. Nrisimhasrama 13 1664-1677

61. Manoharasrama 26 1677-1703

62. Prakasananda Saraswati 4 1703-1737

63. Visuddhanandasrama 3 1737-1740

64. Vamanesa 33 1740-1773

65. Kesavasrama 7 1773-1780

66. Madhusudanasrama 10 1780-1790

67. Hayagrivasrama 14 1790-1804

68. Prakasasrama 1 1804-1805

69. Hayagrivasrama Saraswati 11 1805-1816

70. Sridharasrama 40 1816-1856

71. Damodarasrama 15 1856-1871
(Damodaranda Saraswati)

72. Kesavasrama
(Kesavananda Saraswati) 6 1871-1877

73. Sri Rajarajeswara
Sankarasrama Swami 23 1877-1900

74. Sri Madhava Thirtha – 1900

In 1900 A.D. on Pushya Sukla Panchami Tuesday at the time of Makara Sankramana Kala the 74th Swamy Sri Madhava Tirtha appointed as Peethadhipati.


Ancient Hindu History – Part II

(Archaeological Evidence misused)

An appeal to the Young Indologists.

The history of India, particularly of the ancient period, as it is found in the Text books of schools and clleges and in the writings of research scholars of Indology, equires

through revision. European scholars, who attempted to construct our history, seriously erred in chronology. (1) The false assumption that the Aryans came from outside India

and the wrong identification of Chandra-Gupta-Maurya of 1534 B.C. with another Chandra-Gupta, the contemporary of Alexander’s time (326 B.C.) led to several errors in chronology and other aspects of our history (2) The Puranas which are a storehouse of historical information were discredited as mere fiction. Several facts from the Puranas that do credit to our history and culture are entirely omitted in the historical writings of Europeans and their Indian followers. (3) Some Indologists went to the length of interpolating in and otherwise tampering with the writings of ancient foreign visitors of India and with the Buddhist literature.

4. Many ancient inscriptions like the Kumbhalghar Inscription (V. S. 1517) were destroyed

5. The genuine Inscription of Janamejaya (Ind. Ant. Pp.333, 334) dated Kali 89 or 3012 B.C. has been rejected as being spurious. Several other important ancient inscriptions between 3138 B.C. and 300 B.C. were destroyed.

6. Some coins and Inscriptions have been misread, misinterpreted, misapplied and misrepresented and some are forged so as to be used for supporting the modern theories.

7. The Aihole inscription and others that establish correctly the date of the Mahabharata War (3138 B.C.) have been neglected.

8. Some important dates which are supposed to be Anchor Sheets of Ancient Indian chronology have been arbitrarily determined, with no regard for or reference to ancient literature.

All this was to show that the historical literature of Bharat was unreliable as a document of history.

Although later researches by Indian Savants have brought to light several facts, that disprove many theories propounded by earlier writers, the writings of these savants are not accepted by prominent Indologists for the simple reason that these writings do not fall in line with their modern theories. It is strange to expect that scholars that are bent upon showing the errors in the modern historians in the field should fall in line with the same writers. The interests of truth will heavily suffer it this attitude towards fresh research scholars of Indian history continues.

For about forty years I have been working in the field of historical research studying both Indigenous and modern histories and inscriptions etc. and during the last 9 years I have published genuine Historical facts in 24 books some in Telugu and some in English running into 3000 pages. I have been sending my publications to research scholars and other prominent persons interested in the subject. Although the bulk of the scholars are too conservative even to examine my writings, some of them have accepted that my writings give a lead to the attempts for constructing a genuine history of Bharat. I am happy to note that there is a wide-spread desire in our country today, that our history should be rewritten so to be nearer truth.

I have done, through my writings, what I could towards the achievement of this legitimate wish of our people. I appeal to the younger generation to pursue the subject and do justice to the great culture and history of our country.

I have laboured, long enough and am retiring in my 72nd year. I assure my young friends that as they proceed with the subject they will find in our ancient literature, inscriptions and coins, wonderful material that will enable them to construct a continuous history of our mother-land from 3138 B.C. Beware of forged inscriptions etc.

This Ancient Hindu History consisting of two parts is the last of my works. In the first part of this book I have traced the dynasties of kings from 3138 B.C. (i.e.) the date of the Mahabharata War to 1193 A.D., and I am also given the historical accounts of these dynasties. This information is quite in accordance with the puranic accounts and genuine

Inscriptions. In this second part, I have proved that the genuine history of Bharat is to be found in the vast Sanskrit literature, that the so called archaeological evidence cited by modern historians is full of misleadings misrepresentations and misapplications and that this evidence besides being so very faulty as failed to help a correct reconstruction of ancient Hindu Chronology but always tended to horribly curtail it.

My good wishes to all those interested in bringing out the genuine history of Bharat.

Kota Venkata Chalem,



The dalai lama

Thekchen Choeling

Mcleod Ganj 176219

Kangra District

Himachal Pradesh


For Buddhists, whatever particular tradition they follow, what is most significant about Lord Buddha is his teaching, for that is what can actually be practised. While there is a general consensus on facts concerning him, such as the length and pattern of his life and the places associated with him, these are to some extent peripheral to this main theme. Nevertheless, many pilgrims have greatly benefitted from the efforts of historians and archaeologists in positively identifying Buddhist holy sites.

One point over which there are markedly differing opinions concerns the dates of Lord Buddha’s life, though none effectively changes the essential impact of his teaching. However, in the wider context of world history and the in-terdependent development of human knowledge it would be helpful if an accepted convention could be agreed upon. To this end the present work is most welcome. The author compares the theories of various historians and reviews evidence from many sources, providing readers with an opportunity to gain a clearer perspective on the matter.


Some highlights of the unique research material of Bharata Charitra Bhaskara Pandit Kota Venkatachalam – a brief note

By Smt. R.Ranga Priya

Bharata Charitra Bhaskara Pandit Kota Venkatachalam from Vijayawada (1885-1959) is the author of many research works on Ancient History and chronology of Bharat. His contribution in this regard is unique. He has extensively quoted from our puranas and ancient literature and repudiated the wrong theories of western scholars and positively proved many aspects of our ancient Indian History. His eminent research encompasses interalia the following :

a. An Anthological study on ancient Bharatiya History.

b. Critical evaluation of William Jones and Pargitar.

c. The tale of two capital cities Girivrajapur, the capital of Magadha Empire and Pataliputra, the capital of Gupta Empire – their mistaken identify by British Historians.

d. The historicity of Emperors Vikramaditya and Salivahana – an indepth study of the Eras named after them.

e. Analytical historical exposition in fixing the dates of Patanjali, Buddha and Sankara

f. Complementary role of Kashmir history and Nepal history in reconstructing an accurate chronology of Bharatiya History.

g. The western plot secret plan and conspiracy exposed in his work “The plot in Indian chronology”

h. A Critical appraisal of the mistaken identity of Gupta Chandragupta with Maurya Chandra Gupta by British Historians.

i. The Paradigm shift through his historical discussions and epistles with eminent scholars of his time.

j. The Andhra dynasty’s epoch-making rule from Girivzajpur with 36 Kings an unequivocal historical proof.

k. Study of rare inscriptions like Janame Jayar’s gift deed mentioning ‘Jayabhyudanla Yudhistara saka; Ihole inscription, …… inscription, Kharavela inscription, king Sudhanava’s inscription etc.

l. Exposition on the age of Buddha, Milinda, Amtiyoka and Yoga Puranas.

m. Criticism on Pargitar’s dynasties of Kali age.

n. The righteous rule of Agnivamsa kings.

To briefly elaborate the above, Pandit Kota Venkatachalam has clearly brought out in his research the following aspects.

The Pandit gave all the names of successive Magadha Kings with the years of their reigns as present in the puranas.

The wrong identification of Chandragupta Maurya 1534 BC as the contemporary of Alexandar has violated the entire chronology of the Ancient Indian History. Alexander’s invasion took place in 326 B.C. Chandra gupta of Gupta dynasty belongs to 327 to 320 B.C. As a result, he proved that the contemporary of Alexander could only be Chandragupta of Gupta dynasty and not Chandragupta of Maurya dynasty.

Pandit Kota Venkatachalam established the exact dates of the birth and nirvana of Lord Buddha. Buddha was bron in 1887 B.C. His renunciation took place in 1858 B.C. and his nirvana happened in 1807 B.C.

He clearly brought to light the three ancient eras in our Indian chronology basing on our puranas. The Kali era from 3102 B.C. the Saptarshi era from 3076 B.C. and the Yudhishtara era from 3138 B.C.

He proved that Sri Adi Sankaracharya lived between 509-477 B.C.

He has also provided sufficient proof to expose the hollowness of the calculations of the westerners and to explode their theory of modernity of Nagarjuna, Patanjali, Kanishka and Buddha.

He pointed the gross mistakes made by the western scholars in our Indian History. They regarded Salivahanas and Satavahaves as one and the same. Salivahana was a descendant of Panvar dynasty and king of Ujjain. He was the great grand son of Vikramaditya of 57 B.C. who was the king of Ujjain and founder of Vikrama Saka of 57 B.C.

In 78 A.D. his grandson Salivahana defeated Sakas; he was the emperor who started Salivahana Saka. He performed Aswamedha yaga and conquered countries as far as Persia. But the Andhra Satavahana were the emperors of the Magadha who reigned Girivraja as their capital from B.C 833 to B.C. 327. and held sway over the region between the Himalayas and Setu (Rameswaram).

Pandit Kota Venkatachalam through his works gave enough proof that Sanskrit is the most ancient and parent language of all the languages on the earth, from which all the other languages are derived and in particular zind, the ancient Persian language.

Pandit Kota Venkatachalam corrected the mis-interpretation made in Kalhana’s Rajatarangini. In this text, King Ranaditya is said to have enjoyed the soverignity of ‘Pathala’ for 300 years. The western critics have mis interpreted his statement to mean that he ruled in Kashmir for 300 years just to discredit Kalhana and his work altogether as unreliable purposes of history.

Pandit Kota Venkatachalam through his works brought into light the distortions and the blunders of the historical fact, made by the western critics with complete evidence.

Pandit Kota Venkatachalam has infact got printed clearly a. Imperial Royal dynasties of Bharat after Mahabharat war ie. From 36 years before Kali or 3138 B.C. to 4295 Kali or 1193 A.D. (Vide Annexure – I attached to this article)

b. Statement showing the contemporaneity of Kings with their reigning periods in 3 of the States of Bharat namely 1. Magadha. 2. Nepal, 3. Kashmir (Vide Annexure II enclosed)

c. He finally records with satisfaction the important dates in the history of Bharat which he has proved sufficiently. (Vide Annexure-III)

All the above facts conclusively proved the eminent research work done by this great savant of our times.


Annexure I

Imperial Royal Dynasties of Bharat.

(After the Mahabharata War)

From 36 years before Kali or 3138 B.C. to 4295 Kali or 1193 A. D.

Magadha Empire

S.No. Name of the Dynasty No. of kingsReigned No. of years Reigned Kali B.C.




By Sri B.A.R. Krishnamoorthy

Of the three worlds the best is the land of mortals. In our living world the North the abode of Kubera or the lord of wealth is praiseworthy. In the northern region Kailasa is famous. Therein Kashmir is parexcellence.

The western historians concocted a false chronology for the ancient history of Bharat and propounded baseless theories which were based on their individual opinions and guessworks and products of their imaginations and whims.

The author, Bharata Chandra Bhaskara Pandit Kota Venkatachalam accuses foreign scholars like Sir William jones Buhler Lassen Keith and others for this deliberate plot distarting our ancient history and attributes it to their Ignorance of sanskrit and Racial pride and prejudice

Self preservation is the first law of nature which can only be maintained by self glorification and sustained by condemnation of the culture and civilisation of the subject race. The first and foremost weapon to achieve would be to distort their history, demean their religion and to demoralise the nation by grafting alien civilisation and culture upon them.

The so called ameteurs and dilettanti crossed the seas and came over a distance of thousands of miles to write a correct history of kings of Kashmir neglecting the native historians. The ignorant and innocent youth were made to read the histories written by aliens and trust them as gospel truth.Many of the so called Indian historians have compiled histories of India but as intellectual slaves to the west, lost their own individuality and independant judgement accepting the wrong hypothesis of their foreign masters repeated, in other words the same wrong history.

For preparing the history of a country the main basis should be the ancient historical writings of the people of the country.Inscriptions etc should be taken as confirmatory evidence. When such regular and complete historical treatises of ancient times are not available adequate attention and respect should be to the customs, beliefs, traditions, generic ideas and persistent ideas of the people handed down from generation to generation in the reconstruction of their ancient history.

Starting with this premise, the author bases himself on material available in the puranas and epics for the reconstruction of chronology of Kashmir kings. With the aid of the original sanskrit RAJATARANGINI of Kalhana, the author repudiates the distorted and perverted theories of all the biased and prejudiced historians of India.


Kalhana was the son of king of champakapura a small state in kashmir and was the primeminister of the sovereign of kashmir. Kalhana was a great Sanskrit scholor and the author of Rajatarangini, the history of kashmir. It is printed in devanagari script in two volumes consisting of eight tarangas. The author himself expressed that he wrote a critical systematic history of the kings of Kashmir in 1148AD after a scruitiny of twelve ancient histories ,inscriptions, the eulogies of the heirarchy of the past generation of the kings by the heralds and officers of the state.


-They discarded and ignored the native chroniclers Kalhana and his predecessors

-Increased and diminished the reigning periods and time of Kashmir kings and altered the names and places of some rulers

-They eliminated some kings from it

-They made Mourya Chandragupta 1534 BC a contemporary to Alexander of 327 BC and in doing so they lessened a period of 1207 years from chronology of kings from the time of Mahabharat war.

-They neglected and rejected some of the kings of Kashmir

-Called Thoramana and Mihirakula as father and son.


The orientalists propagated a wrong view that the date of Alexander’s invasion (326-322 BC) of India should be taken as the basis and starting point for the history of India and there is no other alternative. They pushed forward Mourya chandragupta who was crowned in 1534 BC to 322 BC by a period of nearly l2l2years and since this was accepted as the basis for the reconstruction of Indian history the antiquity of our history has been correspondingly reduced by 1212 years.


-The kali-era began in 3102 BC

-The time of Mahabharata war-36years before the kali-era commenced i.e in 3139-3138BC

-The Saptarshi-era or Loukika-era or Kashmirabda: KaIi-26 or 3077-3076BC

-The chronology of Indian history should begin with the Mahabharata war in 3138BC kali-era and be based on the times of kings of our ancient kingdoms available in our purana epics and historical works.

-The reigning monarch in India at about the time of Alexanders invasion 326-322BC was chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty of Pataliputra and not chandragupta Mourya who was crowned in 1534BC as the king of Magadha.


The author takes pains to correct the errors in dates mentioned by foreign historians to bring chronology true to historical data which begins from the date of Mahabharata war in 3138BC.

Rajatarangini proves that many of the portions of Indian history written by foreign historians are false and fictitious. The book reveals that

-Vikramaditya the founder of vikrama —era lived in 57BC.

-It was stated that Kanishka was the 51st ruler of Kashmir kings and he reigned from 1294-1234 BC.

This refutes the writings of western historians that Kanishka lived in 78AD and that he was the promulgator of salivahana-era

Thoramana was a kshatriya king and that he did not reign at all. He was the brother of Hiranya the 82 king of Kashmir who was put in prison and died therein.

Mihirakula who reigned from 704-634BC was a kshatriya king. He was neither a huna nor a foreigner but one of the Kashmir monarchs descended from Gonada Ill of the lunar race.


Kalhana said that the period of his writing Rajatarangini was loukikabda 24(4224) of saka 1070 or 1148AD. He was writing the history of Kashmir rulers from the time of Gonandalli which goes back to 2330 years from his time 2330-1148=1182BC.

Prior to Gonandalll 52 kings who discarded the vedic dharma ruled for 2268years.

1. The first Kashmir king prior to Bharata battle was Gonada 1 who was a contemporary of Jarasandha. When he went to fight with Krishna in company with Jarasandha, Gonada I was killed by Balarama.

2. The son of Gonada 1 was the second king Damadara 1 who was killed by Sri Krishna when he went to spoil the swayamvaram of Gandhara raja’s daughter.

3. Yeshovati the pregnant queen of Damadara 1 became the third ruler

4. She gave birth to a son, who after the jatakarma was crowned as 4th king under the name of Gonada 2

The history of these four monarchs was written by Neelamuni.

When Gonada 2 was one year old the Bharat battle took place in 3138BC. As Gonada 2 was infant king, his support was not sought by kauravas or pandavas.

5. The successors of Gonanda 2 from 5th – 39th all 35 monarchs were transgressors of vedic rules and since they were antivedic and irreligious their history was not recorded.

6. Padmamihira on the authority of Helaraja’s work wrote the narrative of the kings from 40 to 47.

7. The 48th monarch was Asoka and his son Janaka was the 49th ruler.

8. The 50th sovereign was Damodara 2.

9. Hushka, Tushka and Kanishka (3 turushka brothers) ruled the country as 5lst king co-jointly at the same time.

10. Afterwards Abhimanyu a king of Gonanada dynasty re-conquerred Kashmir and reigned as 52nd ruler.

The history of these 5 monarchs was written by sri Chchavillakara.

11. The 53rd king was Gonanda 3. His time was 233oyears anterior to the date of Kaihana’s writings i.e 1182BC and this date was approved by Troyer and other westerners.

The author says the western historins do not possess any authentic records and they rejected Rajatarangini. They made 48th king of Kashmir namely Asoka who lived in 15th century BC identical with Mourya Asoka. Owing to the erroneous synchronism of Alexander with Mourya Chandragupta the westerne Mourya Asoka to 3 century BC. On the authority of Kalhana since Mourya Asoka and Kashmir Asoka are contemporaries Mourya Asoka should be placed in 15 century BC but should not bring Kashmir Asoka to a recent date 3 centuryBC of their preconceived date.Thus they have diminished the period and brought the king of 15 century BC to 230 BC .Further the Turushka king of Kashmir of the 13 century BC namely Kanishka was placed in 78 AD. They denied the very existence of the then king of Ujjain Salivahana and deliberately declared that the Salivahana era was no other than Kanishka era.

The dates that have been proposed for Mihirakula and Baladitya are

18OAD-200AD by Mr.Fergusson

450AD-550AD by Gen.Cunningham

E.Hultzsch and others have accepted the date of Mihirakula to be kali 2397 or 704 BC as related in Rajatarangini. Dr. fleet rejected this and also the fact that he was a descendent of Gonanda3 dynasty. He changed him into a Huna king and brought him to a recent date of 6 century AD. ln order to maintain this he invented an inscription and created a non-existing monarch by name Yashodharma. It is clear that this is a forged inscription and this was published in Indian antiquary volume xv page 253 No. mention of yashadhaswa was made in any of the puranas or Rajatarangini.

The sorriest part of the whole business is that in this fanciful reconstruction of the history of ancient India almost every source of information has been used except the direct and most valuable ones namely the historical material contained in the sanscrit itihasas and puranas and they searched in every region from China to Peru except India itself.


History of Kashmir is not known from the date of Kaihana’s time 1148-1295 AD.


From 1295 to 1324-25AD the throne of Kashmir was occupied by Rajasimhadev. In 1322 AD Zulfi Kadirkhan a descendent of cruel Chengizkhan invaded Kashmir and slaughtered innumerable men and women and carried 50,000 brahmins as slaves. The king Simhadeva fled to kistavar and his general Ramdev tried to run the government but was murdered by Renchanshaw from Tibet who married Ramdev’s daughter, embraced mohammadinism, took the name of Sadruddin and ruled for 25 yrs and died.

Then Simhadev’s brother Udayanadeva became the king, married the widow of king and ruled for l5yrs. Then his minister Shah Mirza under the title of Shamshuddin ruled for 4 yrs. After his death his son Sultan Jamshed became the king but his youngest brother Ali-shah defeated him and became the king with the title of Aladdin-ali-sher (1348-60). He had a city Alddinpuram built in his name. Then his eldest son Sultan-shah Uddin ruled from 1360-1378AD.After him his brother Kutubuddin ruled from 1378-94. In his time Said-Ali came to Kashmir and made mad efforts to convert people or kill them. Sikander who reigned from 1394-1417AD EARNED THE REPUTATION OF BURNING A BUNDLE OF SACRED THREADS WEIGHING 7 MAUNDS. After his death his son Ali-Shah ruled from 1417 to 1423AD and he shamed even his father.He was a contemporary of HenryIV of England. Before muslim rule in 1325AD Kashmir was the home of Sanskrit pandits and scholars and the seat of learning and wisdom. In the reign of Ali-shah (1423AD) only 11 families of scholars remained in the country which was reduced within a period of 63 yrs into a wasteland.

Then Zain-Ul-Uddin alias Badshah ruled from 1423-1474. He was a peaceful monarch.THE TEMPLE OF SHANKARACHARYA WAS REPAIRED IN HIS TIME.

Razi-khan alias Haider shah who ruled from 1474-75 and a druukard tormented Hindus.

Hassan-Shah succeeded him and ruled from 1475-87AD and Mohammed-Shah from 1487-89 with much bloodshed.


During SimhaDev raja’s rule there was a person by name Lankarchak. The number of his race increased gradually and Ghazi-Khan his descendent was the first ruler in 1554AD. He converted many Hindus into shia-sect. Seven of this family ruled over Kashmir. Akbar sent an invasion against them and defeated them In 1586AD. The Kashmir became a part of Delhi empire.


1. Akbar established a good government in Kashmir. He received about one crore rupees as taxes and had the country administered through his governers.

2. After Akber Jahangir was the emperor from 1606 to 1627AD.

3. Shahjahan from 1627-1658AD

4. Aurangazeb from 1658-1707AD. During his time the sufferings of Hindus were beyond description. Unable to bear the troubles the Brahmins went to Punjab sikh Guru and represented their grievances to Tej Bahadur 9th. The priest inspired by his 9yr old son GURU GOVIND INGH sacrificed his life for the sake of the religion when he was forced by the emperor to get converted to mohammadinism. Upon his father’s death Gurugovind swore that he would not rest content until he took vengeance by expelling the muslims from Bharat.

There were two tremendous earthquakes in 1669 and 1681 during reign of Aurangazeb. In 1672 and 1678 Delhi was in flames and a prey to arson. In 1682 great flood submerged Delhi and in 1688 Delhi was devastated by a dire famine. These may be nature’s nemesis for Aurangazeb’s astrocities on learned Hindus and godly Tej Bahadur Guruji.

5. Shah Alam 1707-1712AD

6. Faruk shiar 1713-1719AD

7. Muhammed Shahl7l9-1748AD

8. Ahmed Shah 1748-1754AD.


With Muhammed Shah Durani as leader in 1753-1819 the Afghans conquered Kashmir and ruled the country. The whole Afghan rule was a nightmare and terror. By an odd twist, the fate of Kashmir the paradise on earth was left in the change of dragons and devils.

Pundit Birbal Dar a victim went to Lahore and sought the assistance of the Sikhs to exorcise the muslim monsters. RANJIT SINGH THE LION OF LAHORE third time in a battle could completely rootout the pathan troups and muslims were expelled from Kashmir.

From 1819 — 1846 on the whole, sikh rule was not difficult. There was an earthquake in 1827 and in 1831 many people died in famine. During the muslim rule all traces of Hinduism were uprouted. The muslims declared ZEHAD or crusade against people of other faiths.

The Hindus did not lose heart but rose equal to the occasion and were prepared to sacrifice power, property and even life. They pinned their faith to the ideal portrayed in these lines

To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late And how can man die better

Than facing fearful odds For the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his gods?

And illustrared its truth in their lives.

Mohammedian empire was ruined within a century.


English were making attempts to establish their authority all over India and to find a colonial eastern empire. On 10-02-1846 the Sikhs received a knockdown blow at the hands of British and were compelled to surrender Kashmir and some more territory. As a result of a treaty entered into on 16- 03-1846 for an amount of 75Iakh rupees the English gave to Maharaja Gulabsingh the territory of Kashmir and and by that time one third of it was full of rocks,one third submerged under water and the remaining under the control of Zagirdars.


Born in 1792AD he was in service of Ranjit Singh. As a skilled statesman he made petty villages grow into big cities of Srinagar and Jammu. After his death his son in 1857-58 came to the throne. He died in 1885. Maharaja Pratap Singh was crowned king in1885. His virtues entitle him to be styled Rajarshi. He died in 1925.

Maharaja HariSingh brother of Pratap Singh adorned Kashmir in 1925. His son Maharaja Karun singh Bahadur became the ruler in 1951- alive at author’s time.


Gopaditya the 70th king in the list of kings of Kashmir (417-357 BC) founded agraharas and built templesof Jyestheswara and Shankaracharya.

Shankaracharya -this shrine is situated in the city of Shrinagar. It is an ancient temple crowning the Takht-i-Sulaiman hill and standing l000 feet above the valley. From this it is evident that sri. Adishankaracharya lived before Gopaditya time i.e between 509-477 BC.


A historical fact was established with authentic references to various authorities by Pandit Kotavenkatachelam that not only Pandavas and Kauravas visited Kashmir but Lord Krishna established dharma by killing wicked king Damodara and made his pregnant wife queen.

Thus Kashmir was a sacred land on which Lord Krishna set his foot and restored dharmic rule. It is most unfortunate that in such a land great tragic conditions prevail forcing Hindus to flee their own land where they could not live peacefully and are seeking refugee outside Kashmir.





Rachapoodi Poorna-Chandra Rao, M.A. LLB


Pandit Kota Venkatachalam Pakayaji (1885-1959) known as a great Historian of yester years with his titles as ‘Bharata Charitra Bhaskara and vimarsakagresara’ is infact a versatile personality with diverse characteristics rarely seen in a single person.

From the writings of late Sri Modali Sivakamayya M.A., Head of the English Dept., Andhra Jateeya Kalasala, Machilipatnam, his contemporary and his own son Dr.Kota Nityananda Sastry, Vijayawada, which are reproduced verbatim at some parts of this article for the purpose of authenticity it would be seen that late Sri Kota Venkatachalam Garu was a deeply scrupulously religious dusted and philosophical personality. Being an agriculturist he followed modern farming techniques. He is a political leader, a yogi and a social worker. He supported Swadesi movement. In the spiritual field he is a sadhaka. He is a scholar in puranas, astrology, geography and ayurveda. Later he became ascetic and renounced the world.


Sri Venkatachalam was born in the year 1885 in the village Madhanapuram Agraharum in the Nuzvid Division of Krishna District to Sri Challa Subbarayadu and Smt.Annapurnamma. He was adopted in 1893 in his eight year by Sri Kota Nityanandam of Godugupeta/Machilipatnam. He studied up to Matriculation class at Machillipatnam.

His Horoscope as per family records is as follows:

Date of birth: Paarthiva (Cycle Year)

Month : Vysaakha Sukla Saptami.

Tuesday 43-0 Ghatis-D/21-4-1885.

Nakshatra:- Pushyami, First Paada.

Lagna:- Dhanus.

Sanidasasesha – Sixteen Years Six Months and Three Days.









Some renowned Astrologers who examined this Horoscope having the planetary positions as depicted above have stated that – this personality gains high degree of proficiency in Sastras, Puranas and Vedic literature and name & fame are sure to follow.


His upanayanam was performed even at the time of his adoption (i.e.) in eigth year and ever-since he was remarkably regular in the prescribed prayers or Sandhyavandanam thrice a day performing ‘Sahasra Gayathri’.

He evinced from an early age, a natural aptitude for devotion to the prescriptions of the traditional culture and abiding interest in Puranas and Harikathas.

He was getting up early. Finishing ablutions before dawn and taking bath which included a bout and swimming in the tank on the outskirts of the town. Heused to perform his Sandhya Vandanam with ‘Sahasra Gayatri’

About the immense faith in Gayatri upasana by Sri Kota Venkatachelam. Dr. Kota Nityananda Sastry his son narrates an interesting anecdote at a later stage in life of his father as follows:

Often his father and professor Rallabandi Subbarao and Dr.Chilkuri Narayan Rao used to discuss in their house about History matters. On one such occasion for which the Doctor son was privy when Dr.Rallabandi Subbarao asked his father how he was able to perceive and visualize some of the difficult Historical aspects even when they as trained academicians were not able to conceive the same, the instant reply of Panditji was ‘Gayatri Mantropasana’ adding that when it is there solutions for all issues do come intuitively. What an immense faith!

He was observing special programme of ‘Bhajan’ on every Saturday along with friends.


When entrusted with the responsibility by his adopted father he managed well at an young age of 14 years the farm twenty miles away from Machilipatnam. At a later stage in 1917 one year before the demise of his adopted father he had purchased in Govt. auction on credit basis a farm of 200 acres in Divi Taluq engaged with zest in experiments in agriculture.

After shifting to Bezawada in 1924 the lands Divi were sold away in 1936, but his experiments in farming continued. He purchased a part of Moksha village named Venkataya-palem having 400 acres for his share near Nuzivid and engaged in experiments of dry cultivation attempting to raise garden crops. He purchased a farm of 130 acres farm land in Vemula Divi near Narasapur West Godavari District from the Narasapur Agricultural Company Ltd. and improved it.


After primary education, Sri Venkatachalam joined the Nobel College High School at Machilipatnam for higher studies and continued his studies up to Matriculation class although his interest was in devotional songs and hearing philosophical discourses. He gave up formal education and studied philosophical classics in Telugu and Sanskrit and practiced yoga.

In 1908 along with his friend Sri Kopalle Hanumantarao and Sri Bhogaraju Pattabhi Seetha Ramayya he made a lot of efforts in the establishment of National College at Machilipatnam he was in the Managing council of the college until 1957.

In the initial stages in order to attract students to the college while Kopalle Hanumantha Rao was the Principal, Sri Kota Venkatachalam was the first student under him learning Botany.

Sri Kota Venkatachalam donated two acres of his farm land at Salem Palem village to National College Machilipatnam to establish Sanskrit dept in the college.


He was married in 1902. The whirlwind campaign undertaken by B.C. Paul for National awakening in 1906 in connection with the opposition to the partition of Bengal was just then stirring the people of Andhra to National consciousness an aspiration for National Service and Political freedom. Young Venkatachalam associated himself to the movement with leaders like Sri Pattabhi Seetaramayya, Sri Mutnuri, Sri Kopalle, Sri Kauta Sriram Sastry and others and participated with his characteristic enthusiasm, zeal and eagerness in all their activities accompanying them on their lecture tours, doing propaganda and constructive effort for promoting Swadesi movement and collecting funds for Jaateeya Kalasala.

He was present along with his leaders in the camp of the extremists at the famous Surat Congress in 1907. He managed for one year a Swadesi cloth shop in 1908 jointly with Sri Neti Somayajulu.

But more or less since his setting down in his house at Vijayawada, he found himself in a position to devote a considerable and increasing portion of his time and eventually all his time to public work and study. His sons shares the responsibility in managing his property.

His association with the National leaders at Machilipatnam in his youth had implanted in him an abiding interest in politics, public life and National service and he continued ever since a modest and unassuming but sincere work in the ranks of the Congress. He was always a member of the local congress bodies, attended the meetings regularly. He participated in all the movements and was ready to court imprisonment. He was in the forefront of political agitation and constructive work, launched from time by the great National movement during it’s historic struggle for Independence.


With his thorough knowledge in Ayurveda he was associated closely with the Rammohan free Ayurvedic Dispensary at Vijayawada for a number of years. He was the Honorary Secretary of it from 1940-43 during which period by his remarkable zest for public service wise and courageous planning, efficient execution and prudent management, he was able to establish a remarkable improvement in the finances of the organization and the utility of its services to the public. The institution continued to share his attention for long there after as he was obliged to be associated with it’s management as vice president for several years and member of the executive committee even longer.


While at school stage, he had special interest in devotional songs and philosophical discourses of a mystic by name Talari Rangadas whose residence was on his way to the school. Sri Venkatachalam sought and enjoyed regularly the company of the mystic everyday.

His aptitude for learning yoga was very high. He along with another friend went to Vijayawada without informing home to learn yoga under a Yogi and in the process both missed to write their examinations and incurred the displeasure of their parents.

Along with his friend Sri Pala Vajjala Nagabushanam who was well versed in spiritual literature he began studying Bhagavatam and embarked on a systematic study of scriptures, both the friends residing for some time for the purpose at the Vishnu temple at Kara Agraharam near the sea pursuing their studies.

The two friends then started on a walking tour through the ceded districts and in Telangana (Mantena etc) giving Bhagavata Kalakshepams.

On his return home after tour Sri Venkatachalam lived for a time at Undavalli caves near Vijayawada for the practice of Yoga in the necessary solitude and visiting Undavalli village only once a day for food by ‘Madhukara’.

As Dr.Kota Nityananda Sastry his son wrote: While he slept in those dark caves at nights snakes etc. used to freely move about creeping on him without harming him. He seems to have been in a state of trance and no harm came to him.

For Spiritual Sadhana and realization he settled with his wife in a ‘Parnasala’ (cottage) on the outskirts of Chinnapuram village six miles South of Machilipatnam where he practiced Yoga and a systematic study of Upanishads, Bhagawadgita, Brahma Sutra, Puranas and Philosophical classics and reciting regular Gayatri 24 lakhs of times in Meditation. Here at the Parnasala which came to be known as Anandasrama was visited frequently by many earnest souls of the neighbourhood, he continued to live there wandering or occasions on foot for 14 years. He later shifted his family to Vijayawada in 1924.

Even the study of scriptures contemplation and practice of Yoga could not satisfy his dynamic spirit. The desire for ‘Desatana’, to travel the country not stopping anywhere for long depending on the chance hospitality of the public for sustenance, grew insistent in him and he undertook a walking tour of Bharat in 1911. During which he came in contact with Sri Chidghanananda Saraswati Swamy in whom he observed with admiration, the effects of regulated, natural (i.e. uncooked) food which he soon led to imitation and practiced that lasted for a number of years from 1911 to 1936.

A daughter was born to him in 1912 but the event by which he became a father, meant no change in his life or inclinations or aspirations. Very soon he started again on a tour of the whole of South India on foot, covering the long distances to Madras from there to Rameswaram, and then through the states of Travencore, Mysore, traveling alone without any resources for sustenance relying on the hospitality of the public, and propagating religious and philosophical knowledge. He had many marvelous experiences during this tour which all tended to confirm in him, his faith in conformity with the tenets of his religion that the result of the Karma of a person in his previous lives which has given him this life will provide him the wherewithal for keeping the body in health and comfort, even in the absence of any effort or worry on his part. Therefore in the course of his tour he visited ‘Visista advaita’ and ‘Dvaita’ peethams at Vanamavula and Udipi and Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati of Sringeri of whom he sought initiation into the order of Sanyasa. But this sage could dissuade him from the step for the time being, on the ground of his undischarged obligation to the old adopted father who had deliberately adopted him into his family (his adopted mother dies in 1903).

So he returned home to lead a life of a house holder. But his earnest efforts continued to attain spiritual enlightenment and realization through his programmes of regulated diet, sustained study, contemplation in solitude and practice of yoga, in the ‘Anandashrama’ at Chinnapuram where he continued to stay till 1924.


In order to appreciate the indepth study and research Sri Kota Venkatachalam has done with his thorough knowledge in the above subjects, one has to patiently go through his works like ‘Jamboo Dweepamu’, ‘Aryula Dhruva Nivasa Khandanamu’, ‘Brahmanda Srishti Viganamu’ etc., (Telugu) where in he profusely quotes our ancient Sastras, Rishis and Scholars right up to Bhaskaracharya.

A few maps with which he tried to explain the subjects (which are appended to this article) would help us to appreciate his thoroughness and grip on the above subjects.

Quoting from Rigveda he has effectively repudiated the ‘Arctic Theory’ of Sri Balagangadhar Tilak that the home of the ancestors of the Vedic people was somewhere near the North pole, in his work ‘Aryula Dhruva Nivasa Khandanamu’.


His versatile genius discovered during the period another field of activity which was destined to provide fuller satisfaction to the various rich strands in this intellectual and moral character. He took to the study of the ancient history, indigenous literature as well as in the version of it as reconstructed by the modern historians inspired by the European Orientalists of the 18th and 19th centuries during the British rule in India. He set for himself the task of discovering and exposing the injustice and injury to our history and culture and the damage to our National honour perpetrated by the European Orientalists in this direction and embarked with his characteristic zest and tenacity upon the Herculean task, which soon became his life work and constitutes the magnum opus of his versatile intellect and might spirit, the reconstruction of the history of ancient Bharat, on modern lines and methods calculated to appeal to and convince the modern mind, but on the sure foundations of our Puranas and other indigenous historical literature, which has been discredited, despised, and rejected, for their own purposes, by the Europian historians and their Indian disciples, as unreliable and hence unsuitable for use as source material for history.

His important historical publications include the following –

i. Ancient Hindu history Part I

ii. Ancient Hindu history Part II

iii. Chronology of Nepal History reconstructed

iv. Chronology of Kashmir History reconstructed

v. The plot in Indian Chronology

vi. The Age of Budha, Milinda and Amtiyoka and Yuga Purana

vii. Indian Eras

viii. Historicity of Vikramaditya and Salivahana

ix. Age of Mahabharata War (Printed after his Sidhi)

x. Dhruva Nivasa Khandanam (Telugu)

xi. Bharateeya Samamula ( – do – )

xii. Gupta Rajulu Evaru ( – do – )

xiii. Agnivamsapu Rajulu ( – do – )

(Niyogi Brahmana Prabhuvulu)

xiv. Kaliyuga Raja Vamsamulu ( – do – )

iv. Andhrula Puttu poorvotharamulu ( – do – )


He assumed ocher robes took Sanyasa and ascended Abhinava Virupaksha Peetham on 8-7-1957 as Jagadguru Sri Sankaracharya Sri Adwayananda Sankara Bharathi Swami. He commenced the writing of the book Age of Mahabharata War his last one in the year 1957 and completed in 1959 and after a few days of the completion of the book, he attained Sidhi on 12-11-1959 (Kalisaka 5060, Vikari – Kaarthika Sudha Thrayodasi).

A great soul attained Sidhi the ultimate of any mortal!

Late Sri Modali Sivakamayya writes that his last words in respect of the subject of history he wrote were “May truth prevail” – prophetic as they are even after 60 years of his Sidhi truly and apparently they are echoing in this seminar.

May God almighty grant the soul of this great savant to rest in peace, satisfied that the stupendous task of projecting the correct history of this country he had undertaken is being continued with zest by his followers and admirers they through out the length and breadth of this great country – Bharath.



1. Maandavya

2. Tushaara

3. Muulikaa

4. Merva (Murava)

5. Khasa

6. Mahaakesa

7. Mahaanasa

8. Lampaaka

9. Taalanaaga

10. Maru (i.e. Desert country)

11. North Gandhara

12. Bahleeka (Bactria)

13. The Himalayan region.

14. Trigarta

15. Meena

16. Kauluta

17. Brahmaputra

18. Tankana

19. Abhisaara

20. Kashmira

21. Gandhara

22. Naishadha

23. Maadhuraa

(Northern Portion of Yavana and East of No. 22 Naishadha)

A Paradigm shift in ‘Historical Research’ accomplished by Pandit Kota Venkatachalam through his historical discussions reviews and epistles with eminent scholars and historians of his time.


D.Nagaprasad, M.A.,

Bharata Charita Bhaskara Pandit Kota Venkatachalam (1885-1959) wrote a No. of Books of Ancient Indian History, Archaeology and Philosophy. The books received acclaim from great personalities and Historians alike. A list of some of the books written by him is given below.

1. Chronology of Ancient Hindu History Part – I

2. …………….. do ……………………… Part – II

3. The Plot in Indian Chronology

4. Indian Eras

5. Age of Buddha, Milinda and Amtiyoka and Yuga, Purana

6. Chronology of Kashmir History Reconstructed.

7. Chronology of Nepal History Reconstructed.

8. The History of Vikrama and Salivahana

9. Manava Srishti Vijnaanam

In the words of later Sri Modali Sivakamayya, his friend contemporary, Head of the English Department, Andhra Jatiya Kalasala, Machilipatnam.

“——— in this heroic endeavour he had launched on the publication, at his own expense, of the Arya Vijnana series which have been presented to the public, he had devoted nearly 20 years of his ripe age and mature intellect to service to the nation in this inconspicuous direction of original historical research, attempting to interest the Public, Convince and convert historical scholars and students of history in the country, in his great thesis which he had developed with remarkable consistency and pertinacity in volume after volume, in spite of and in the face of the ingrained prejudice against it among the professed historical scholars the very basic foundations of whose knowledge he fearlessly questions and logically repudiates. His success in this effort had been neither complete nor even considerable but he hopes for the power of truth to vindicate itself in God’s good time and for the spirit of nationalism to assert itself and realise, atleast after some generations more of political freedom, freedom from the more dangerous and more tenacious intellectual slavery to the west which we had imbibed and developed during centuries of foreign rule.

Meanwhile age tells upon the veteran servant and he hankers for freedom for himself for the pursuit of his spiritual endeavours, along the traditional paths of Karma and Sanyasa. He therefore, propose to bid good bye to the readers of his publications, with this last but comprehensive volume on the History of Ancient Bharat, entrusting the responsibility of carrying on to its assured goal of full justice and complete success, his work for the reconstruction and propagation of the true history of Bharat, to the younger spirits among the public, endowed with the necessary talents, qualifications and equipment and even more necessary character and aspirations. “MAY TRUTH PREVAIL” (is his last word on the subject)”.

In order to appreciate the depth of great research the Author has undertaken to correctly depict the Ancient Indian History with the help of our PURANAS, Ancient literature, Inscriptions etc., an attempt is made hereunder to briefly note down some of the excerpts from the Review of the Books of Pandit KOTA VENKATACHALEM by great personalities, scholars, Historians, News Media etc. of those days.

Also, when these great works of the Author are out of print now and non-available readily, bringing together the opinions and reviews of the learned Historians and scholars of those days on his various works in the form of an Articles in this Volume, besides throwing light about the depth of research that has gone into the works, could perhaps in still enthusiasm amongst the Historians and interested in reprinting of the works, hopefully.


-”Arsha Vidyabhushana” Jatavallabula Purushottam, M.A.

“ Sri Venkatachalam is the founder of a new era in historical research and discovery of Arya culture. None can stand on a par with him, in exploding the wrong theories propounded by modern Indologists. It is a fact worthy of note that his conclusions and findings have earned the admiration of reputed scholars like Dr.B.Pattabhi Sitaramayya. Kalaprapurna Dr.C.Narayana Rao MA. Ph. D., Sri. R.Subba Rao, M.A. Lt. IN, Sri. C.P.Ramaswamy Iyyer, Dr.G.N.Kaul, M.A. Ph.D. and Pandit Premnath Dograji et.

Sri Venkatachelam is a pioneer in the field of vindicating the historical authenticity of the PURANAS and in giving a connected history of India on the authority of the PURANAS. Scores of research scholars in future will draw inspiration from him and a genuine and complete history of BHARAT will be an accomplished fact before long. So far as the Chronology and the successions of dynasties of kings are concerned the account given in this volume is sufficiently detailed and is likely to form the basis of more detailed history of India.


Prof. R.Subba Rao, M.A., L.T., M.E.S. (Retd.)

Hon. Gen. Secretary,

Andhra Historical Research Society Member,

Indian Historical Records Commission Madras Region and Delhi, Rajahmundry.

The Author adduces good proof to show that Alexander’s contemporary was Chandragupta of the Gupta Dynasty. He rightly fails to understand why the Western Scholars and their followers failed to identify the two names Sandracottus and Sandrocyptus with Chandragupta and Samudra Gupta of Gupta line. Chandragupta acted according to the PURANAS, as Regent of Chandrabrija or Chandrasri the last but one king of the Andhra Satavahana Dynasty. If Alexander’s contemporary was Gupta Chandra Gupta ancient dynastic chronologies would be correct and the testimony of the Puranas which have not been correctly read or used so far would be proved. The Author contends that the identification of Bharatiya Yavana Kings of Asoka’s inscription who, according to Puranas lived in the 15th Century B.C. with Greek Kings of 3rd Century B.C. is wrong”.

“A useful appendix shows the reigning periods of the contemporary kings of three kingdoms viz. Nepal, Magadha and Kashmir and they all refer to KALI ERA (3102 BC and the time of the Mahabharata War as 3138 B.C. and of the Kashmirabda as 3076 BC”).

“The PURANAS have given correctly the dynastic lists of Kings with their regnal periods since the time of Bharata War (3138 B.C.). Jones has already shown in his work the chronology of the Dynasties till the end of Asoka as given in Bhagavata Purana but he did not adopt them in toto. The author has done well to have adopted them. This is both correct and right.

It is earnestly hoped that this Book will find a place in all the colleges, Universities and research libraries.”

The Sunday standard

November 28, 1954

“The author based himself on material available in the PURANAS and the EPICS. He charges European orientalists with disregarding puranic chronology and minimising the antiquity of India. According to him this ‘PLOT’ was deliberate and started with Sir William Jones who concocted a false chronology for the ancient history of Bharat and propounded baseless theories which were all the product of his imagination, and whim. And why did Jones do that? The Author’s explanation is that Jones, a pious Christian, was anxions to ignore dates which would run counter to the chronology of creation given in the Bible. So he purposely reduced the antiquity of Indian History and culture by identifying Chandra gupta Maurya with the Sandracottus mentioned by Greek records as the contemporary of Alexander the Great.

S.N.Venkatesa Iyer B.A. BL. Advocate, Coimbatore

“The Author of this learned book has given a direct proof unimpeachable and unassailable that we have a historical consciousness and that he who runs may read in our eras, our PURANAS, in our Historical works, in our grants both to temples and religious mutts etc. the real history of our country”.

“There is scope for such an optimistic note or favourable atmosphere in the present day “free Indian Republic”. Indian History is no longer tied to the heels of the Western Savants and there slavish imitative Eastern Followers. The historical atmosphere – befogged with their theories (GOD SAVE THE WORLD) – is now slowly clearing, the sun of free historical studies is sweeping the mists and cob-webs of fanciful theories. No body now believes with Max-Muller and others – sympathetic souls no doubt – that we are a nation of philosophers and therefore no history can be expected of us”.

“In short I venture to predict that a careful perusal of this learned book will pave the way for scholars to strive for the truth and thus vindicate the Author in his persistent fight for the truth”.

JATAVALLABHULA PURUSHOTTAM M.A. (Lecturer in Sanskrit, SRR & CVR College Vijayawada)

“The Venerable Author of this book Sri KOTA VENKATACHALEM GARU has been working with single minded devotion to salvage the ancient history of India form the ravages of modern Indologists, both European and Indian. He has shown, in this and in his sixteen volumes preceding this, that a fairly accurate history of our country can be constructed from the material available in the PURANAS and other ancient literature and that the innumerable errors and deliberate distortions of facts in what now passes for Indian History are due to the prejudice of Foreign Indologists against our PURANIC and other indigenous literature and the consequent neglect of the historical material contained therein, during their attempts to construct Indian History”.

“The logic with which Sri Venkatachalam Garu has proved the genuineness of the three post Mahabharata Eras is irrefutable. The Yudhistira Era, the Kali Era, and the Saptarishi Era have been continuously and consistently followed in our country and the Author asks what prevents the historians from pursuing the History of Bharat along these Eras.


(Governor of Madhya Pradesh, Raj Bhavan Nagpur):-

“My Dear Venkatachalam garu,

What fine books you are publishing! I greatly appreciate the original work that you have done as revealed by the large No. of publications that you have undertaken and copies of which you have been good enough, to send me. Your original research in regard to the history of the Andhras and the Dynasties of Indian emperors that ruled India one after another from Magadha, Pataliputra and Ujjain and their eras as given in Matsya, Vayu, Brahmanda, Bhavishya, Bhagavata and Vishnu Puranas and in the KALIYUGA RAJA VRITANTA are really admirable. I had known you long, but never did I know that you were the repository of this vast culture until I have seen your many books and read their invaluable contents. You have done well in clearing the confusion in the identification of the two Chandraguptas of the Gupta and the Maurya period. There is no doubt that this clarification will show history in its full length instead of contracting it by 1207 years as you say”.


Dr.C.P.Ramaswami Aiyar, Vice Chancellor Banaras Hindu University


“Dear Mr. Kota Venkatachalam

I have perused your brochure on the “Age of Lord Buddha” with interest and great appreciation and congratulate you on the scholarship and research devoted by you to some very important points of Indian Chronology in relation not only to LORD BUDDHA but ADI SANKARACHARYA, Nagarjuna and Patanjali

I wish you all success in your labours”.

D.G.Apti, M.A. M.Ed.,

Shankar Pole Raopura


“Dear Panditji,

I was extremely happy to receive a copy of your booklet ‘AGE OF LORD BUDDHA’ so kindly sent by you, as a gesture of cultural and literary friendship”.

“As a signal to this sad indifference and complacency in this respect various wrong and mischievous theories floated by Western Indologists, which ought to have been refuted long ago continue to hold the field even after independence of our nation has been gained”.

S.N.Venkatesa Iyer

Advocate, Coimbatore

“I cannot sufficiently admire this grand-old-man for his yeoman efforts in bringing to the canvas of Indian History such well-known but shadowy hoary figures (as) Vikram-aditya, Salivahana, Kumerila Bhatta and Sri Sankaracharya etc”.

“Taking therefore all the evidence so carefully and clearly brought out by our learned Author the only honest conclusion that can be arrived out is that the Age of Buddha cannot be the ascribed sixth century B.C. but that it is really the 19th century B.C.”


The learned Pandit Kota Venkatachalam the Author of this books has rightly received the title “Bharat Charitra Bhaskar”. He has studied deeply all the sources that have a bearing on the correct determination of ancient Indian Chronology. He has published through his “ARYA VIJNANA GRANTHAMALA” two volumes on the chronology of Nepal and Kashmir History. In a bigger volume entitled “The Plot in Indian Chronology” he has tried to expose the false chronology accepted and made current by western orientalists and scholars”.

“Kota Venkatachalam’s efforts have given rise to a plausible hypothesis which challenges the whole of the ancient chronology as at present tentatively accepted. His booklet upsets settled beliefs in this field and makes out a case for through revision of the chronology by evaluating and properly explaining all the available evidences”.



(Samskrita Ratna, Sahitya Bhushana Vidyalankara), BANGALORE.

“Dear Pandit Venkatachalam Garu”, Words fail me to express my thanks to you for the presentation of your recent work “THE AGE OF BUDDHA, MILINDA, AND AMTIYOKA AND THE YOGA-PURANA” which you gave me when I happened CASUALLY to meet you along with my friend. Sri.M.Vaikunta Rao, B.A. B.L., of Masulipatam, for writing a foreword to the work. I found that it was indeed, spending done from cover to cover, which no historian worth the name could do without in any undertaking of importance on Indology. I was really lost in wonder and admiration for the great uphill task you had undertaken single handed in bringing out this brouchure of 248 pages. Your deligence and indefatigable labours are simply landable and deserve very high reward and esteem on all sides and from all quarters”.

(He concludes his preface with the following sentences).

“Thus reconciliation of synchronism with already vouch-safed facts in history is the most difficult task ever imposed upon any free historical scholar. This hurdle, our author has tresspassed and by passed cleverly and at great pains in order to arrive at the right and logical conclusions on chronological sequence, so very much needed in any history worth the name. This Author Sri PANDIT KOTA VENKATACHALAM PANTULU GARU of Ganthi nagar Vijayawada – 2 has done most splendidly to which all historians must be deeply indebted for ever. He rightly and richly deserves the 2 titles”.


This extremely interesting booklet is a scholar’s effort to authentically establish the correct period of Buddha’s life, which he concludes after discussing all material from Puranic to modern sources is B.C.1887 to 1807. The Author traces the genealogy of Buddha straight from IKSHWAKU the son of VAIVASVAT MANU and adduces a number of references to substantiate his chronology. He examines Western theories in this connection and finds them ill founded. The critical care with which the author has examined all sources bearing on the subject is commendable.


Hon. Gen. Secretary, Andra History Research Society, Rajahmundry.

Author of “History of Kalinga” etc. Govt. Nominee Madras Regional Indian His. Commission,

Head of the Dept. of History & Economics. Govt. Arts College, Rajamundry (Retd.)

I am convinced that the Kaliyuga and Yudhistira Eras were in use in this country from the dates noted above and so, it behoves us (Indian Scholars) to work out the Dynasties from that ancient period, as stated by Puranas Pargiter’s Dynasties of Kali Age can therefore be very well revised now and I am glad to note that Sri Venkatachalam has already made the beginning.”


Sri R.Subbara Pantulu, M.A. LT. MES (Retd.)

Hon. Gen. Secretary Andhra His. Research Society, Rajahmundry.

Author of History of Kalinga etc.

Govt. Nominee Madras Regional Indian History Commission,

Head of the Dept of History & Economics

Govt. Arts college Rajahmundry (Retd.)

“The Author restored from oblivion, the names of 35 kings omitted by kalhana and his predecessors as they led a life contrary to the Hindu Holy Scriptures. Four verses viz. 49, 50, 51, 54 in the first Taranga are later interpolations and as the Author points out Kalhana himself in verses 1, 55 and 56 refers to Laukikabda, B.C. 3076 which is made the Sheet-Anchor of KASHMIR History.”

The Author himself a great Sanskrit scholar took pains to study several ancient works and his statement that the history of Kashmir must begin from 3450 B.C. or 312 years before the beginning of Bharata battle is really convincing”.

“The blunders committed by western historians regarding MIHIRAKULA and TORAMANA their times, anscestry and deeds in KASHMIR have been exposed by the Author with the necessary authorities”.

“On the whole, it is a good critical history which should be read by every scholar and which should find a place in every library”.

Arsha Vidyabhushana Sri Jatavallabha Purushottam garu, M.A.

(Lecturer in Sanskrit, SRR & CVR college, Vijayawad (Formerly Principal, Sanskrit College, Kovvur)

Sri Pandit Venkatachalam’s works have earned the encomium of eminent intellectuals like Dr.B.Pattabhi Sita Ramayya, Kavisamrat Viswanatha Satyanarayana Garu M.A., Kalaprapurna Dr.Chilkuri Narayana Rao Pantulu M.A., Ph.D., Sri Parama hamsa, Parivajaka charya, Sri Jagadguru Sri. Vimalananda Bharati Swamy, Siddheswari Peetadhipati (M.A.) and K.S.Ramaswamy Sastriyar, Retired Dt.Judge, Madras etc. and are bound to appeal to a wider circle of scholars when translated in English. Some of the theories of the Author are revolutionary in nature and would naturally startle the Indologists. I hope, the Indologists would soon recover from the shock and pause to consider the weight of arguments, the force of logic and the abundance of evidence on the side of his theories and would not hesitate to dub him a historian in the true sense of the word and a pioneer in the field of reconstructing the genuine history of Bharat.

In refuting the wrong identity of Chandragupta Maurya with Sandrocottus of the Greeks, in establishing the historicity of Vikramaditya, in salvaging the history of KASHMIR AND NEPAL from the tampering hands of the Western Indologists and in several other things, the Author has exhibited remarkable originality and a penetrating intellect.”

Dr.G.N.Kaul, M.Ed., Ph.D., New Delhi

“The present volume on Kashmir Chronology is the outcome of the spirit of revolt. It refuses to accept in bold, unambiguous terms what it considers, imperfect and defective. It challenges the very principles which led to its erroneous calculations and interpretations. The author asserts that the chronology as given by Kalhana is correct and “CORRECTIONS” and interpolations made by modern historians are a violation of the truth of this chronology”.

The Author gives many jolt and shock to the average reader who is conditioned to a certain type of stereotyped reading. He awakens him to so many sad omissions by eminent Indian students and scholars as well as to new possibilities where in many new fields deserve exploration. The “Issues for controversy” raised by the Author are a real challenge to historians. These issues cannot, as has so far been done, be answered by either refusing to accept what does not suit a modern mind, or by lack of proper research or by repeating the notorious phrase “lack of historical sense” or even by the use of negative deductions and interpolations”.

The Author has written with the full conviction that absolute sincerity can command. He appears to have grown impatient with the in justice done to the genious of Kalhana’s writings and this had led him to use a language which is at once forceful and strong, but also nacked. With a little more of pursuation the Author would have easily carried readers with him. But this is perhaps necessary in a book which is meant to give a shock and challenge.

The book nevertheless, has a real original contribution to make towards rebuilding the chronology of Kashmir. I am sure every student of Indian history and culture will find it extremely thought – provoking and may move some to further research.

The Sunday standard

Pandit Kota Venkatachalam, the author of books like chronology of Nepal History Reconstructed, Historicity of Vikramaditya and Salivahana, Age of Lord Buddha, Indian Eras, etc. attempts in this book under review a reconstruction of the History of Kashmir, a subject of absorbing interest, though bristling with difficulties. He is a scholar well versed in ancient lore of India, and he bases his reconstruction of the history of Kashmir mainly on the evidence of the Rajatarangini of Kalhana, the Kashmiran Pandit who lived in the 12th century. Though some work has been done on the history of Kashmir previously by Western scholars. Mr.Kota Venkatachalam characterises it as “bristling with concoctions distorations and fabrications” and the Authors are ill-equipped for the task of writing the history of the country and influenced by their racial pride and prejudice, a poor compliment for all their labours in the field of indological studies.


M.Shiva Kamayya, M.A., Andhra Jateeya Kalasala, Masulipatam.

“From the text of the Nepala Rajavamsavali as edited and interpreted by the learned Author, two facts of general interest to all Indians interested in the ancient culture of Bharat, are established incidentally and established beyond doubt”.

“After exposing the mischief of the foreigners the Author sets about reconstruction the history of Nepal on the basis of the evidence in the text freed from all distortion, interpolation and misinterpretation. The exposure of the foreign historians as well his own constructive endeavor in this instance in quite typical of the Author’s work and gives the reader a clear idea of the point of view and method of enquiry and nature of the objective of the learned Author.


R.Subba Rao Pantulu Garu., M.A., LT, M.E.S. (Retd).

Hon. Gen. Secretary, Andhra Historical Research Society, Rajahmundry.

Author, History of Kalinga etc.

Govt. Nominee, Madras Regional Indian Historical Records Commission.

Head of the Dept. of History & Economics, Govt. Arts College, Rajahmundry (Retd.)

“Manavasrishti Vijnanam or The Genesis of the Human Race by Sri Kota Venkatachalam Garu of Gandhi nagar, Vijayawada is a work much needed at the present moment when Research all round is advocated by one and all in our New Free India, wherein Western ideas and theories propagated for over one and half centuries must yield place to our traditional lore based righting on our most ancient and classical literature which has got to be read fully and interpreted correctly for the benefit of the world.”

In Part – II of the work, the Author has described in detail the Genesis of the Aryans and it behoves every one to read it carefully Aryavartha is the place of the first creation and the Aryan is the first man created. “The original of Vedas and Shastras was in Brahmavarta. The account of Brahmarshi-Desa, Madhya-Desa, Aryavartha Yajneeya Desa or Bharata Varsha, Sapta-Sindhu and other regions is correctly given. The views of Western writers on the subjects are carefully examined. For instance, the purity of Arya Race, the necessity for caste system, the relations’ between the Aryans and the Dasyus, the Ancient Geography given in the Puranas and other problems which are of great practical value to us now are all examined in the light of what Western scholars wrote on the same and are very authoritative. Conclusions which are thought proviking but just and true are given by this learned Author who has devoted a large part of his life for classical studies, wide travels and scholarly discoveries. His books must find a place in every Library, Schools and Colleges.


Sri. Ch.Narayana Rao, M.A.Ph.D.L.T., Mahopadyaya & Kala Prapoorna, ANANTAPUR.

“His attempts to exhibit the Bharatiya Culture, civilization and Traditions and the truths as expounded in his books are, indeed, peerless and praiseworthy. I had the good fortune of perusing the instructive and illuminating works, the out-come of his extensive and exhaustive researches, namely ‘KALI SAKA VIJNANAM’ (Three parts) “who are Andhras?” criticism on the Article Home of the Aryans,” “Manava Srishti Vijnanam” or The Genesis of Human Race” and other works. Further Sri. K.Venkatachalam exposed the several blunders committed by PARGITAR in his book “THE DYNASTIES OF THE KALI AGE” and corrected his wrong theories by citing quotations from the same Puranas, accepted as anthentic by the same Western Scholars.


Ch.Narayana Rao, M.A., Ph.D., L.T. Mahopadhyaya & Kala Propoorna, ANANTAPUR.

“Sri Venkatachalam, with his deep knowledge of Vedic lore, was able enough to contradict and criticize it and supply correct interpretation. His work, the Bharatiya Sakas, is of great use, since it lays bare gross mistakes of the westerners and at the same time establishes the correct dates of the Indian Eras. The eminent erudition and the critical acumen of the Author arrests the spread of the false notions and upholds the cause of true and correct Indian History”.

For fear of increasing the size of this article, the excerpts are limited to the extent noted above only and a detailed study of the Books of the PANDIT KOTA VENKATACHALAM will no doubt bring to light more reviews and also the subject proper.



—Dr.Kota Nityananda Sastry

There is no authoritative text of ancient times declaring definitely and directly the date of Lord Buddha. It belongs to a very ancient time. In the histories and other writings of modern times, the dates ascribed to Buddha are tentative and based on conjectures and imaginations.

There is however no agreement even amongst Western Scholars. Cambridge and Oxford histories of India accept “provisionally” 483 B.C. as the date of Buddha’s Nirvana. Sir William Jones infers mostly from Chinese and Tibetan records that Buddha lived in the 11th century B.C. Dr.Fleet from the Rajatarangini infers that Buddha lived in 17th century B.C. According to Fa-Hien, the Chinese monk the date of Buddha’s Nirvana would be 1050 B.C. It should be noted that these theories, negativing one another, are based on flimsy grounds. If one theory among these Viz. that of the 5th century B.C., is now reigning the field, it is a mere accident. This theory of 5th century is perhaps the weakest one even among these flippant theories, the other theories being better founded. Even the author of this theory E.J. Rapson wrote that the date of Buddha Nirvana was indecisive and unknown and the date 483 B.C. as given in Indian History was purely imaginative, included to adjust the chronological lacuna and as such it is only a temporary date but not a true one. Mr. E.J.Rapson writes: –

“Unfortunately, even after all that has been written on the subject of early Buddhist chronology, we are still uncertain as to the exact date of the Buddha’s birth. The date 483 B.C., which is adopted in this history must still be regarded as provisional”. (Cambridge History of India page 171, Vol.I, by Mr.E.J.Rapson).

What a wonder that this theory should now appear to be the accepted theory of Buddha’s date.

Such being the difference in the inferences of various scholars drawn from various sources “Bharata Charitra Bhaskara”, Pandit late Kota Venkatachelam’s independent thesis is most welcome. He has established by the aid of various very sound evidences that Lord Buddha lived from 1887-1807 B.C. i.e. in the 19th century Before Christ. This means practically a revolution in the accepted ancient Indian Chronology and must be carefully considered and examined by all Historians and Research Scholars of India and also by the Scholars of the World Buddhistic countries

The date ascribed to Buddha by the modern European historians are based on the wrong identification of Sandrocottus, the Emperor of Magadha, mentioned by the Greek historians who accompanied Alexander on his invasion of the Punjab as Maurya Chandra Gupta of the Maurya dynasty of Magadha. These ancient Greek historians, make mention of three successive rulers of Magadha Xandrames, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus. Mr. E.J. Rapson suggests the equivalence of Xandrames in Greek to Chandramas in Sanskrit. (Vide E.J.Rapson’s Ancient India. PP.469, 470 of the Cambridge History of India Ed.1922).

The Greek historians never specified the contemporary of Alexander as Maurya Chandragupta or Gupta Chandragupta. It is unreasonable to identify their Sandrocottus with Chandra Gupta of the Maurya dynasty as he was only the Chandragupta of the later Gupta dynasty. Xandrames or Chandramas can in that case, be identified as Chandramas or Chandra Sri, the last of the Andhra dynasty of the kings of Magadha.

This Xanclrames could be no other than Chandra Sri, the last Emperor of Magadha of the Andhra dynasty. The kings of Magadha who succeeded to the Empire after the Andhra dynasty were known as Andhra – Bhrityas and belonged to the Gupta dynasty. The term Andhra- Bhritya signifies service in the Court of the Andhra kings. Chandra Gupta, the founder of the Gupta dynasty, a Minister and General in the army of Chandra Sri, the last Andhra King of Magadha, appointed himself regent on behalf of the minor heir, with the connivance of the queen, subsequently got rid of the minor and declared himself the ruler of Magadha. As he wished, in his turn, to pass over his heir Samudragupta, a son by his eldest wife, in favour of another son by a younger wife, in fixing the succession to the throne, Samudragupta was preparing, with the help of his maternal grand father, the king of Nepal, to rebel and declare war against his father to claim his right to the throne. It was at this juncture that Alexander invaded India and the three successive rulers of Magadha brought to his notice could be only Chandra Sri of the Andhra dynasty, Chandra-Gupta the founder of the Gupta dynasty and his son Samudragupta. While this is the correct identification, they have been wrongly identified respectively as Mahapadma-nanda or Dhana-nanda, Chandragupta (Maurya) and his son Bindu-sara

This wrong identification of Maurya Chandragupta as the contemporary of Alexander has vitiated the entire chronology of ancient History of Bharat including the date of Lord Buddha by twelve centuries

Alexander’s invasion took place in 326 B.C., Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty belongs to 327-320 B.C. So the contemporary of Alexander could be only Chandrgupta of the Gupta dynasty and never Chandragupta of the Maurya dynasty.

All the Puranas in which we find Chronological accounts of the Kings of Bharat begin their accounts with the Mahabharata War and trace the dynasties of the kings of the various kingdoms of Bharat from that starting point. If you recoken from the date of the Mahabharata War 3138 B.C., and follow the lists of the Kings and their reigns specified in the Puranas it comes as the date of the Buddha to 1887 B.C., and his Nirvana to 1807 B.C., and the reign of the Maurya Chandra Gupta to 1534 B.C., and the Chandra Gupta of Gupta dynasty 327 B.C. This, the identification of Gupta Chandra Gupta of Ma as the contemparary of Alexander tallies with all the dates of ancient events noted in the sacred and secular literature of ancient times of Hindus, Buddhas and Jains.

But if we proceed on the basis of the assumptions of the Western Orientalists that Chandragupta Maurya belonged to 327 B.C. and reckon the times backwards, all the references to the times of historical events and personalities in the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain literatures and all the dates noted in the accepted Bharatiya Eras (approved and adopted by these Orientalists themselves) such as the Yudhishtira Era or the time of the Mahabharata War (3138 B.C.), Kali Era (3102 B.C.), the Saptarshi Era or Laukikabda (3076 B.C.), all these dates appears to be absurd and the time of Mahabharata War is brought forward to 1931 B.C., the Kali Era to 1895 B.C., the Saptharshi Era to 1869 B.C. No further evidences and arguments should be needed to disprove the correctness of the basic assumption of the contemporanity of Alexander and Chandragupta Maurya. The name Sandrocottus mentioned by the Greek Historians who accompanied Alexander is not Chandragupta Maurya of the 1534 B.C. but he was the Gupta Chandra Gupta of 327 B.C of Gupta Dynasty.

Sir William Jones and other Western Historians accepted the three Eras i.e. Mahabharata War or Yudhistira Era 3138 B.C., Kalisaka 3102 B.C., and Saptarshi Era or Laukikabda 3076 B.C. which or vogue in our country. These are the three Sakas according to which all calculations in our Puranas and Historical records are made. In order to reduce the antiquity of our Indian History so as to bring it nearer to their conception of the creation of the World 4004 B.C., Sir William Jones, who has laid foundation to our Indian History in 1774 A.D., curtailed 2825 years from the ancient History of Bharat and put the Chandra Gupta Maurya’s coronation in 313 – 312 B.C.

The Puranas gave list of dynasties comencing with the year of the Mahabharata War 3138 B.C., by the curtailment of Jones could start the History of Bharat from (3138 B.C.—2825 B.C.)313 B.C. He puts the Chandra Gupta Maurya’s coronation 313-312 B.C. and taking the very same dynasties given in the Puranas, pushes them backwards and forwards and compressed them in the small space of about 1300 years (from 650 B.C to 650 A.D.) while as a matter of fact 5143 years from the Mahabharata War to the present day (For details vide Pandit Kota Venkatachelam’s ‘The Plot in Indian Chronology’).

The Western Historians though knowing the existence of these three Eras, but they intentionally omitted in their writings of Indian History and they declared that they had no alternative to the course adopted by them of identifying Maurya Chandrgupta as the contemporary of Alexander and basing the chronology of ancient history of Bharat on this Assumption. Sir William Jones knew that Chandra Gupta Maurya belonged to 15th century B.C. It is clear from his own writings. (Vide Jones works “Chronology of Hindus”, Volume- 4 and for full particulars vide “The Plot in Indian Chronology” by Pandit Kota Venkatachelam).

In fact these Orientalists could not produce any inscriptions, coins, buildings or any other genuine historical evidences for their theory of the contemporaneity of Alexander with Chandragupta Maurya, yet they made it the foundation of Indian history and from that point they are counting backwards and forwards the reign of kings as given in our Puranas ignoring that the starting point in the Puranas was the time of Mahabharata War i.e. 3138 B.C. This mistake was made at the very point of the calculation of Westerners viz, the Alexandrian invasion 326 B.C. With this basic wrong assumption they had dismissed without sufficient reason several Indian records and writings as imaginary and fabulous.

This crucial mistake of the Western Scholars shifted forward the Ancient History of Bharat by twelve centuries.

Hence the Puranic evidence about the dynasties of ancient kings, which was rejected as fabulous by Westerners owing to the fact that it did not agree with their wrong hypothesis about the Alexandrian invasion.

Buddha was the son of Suddhodana the 23rd King of IKSVAKU dynasty. This dynasty terminated with Sumitra the 30th king. This is known from Matsya,Vayu,Vishnu, and Brahmanda and other Puranas. Buddhist Scriptures also confirm that Buddha was the son of Suddhodana.

Suddhodana was the 23rd in the line of Iksvaku dynasty and Siddhartha the

24th Siddhartha renounced the mundane life in his 29th year and after a continued penance of 6 years attained Buddha hood while he was sitting in meditation under the “Bodhi tree”. His son Rahula was the 25th in the line. Five more successive kings of the line ruled over the kingdom. After the Mahabarata War Ikshvaku kings ruled Ayodhya for a total period of 1504 years. For the same period 37 kings of the Barhadradha, Pradyota and Sisunaga dynasties ruled over Magadha. Buddhist works say that Buddha was seventy two years at the time of Ajata Satru’s coronation. Ajatasastru belongs to Sisunaga dynasty and his coronation was in 1814 B.C. according to Puranas. According to calculation given in the Puranas Siddhartha or Buddha lived from 1887-1807 B.C. Buddha lived for 80 years. This Puranic account in this respect is never contradicted by any authoritative documents and the 1807 B.C. stands.

Buddha was the contemporary of Kshemajit, Bimbisara and Ajatasatru the 31st, 32nd and 33rd kings of Magadha. This is not only the Puranic evidence but it is also known from the Buddhist literature and also accepted by Western scholars that Kshemajit, Bimbisara and Ajatasatru ruled Magadha in the time of Lord Buddha.

The beginning of Kali Yuga is 3102 B.C. (This is calculated by Hindu Almanac makers even up to the present day from the beginning of Kaliyuga. The present Kali Yuga year given by all Hindu almanacs is 5105 up to now i.e. Pramadi year (A.D.2005). Thirty six years prior to this date the Bharata War took place i.e. 3102 + 36 = 3138 B.C. After the War, during that year, the first coronated king of Magadha in 3138 B.C. was Somadhi or Marjari. From him to Maha Padmananda ruled thirty seven monarchs. The duration of the Magadha rulers as follows :

Barhadradha. dynasty 22 kings 1006 years, Pradyota dynasty 5 rulers 138 years, Sisunaga dynasty 10 monarchs 360 years. In all these 37 sovereigns ruled a total period of 1504 years and at that interval Buddha must have existed. The 4th king in Sisunaga dynasty are calculated from Bharata War, the 31st ruler was Kshemajit who was the contemporary to Suddhodana, the father of Buddha. His reigning time was1892—1852 B.C.

So between 1892-52 B.C. Buddha’s birth date was 1887 B.C., and Buddha’s renunciation in 1858 B.C. In the reign of the 32nd king, Bimbisara between 1852 and 1814 B.C. Buddha became “The Enlightened and began to preach his new faith. During the reign of the 33rd king, Ajatasatru from 1814 to 1787 B.C., in that interval, Buddha’s Nirvana happened in 1807 B.C. (For the Chronological tables and other full particulars vide “Age of Lord Buddha, Milinda & Amtiyoka and Yugapurana” by Pandit Kota Venkatachelam).

The Western Scholars accepted Buddha to have been a contemporary to the three Sovereigns Kshemajit, Bimbisara and Ajata – Satru. If the 37 monarchs from Somadhi to Mahapadma Nanda ruled for an aggregate period of 1504 years, each king might have ruled for an average term of 40 T! years. Then the time of the 32nd King Bimbisara would come to (40 T! X 32) = 1302 years. That is, Buddha might have lived after 13 centuries from The Maha Bharata War. In other words, B.C. 3138 — 1300 = 1838 B.C., or in the l9th century before Christ. So, Buddha must have existed. Then how could he come to fifth century B.C.? Buddha’s existence in 5th century B.C., would mean, that his contemporary kings Kshemajit, Bimbisara, Ajata-Satru also should be in 5th century B.C. i.e. the 32 kings of post-Bharata period should have reigned for 3138—500 = 2638 years. Hence in this total period 2638 years might have 32 Magadha kings reigned, at an average of 82 ½ years each ruler, and 23 Ayodhya kings, at an average of 114 T! years each. This beyond doubt, proves that the Indian History written afresh is nothing but a catalogue of canards and concoctions. The calculation of the Occidentalists, to writ preposterous presumption of the contemporaneity of Alexander and Maurya Chandra Gupta is the rootcause of the patent blunders and gross mistakes as regards the dates of Kali Saka and Bharata War. On the other hand, if we accept the date of Mahabharata War as 3138 B.C., Kali Saka as 3102 B.C., and that of Sapta—Rishi Era as 3076 B.C. as Mr.Buhler etc., proved and accepted, then the dates of the Eras and duration of the kings will exactly fit in and will be in keeping with the facts and details as mentioned in the native narratives and the Indian chronicles of the Bharatiya Literature.


If one date in ancient Indian chronology is taken back by a few centuries the whole chronology which is generally accepted at present is upset. Other dates which have been determined here-to-fore will also have to be adjusted. Hence a scrutiny of all available evidence on the various important dates of ancient history’s needed. “Bharata Charitra Bhaskara”, Pandit Kota Venkatachelam’s efforts have given rise to a plausible hypothesis which challenges the whole of the ancient chronology as at present tentatively accepted.

Pandit Kota Venkatachelam of Vijayawada-3 (A.P.) India, with a standing of forty years in the field of Indian History, studied both the Puranas and Modern Histories written by Westerners and proved the inaccuracies in the present History by citing astronomical, inscriptional, puranic and historical evidences and with his irrefutable arguments and published the books.

Now it is the paramount duty of our Research Scholars of our Indian History to construct the correct History with the help of the books of Pandit Kota Venkatachelem, who laid the correct foundation to our History.

So long as the Himalayan blunder i.e., Conteporaneity of Maurya Chandragupta with Alexander is not rectified in our Indian History, every event in our Indian, Buddhistic and Jain literatures, will stand in controversy. If this blunder is rectified, every detail in our ancient Puranas and Buddhistic and Jain literatures will be found to be correct.

“Om Tatsath”


“Buddham Saranam Gatchaami”

“Dharmam Saranam Gatchaami”

“Sangham Saranam Gatcliaami”


“Age of the Mahabharat War” – By Bharata Charitra Bhaskara Pandit Kota Venkatachalam – An overview of the Book.

By, A.V. Lakshmi, M.A.

Bharata Charitra Bhaskara Pandit Kota Venkatachalam is a great scholar and a true historian. He wrote scholarly works on ancient Indian history. He scoffed at false theories of European historians on Indian History and literature. The Pandit spent almost 50 years of his life in research in the field of ancient Indian history. He was very keen on establishing the facts regarding the age of “Mahabharata War”, ‘Chandragupta Maurya’, ‘Satavahanas’, etc. the sheet anchors of ancient Indian history and many other ancient Indian historical events. He critically examined the works of western historians for the biased theories they had carried on to the antiquity of the civilization and culture of Bharat. Fifty years of research in the field of ancient Indian history with scientific approach towards the subject to establish the facts with authentic information has made Pandid Kota Venkatachalam to give the world some most valuable books.

Thus “The Age of the Mahabharata War” is one of the research works written in 1957-59 during the period of his ‘Sanyasa Asrama’ as Jagadguru Sri Sankaracharya – Sri Adwayananda Sankarabharati Swamy, (Peethadhipati of Sri Abhinava Virupaksha Peetham). After a few days of the completion of this book he attained Siddhi on 12.11.1959 A.D. (Kali Saka 5060, Vikari, Kartika Suddha Trayodasi.)

As his sons late Sri Kota Krishnanandam and DR. Kota Nityananda Sastry who is luckily amongst us now state that the book was in dark for a long time and has seen the light in 1991 for the first time with the co-operation of their near and dear when they have published six hundred copies of the same.

The author has well divided this great research thesis into 18 interestingly organized topics as follows:-

(i) Internal Evidence

(ii) Interpolations in Kalhana’s Rajatarangini

(iii) The Yudhistira Era

(iv) Conjunction of Seven planets and panchangas (Annual calendars)

(v) The Saptarshi Era

(vi) Astronomical Evidence

(vii) Wrong conjectures

(viii) Inscriptional Evidence

(ix) Opinions of Historical scholars

(x) No inscriptional evidence to the Ancient History of Bharat by the Modern historians.

(xi) Movement of the Saptarshi Mandala and contemporary of Alexander explained.

(xii) False propaganda of European orientalists.

(xiii) History of Magadha or History of Modern Ancient India.

(xiv) History of Kashmir

(xv) History of Nepal

(xvi) Historicity of Vikramaditya

(xvii) Sir William Jones, Prof. Max Muller and Mr.Troyer.

(xviii) True chronology of Ancient History of Bharat.

The western historians deliberately attempted to bring down the time of the Mahabharata war nearer to modern times that is to fix it somewhere between 1500 B.C. to 900 B.C. Therefore it was the earnest desire of Pandia Kota Venkatachalam to arrive at the date of the Mahabharata war which is the corner stone of the chronology if ancient Indian history in a scientific method, so that we can put an end to the deliberate intentions of western historians to reduce the antiquity of Indian history and discrediting the historical value of our Puranas. Hence an attempt is made in the book “Age of the Mahabharata War” under different topics, to fix the time of the Mahabharata war 36 years before Kali or 3138 years before Christ and to establish beyond any doubt the correctness and determination on the basis of all the evidences available in our epics and Puranas, indigenous historical records and writings, astronomical treatises, inscriptions and Panchangas etc.

Internal Evidences : –

The author cites in the book that according to the Internal evidences available at the time of the great Mahabharata War Sri Krishna was of 90 years age. Sri Krishna survived the war for 36 years that is lived upto the age of 90+36=126 years which was recorded in “Mahabharata” by ‘Sri Veda Vyasa’. It is now recognised on all hands all over the world that the Kali Era Commenced at 2-27’-30’’ hours on the 20th day of February in 3102 B.C. The Kali Era commenced with the Niryana of Sri Krishna. So it is clear that the Great war which occurred 36 years before the demise of Sri Krishna that is 36 years before Kali should be dated 3138 B.C. Further other confirmatory evidences available in the ‘Mahabharata’ in several other parts for instance “Striparva” in the Verses 43, 44, 45 and 46; 1st chapter of the ‘Mausala Parva, – Verses 1, 7, 8, 9, & 13; 2nd chapter of Mausala Parva – Verses 18 to 24; Maha Prasthanika Parva – Verses 2, 6 to 9 of chapter I. Topic I of the bok “Age of the Mahabharata War” clearly describes the Internal evidences available. The Puranas and the Mahabharata all unanimously declared that the Kali yuga is reckoned from the moment of the demise of Sri Krishna that is 3102 B.C. which is also given in ‘Vishnupurana’ in sloka 12.2.33.

The author asserts that it is quite necessary to fix the date of the commencement of the oYudhistira Saka for a valid reconstruction of the history of ancient Bharat. After the Mahabharata was that is on the 28th day after the commencement of battle Yudhistira was crowned as sole Emperor of Bharat. According to “Kumbhalagarh inscription” which is preserved in the Victorial Hall Museum, Udaipur and also according to ‘Kalhana’s Rajatarangini ‘Yudhishtira’s reign extended from 75 years before Kali, that is 3177 B.C. to 3077 B.C. and Yudhishtria Era can be established firmly and indisputably to 3138 B.C. which is established with proofs and detailed explanations in the chapter VI of the book.

Astronomical evidences : –

According to Astronomical science and Panchangas of the Hindus the seven planets should in conjunction in the Mesha at the commencement of the Kali Era that was in 3102 B.C. General Alexander Cunningham who agrees with the statements of Vriddha Garga, Varahamithra, Bhattotpala and other ancient Indian scholors, gives a table showing the star-region in which the Saptarishi Mandala is found in each century from B.C. 5877 to A.D.2125, according to which it was in Megha from B.C. 3177 to B.C.3077. Chapter XIII – 3 of the ‘Brihatsamhita’ of ‘Varaha mihiracharya’ states that ‘The Saptarishi Mandala’ or the constellation of the Great Bear passed over from the region of the star Magha into the next, in Kali 26 which was known as ‘Saka Era’, in vogue in Varahamihira’s time began in Kali 26 plus 2526 or B.C. 550. To fix the time unambiguously he laid down the contemporaneity of Saptarishi Mandala in Magha which was an astronomical event and the period of Yudhishtira’s reign on the earth which was from 3177 B.C. to 3077. It is clear that Kali 1=B.C.3101, Saptarishi = Kali 26=B.C.3076, and the Great Bear, the Saptarishi Mandala entered Magha in 3177-76 B.C. and the next star Aslesha begins in B.C.3076. The statements in the Puranas which describe the reign of Yudhishtira as extending over the century and the verses 13-3 of the “Brihatsamhita” and 1-56 in Kalhana’s Rajatarangini clearly states that the time of the Mahabharata war is 3138 B.C. 36 years before Kali. The constellation remains in each star region for a hundred years before passing over into the next star region. The authors of our Puranas, and our Astronomers have, by their references to the position of the constellation of the seven sages in relation to the regions of the kings that ruled over the country managed to prevent as well as a corrective to any discrepancy that may otherwise creep into their accounts of the reigns of the Kings. It is based on the science and can be verified by precise calculations. The connection between the basic facts of the history of ancient Bharat and the movement of the constellation of the Seven sages is established in the Chapter 271 of the Matsya Purana and also verse 423 of Chapter 99 of Vayupurana states it more clearly. The author elaborates the Astronomical evidences available under the topics II, IV, V, VI & XI of the book “Age of the Mahabharata War”.

Inscriptional evidences :-

After the Internal evidences and astronomical evidences the author gives us the details regarding the inscriptional evidences available. There are mainly four inscriptions extant are available to us which prove conclusively that the Mahabharata war occurred in B.C. 3138 or 36 years before Kali. After Parikshit died in B.C. 3041 his son Janemejaya was crowned in. In the 29th year of his reign that is in B.C.3013-3012 or Kali 89, in the year Plavanga on Monday the-new-moon day at the end of Chaitra, he donated two villages to two religious institutions and the two gift deeds were prescribed. The first inscription is found published in the pages 333, 334 of the Indian Antiquary which clearly states that the gift of land for the worship of Sitarama made by Emperor Janamejaya in Jayabhyudaya Yudhistira Saka 89 means Kali 89 or B.C.(3101-81)=3012.

The 2nd inscription is that of a copper-plate on which a gift deed in inscribed and is preserved to this day at the Kedara Kshetra, in the Himalayas. A similar gift of land was made by Emperor Janamejaya for the worship of Kedaranatha swamy.

The 3rd inscription is an inscription on the walls of a temple of a siva in the village “Iballi” in the Dharwar district. It was carved by the direction of king Pulakesin II in A.D.634.

The 4th one is the copper plate inscription of Emperor Sudhanva who ruled over Gujarat. It was a memorandum presented by Emperor Sudhanva to Sri Sankara was inscribed on copper-plate dated the year 2663 on the Yudhishtira Saka. The copper plate inscription of Emperor Sudhanva proves that the year of the demise of Sri Sankara is 2663 of the Yudhishtira Era or B.C. 477-76. The beginning of Yudhishtira Era is the time of the Mahabharata war. It had already proved to be B.C. 3138. So Sri Sankara’s life works out to be B.C. 509 to B.C.477-476, Yudhishtira Era 2662+476=3138 B.C.

The other inscriptions available are (1) The gift deeds dated on the Gupta Era (2) An inscription found in the temple of Madhukeswara in the village Banavasi in the North Canara district dated 168 of the Yudhishtira Era. (3) The inscription in the Belgaum district of the Mysore state dated on the Yudhishtira Era.

Historical evidences : –

Pandit Kota Venkatachalam in his book “Age of Mahabharata War” discusses widely the historical evidences available to determine the true and correct time of the Mahabharata war. There are basically three historical sources available to arrive at the date indisputably. The first is the history of Magadha, the second is the history of Kashmir and the third is the history of Nepal.

History of Magadha is usually considered as History of Bharat. When Sahadeva King of Magadha was killed in the “Mahabharata war” ‘Somadhi’ was crowned at Girivraja, capital of Magadha. It is stated in the Puranas that the 22 kings of the dynasty ruled in all for 1000 years on the whol.e It was after the last rulers, The Nandas that Chandragupta-Maurya became the king of Magadha. His time therefore works out to be time of the Mahabharata war. B.C. 3138-1604=1534 B.C. But such a well-known event in the history of Bharat is rendered doubtful and a subject of controversy. The truth is the contemporary of Alexander was not Chandragupta of Maurya dynasty but Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty. If we correctly identify the contemporary of Alexander as Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty and reckoning of the periods of reigns of the kings of the several royal dynasties of Magadha as given in Puranas, proceed backwards, the time of Mahabharata war works out correctly to B.C.3138.

History of Kashmir :-

Kalhana a scholar of Kashmir, wrote the history of Kashmir in the Sanskrit language. He had studied carefully eleven histories by previous scholors, and in addition to the Neela Purana by Neela Muni, the inscription of the ancient kings, the scientific treatises produced in their times, the songs of the courts poets in which the qualities and achievements of the kings were celebrated and with this equipment he produced a true and correct history of Kashmir. This gives us the lists of kings that rules over Kashmir beginning with about 300 years before the Mahabharata war which it fixes at 36 years before Kali or 3138 B.C.

History of Nepal : –

The 3rd source of history is the history of Nepal which begins 1000 years before the Mahabharata war and gives us the lists of the kings and their reigns with dates on the Kali Era. The Pandit while giving the details of histories of Magadha, Kashmir and Nepal states that all the three sources have been tampered with freely, edited and misinterpreted by modern historians to suit their prejudices and to corroborate their theories of the reduced antiquity of the Mahabharata war.

Pandit Kota Venkatachalam in his book discusses about the historians Sir William Jones, Prof Max-Muller, Mr. Troyer and their writings. He criticises the western historians for their unjustly treatment of the Indian history, and the general conclusions they had drawn from the most scanty materials, and how deliberately they destroyed the evidences. The author strongly feels that the real Indian history is under played in the recorded versions of the Westerners; and states that these recorded histories often find legitimization by the notions of the Westerners about Indian history.

Pandit Kota Venkatachalam sums up his thesis of “Age of Mahabharata War” in the last chapter ‘True Chronology of Ancient history of Bharat which cannot be skipped by any serious reader.

The author asserts that in the face of such clear, unambiguous and unanimous evidences available in Mahabharata, Puranas, astronomical books, inscriptions, history of Magadha, Kashmir and Nepal histories, movement of saptarishi mandala, the periods over which different dynastics of kings ruled as described in Puranas, history of Vikramaditya and Ancient Hindu history it has been proved that the Mahabharata war was 3138 B.C. to ignore it and to push the date towards modern times is sacrilegious.

Thus “Age of the Mahabharata War” is the outcome of hard and dedicated work and an inexhaustible amount of research went into its writings. The sources of information to support his argument, indepth study of the subject, evidences referred to establish the events show Pandit Venkatachalam’s earnestness to tell the world the significance of Mahabharata war and antiquity of ancient history of Bharat clear-cut points are definitely appealing. Pandit Venkatachalam’s writings puzzles the reader with its authenticity of the information. He integrates the narrative elements with his vision to produce a work which affects the reader emotionally.

Therefore the learned readers of this article may study the book in original to understand the truth more in detail to reject the false history of ancient Bharat concocted by European orientalists.


Chronology of Nepal History Reconstructed by Pandit Kota Venkatachalam

A brief sketch of the great Research Scholar and the work

By Sri B.V.V. Satyanarayana Murthy

Indian Scholar like Abinash Chandra Das name carried back the beginning of Indian civilization and Astrological and archeological evidences. But no scholar ever thought of trying to find out what exactly was wrong with the Puranas and other indigenous works like Raja tarangini and Nepal Vamsavali.

The author of this book Pandit Kota Venkatachalam brought out the vista out of historical facts widely spread over the vast range of the Puranical and other historical literature in Sanskrit training the history of Bharat from its earliest beginnings, that humanity and human civilization spread to all countries from this land.

Sri Pandit Venkatachalam’s works name earned the encomium of ancient intellectuals and some of his theories are revolutionary in nature.

In refuting the wrong identitfy of Chandra gupta Maurya with Sandrocottus of Greeks in establishing the historicity of Vikramaditya in salvaging the history of Kashmir and Nepal from the tampering hands of Western Indologists and several other things, the author had exhibited remarkable originality and a penetrating intellect.

His thesis is

1) Our epics and Puranas afford indubitable historical material from which ancient culture and civilization can be constructed.

2) The view of European orientalists that our epics and Puranas are merely imaginative literary works of exclusively religious and ethical value and unreliable for historical purposes is entirely baseless.

3) The available historical data is in epics and Puranas.

4) The conclusions of Europeans oriental scholar are fiased.

His thesis is based on

1) The contemporaries of Alexander The Great and Chandragupta Maurya is not based on historical fact but a mere hypothesis.

2) Our literature and Puranas where in the data relating to science and astronomy is contained deserve recognition.

3) The current text books of our schools and colleges are inconsistent and distorted.

In a nut shell the author exposes the arbitrary and mischievous manner in which the Western European orientalists have dealt with the native source book, relying mainly on conclusions yet rejecting some of the dates, distorting some of the eras interpolating irrelevant material in order to reject the entire text on the inconsistency interpolating in most illogical manner to suit the preconceived notions, theories and assumptions.

The author equally exposes their deliberate and dishonest attempt to bring this history of Nepal in harmony with the similarly false histories of their own concoction, of the other regions of Bharathi like Magadha and Kashmir all mispired by the unholy desire to reduce the antiquity of our history and civilisation by 1200 years, after Mahabharata war of 3138 B.C. and 1000 years before it.

In this current work is given an account of the history of Nepal from 4159 B.C. Dr. Buhler made the unfair attempt of cutting down the names of certain kings and their reigning period and of showing that Vikramaditya and Ansuvarma were not contemporaries by bringing Ansuvarma to the seventh century A.D.

Alberium (1031 AD) in his history of India, mentions Srittarsha Era of 457 BC as being current in Nepal. But Buhler made the daring attempt of substituting Sri Siladitype of 606 A.D for Sri Harsha of 457 B.C. and of thus bringing into existence the Harsha siladitya era which is entirely a fiction.

Dr.Buhler had published the Indian Antiquary wherein he writes that the history of Nepal was derived by him solely from the Modern Vamsavalies or lists of Dynasties. Dr.Wright derived his History of Nepal from Vamshavali, whereas the Author of this book from Nepal Raja Vamsavali or the Royal Dynasties of Nepal. The references to some of the prominent events are made in terms of Kali Era.

The years of Kali era reckoned on the assumption of the equivalence of Kali 1 to BC 3101, and for this Dr.Buhler did not raise any objection ever.

Western orientalists who have consistently, endeavoured to reduce the antiquity of the history of Nepal as of other countries of the East and for that purpose to depict the Royal Dynasty list of the countries as of Questionable authencity and doubtful authority for purposes of historical reconstruction, all the same, in view of the absence of any other guidance or alternative authoritative source for the reconstruction of the history of Nepal, the names of as many of the kings of these dynastic lists as suited their purposes have been accepted by them.

The validity of the Kali Era and the events scorded in the Kali Era in the lists of kings of Nepal and on their basis, the anti quity of the recorded history of Nepal have been established rejecting the inconsistent, irrelevant, incorrect conclusions of the western scholars and admitted by Dr.Buhler.

Authenticity of Vamshavali

Dr.Buhler writes that though Vamshavali contains many elements of historical truth, it poses no value whatever as a whole. The period of 1118 year for reign of 29 kings is, it seems, highly infrabable and too long to be true. So he presumes that the dynasty could not have ruled for a period longer than 600 or 700 years on the whole, on the basis of average life of 26 years averred by the life insurance companies for Indians of 20th century A.D.

a) People lived upto 120, 130, 150 years and some lived even upto 200 years (Arrian Ind 15, 12 and Frag XXII – C) (Vide Ancient India as described by Ktesias translated by) J.W. Mac Cruidle page 18)

b) The Indians are just and all men are longest lived, attaining the Age of 170 and some even 200 years (page 25 of Mac cruidles’ Ancient of India)

c) According to Ktesias, the Indian people live for 200 years “(Mac Cruidle’s Ancient, India)

d) “The inhabitants lived to attain the age of a hundred and thirty years” (Early history of India by V.A.Smith p. 100)

In the above context and also that if our ancestors of 200 years back were able to live from 130 years and even upto 200 years, we have only to imagine how far to stronger and long lived might have been our remoter ancestors of 6000 or 5000 years back. So it is fantastic to argue that it is improbable for 29 kings to have ruled altogether for 2118 years. The figure works out to an average of only 38 ½ years for each reign and this is infact too short a period.

The Antiquity of Bharath

The author here says that “The Ancient writers of Bharath described the founder of the Dynastics of Kings in the different parts of the country as the contemporaries of the Kauravas and Pandavas (of the Mahabharatha War) out of a desire to establish their anti quinty and hence their dignity. It was for the same reason the historians of the princes of Kashmir and Nepal described their kings too as the contemporaries of Kauravas and Pandavas”

This is the surmiso with which the western orientalists like Bhuhler and their followers dismiss the evidence of such historical authorities as Vamsavali.

Dr.Bhuler writes –

According to the insemptions the 21st king of the surya vamsi dynasty, Manodeva reigned between the years 386 – 413 of an unnamed era and the characters show that this period falls in the 4th or 5th century of Christian era yet the Vamshavali asserts that Mandeva’s grandson Vasantha deva varman war crowned in Kali 2800 or 301 B.C. But the author asserts that there is a statement of Huan-tsang that a learned king called Amsuvarman ruled either shortly before or during his visit to Northern India in 637 A.D. Further the inscription of Amsuvarman, as well as that of Vibhuvarman which the Vamsavali particularly mentions, shows letters (characters) which can only belong to 6th or 7th centuries of our era.

In his reference to Amsuvarman of Thaker dynasty Dr.Buhler has confused us and endeavoured to shift his reign from Kali 3000 or 101 BC down to the 7th century A.D. and to bypass the issue of Vikramaditya and his era. There can be no doubt that Amsuvarman was crowned in Kali 3000 or 101 B.C. The Vamsavali clearly states that Emperor Vikramaditya (who was crowned) in Kali 3020 or 82 BC and not 57 B.C. as Dr.Buhler asserts) had been to Nepal and established his era there during this time (Amsuvarman’s time 57 B.C.). It is indisputable that Vikramaditya was born in Kali 3020 (100 B.C.) and was crowned in Kali 3020 (82 B.C.) and inaugurated his era in 57 B.C. in Nepal.

Vikramaditya Era

Dr Buhler in his writings alleged on the basis of his own conjectures that the Coronation of Emperor Vikramaditya occurred in 57 B.C. All the Indian Authorities accept the date 57 B.C. as the year of inauguration of his era (named after him) and not year of his coronation.

But the author says that according to the Bhavishya Purana the year of his Coronation is Kali 3020 or 82 B.C. That he proceeded to Nepal in Kali 3044 or 58-57 BC and there inaugurated his era as stated in the Nepala Raja Vamsavali. The author also declares that Vikramarka lived from Kali 3000 (101 B.C.) to Kali 3120 or 19 A.D. and he lived complete life of 120 years and his reign was for 3020-3120 (Kali) 82 B.C. – 19 A.D.

While Dr.Buhler writes that Amsuvarma preceded Vikramaditya, the author asserts that the reign was from (Kali) 3000-3068 / 101-33 B.C. and that of Vikramaditya was from (Kali) 3020-3120 / B.C. 82-19 A.D. and hence they were contemporaries during 3020-3068 (Kali) ruling at Nepal and Ujjain respectively.


S = Sukla; K=Krishna-Paksha. O=Full moon;.=New moon; S.E. = Saka Era

Sakyamuni – buddha’S genEalogy traced TO


By Sri Kota Venkata Subrahmanyam

Bharata Charitra Bhaskara Pandit Kota Venkata Chalam in his great

research work “Age of Buddha, Milinda & Amtiyoka and yuga purana’’ traces

the genealogy of Sakyamuni – Buddha (Siddharta) to Ikshvaku dynasty

quoting profusely from Puranas and ancient literature. His thesis is as follows —

By all the authorities, Panditji asserts it is clearly established that the

Kali Era commenced in 3102 B.C., the Saptarshi Era in 3076 B.C., the

Mahabharata war occurred 36 years before Kali i.e. in 3138 B.C., and the

Yudhishtira era commenced in 3138 B.C.

He further writes these three ancient eras were well-known and current in our country throughout these centuries. Almanacs based on them have

prepared from year to year all these centuries down the ages. When such

was the actual situation, it has been alleged atrociously by the modern European

historians of ancient India, that the Hindus had no well-established era to

refer the events of their histories to and that therefore there was no alternative

to the use of the only known (to them) date of Alexander’s invasion as the

basic, fixed, starting point for the reconstruction of the ancient history of

India, identifying wrongly Sandrocottus the contemporary (Alexander’s) ruler

of Magadha as the famous Chandragupta of the Maurya dynasty. As a matter

of fact the rulers of Magadha contermporary to Alexander were Chandra Sri

of the Andhra dynasty, Chandragupta, the founder of the Gupta dynasty and

Samudragupta his son. But without even a passing reference to them the

Sandrocottus of the Greek historians has been identified with the Maurya

Chandragupta of 1200 years before who was therefore brought forward to

322 B.C., and this has been taken ever since as the basic event for all the

chronological determinations of the history of ancient India. Thus has arisen

a considerable error in the date assigned to Lord Buddha by modern European historians of India

Pandit Kota Venkatachalam therefore proposed to arrive at the correct

date for Lord Buddha, starting with the time of the Mahabharata War in 3138

B.C. and reckoning the reigns of the successive dynasties of the kings of

Ayodhya (Ikshvaku dynasty) mentioned in the puranas till we reach the “23rd

king Suddhodana” of the Ikshvaku dynasty, the blessed father of

“Lord Buddha”.

Time of Buddha – Puranic Evidence

The Mahabharata War 3138 B.C.

The coronation of Brihadbala’s son Brihad-Rshana –

Ikshvaku dynasty in the same year after the war 3138 B.C

The reigns of 30 kings of the dynasty ending with Sumitra 1504 B.C

The date of the coronation of Mahapadma Nanda of Magadha 1634 B.C.

Buddha in the History of Ikshvaku Dynasty

Panditji writes that Lord Buddha was born in the Ikshvaku dynasty. So

it behoves us to look to the genealogy of that dynasty. Vaivaswata Manu is the

seventh among the Manus. Vaivaswata Manu had ten sons, of whom Ikshvaku

was the eldest. Buddha is his descendent. Ikshvaku was at the beginning of

the Krita yuga of the 28th (present) Mahayuga. The following is the genealogy

of Ikshvaku.

1. Ikshvaku

2. Vikukshi

3. kakutstha

4. Prithu

5. Drishadasya

6. Andhra

7. Yuvanasva

15. Krisasva

16. Prasenajit

17. Yuvanasva

18. Mandhata

19. Ambarisha

20. Sambhuti

21. Anaranya

22. Haryasva

23. Sumati

24. Tridhanva

25. Thrayaruni

26. Satyavrata or Trisanku

27. Harischandra

28. Rohita

29. Harita

30. Chanchu

31. Vinaya

32. Ruruka

33. Bahu

34. Sagara

35. Asamanjasa

Sathrughna killed the Demon Lavanasura and reigned over the city

‘Madhura’. His sons Subahu and Surasena succeeded him. Angada and

Chandraketu were the sons of Lakshmana. They ruled over the Himalayan

regions. Angada had Angadapura as his capital and Chandraketu Chandra

chakrapura. The portions in Kosala that fell to the share of the sons of

Lakshmana are now known as Nepal. Taksha and Pushkara were the sons of

Bharata. Gandhara was brought under their rule. Taksha had Takshasila and

Pushkara had Pushkaravati as their capital. Kusa and Lava were the sons of

Rama and became the kings of Kosala. Dakshina Kosala was under Kusa

with Kusasthali as the capital. Uttara Kosala was under Lava with Sravasti as

the capital.


58. Kusa

59. Atithi

60. Nishadha

61. Nala

62. Nabha

63. Pundarika

64. Kshemadhanva

65. Devaneeka

66. Ahinaguna

67. Pariyatra

68. Dalaraja

69. Balaraja

70. Uluka

71. Vajranabha

72. Sankhana

73. Ushithasva

(He was killed in the Mahabharata war of 3138 B.C. This is the Ikshvaku dynasty to which belonged several hundred kings the chief of whom have

been mentioned here. (Brahmanda Purana, Upodghatapada IV Chapter)

The list of Kings of Ikshvaku dynasty, from 3138 B.C. to 1634 B.C.

Brihadbala was killed in the Mahabharata war by Abhimanyu. His son

“Brihadkshana” became king after the war.

1. Brihadkshana

2. Uruyaksha

3. Vatsa vyuha

4. Prativyoma

5. Divakara

6. Sahadeva

7. Brihadasva

8. Bhanuratha

9. Pratitasya

10. Supratika

11. Marudeva

12. Sunakshatra

13. Kinnara

14. Anadharaksha

15. Suprana

These 30 Kings reigned for 1504 years.

WHÆêÞ䛀}ì=°†Ç°O =O‰×: ‹¬°q°ã`ŒO`Ë Q®q°+¬¼u !

The Ikshvaku dynasty terminated with ‘Sumitra’. This is known from the

Matsya, Vayu, Vishnu, Brahmanda and other Puranas. The Puranas

declare that the Lord Buddha was the son of “Suddhodana.” (the 23rd king in

Ikshvaku dynasty. See the above list.)

(Vishnu Purana. Amsa IV Ch. 22) and

(Vide, Kshatriya clans in Buddist India PP. 186, 187)

‘’=¶†Ç¶ “³¶‚¬ì‹¬Þ~¡¶‡é ªÏ ‰×Ã^Ëœ^Î# ‹¬°`˃ ’=`Ÿ !

“³¶‚¬ì †Ç¶=¶‹¬ ^³á `Œ¼Oª ëO ª ë¼l`Œ<£ “Í^Î^ Î~¡àH›”£°

`Í#ƒº^¥œ | ƒ ’¶=ôiÝ `Í ƒ Õ¼<ͼ “Í^Î=iû`Œ:IIÑÑ

(Vishnu Purana)

“He who was called Maya – Moha in his previous birth was born as the son of “King Suddhodana” By the propagation of his teachings, many gave

up their traditional Vedic religion adopted the new religion of Buddha and

became Bauddhas.”

Even the Buddhist scriptures confirm that Buddha was the son of

“Suddhodana.”Panditji further states that It is therefore clear that Buddha was

the son of king Suddhodana the 23rd of the kings of Ikshvaku Dynasty. There

will be none to dispute it.

Buddha was the contemporary of Kshemajit, Bimbisara and Ajata Satru,

the 31st, the 32nd, and the 33rd kings of Magadha. The Buddhistic works say

that Buddha was Seventy two years old at the time of Ajata-Satru’s coronation.

According to the Puranas Ajata-Satru’s coronation was in 1814 B.C.

“When Ajatasatru came to the throne (of Magadha) Gotama (Buddha) was

seventy-two years old, but his genius still shone bright and clear.” (The

Heritage of India Series. “Gotama Buddha” P.70. by Kenneth T.Saunders,

Edition 1922).

“Buddha left the body in 1807 B.C. at “Kusinara” owning to dysentery

resultant upon an undigestable food offered to him by a devotee at the town

‘Pava’. The Buddhistic works also say that Buddha lived for 80 years.

“Gotama was now seventy nine years old. He continued his ministry of

preaching and teaching, revisiting his favouritic haunts.” (Ibid,P.76.)

Suddhodana was the 23rd in the line of Ikshvaku and Siddhartha the 24th. Siddhartha renounced the mundane life in his 29th year and after a continued penance of 6 years attained Buddhahood while he was sitting in meditation under the Bodhi tree. His son Rahula was the 25th in the line. Five more

successive kings of this line ruled over the kingdom. After the Mahabharata

war the Ikshvaku kings ruled for a total period of 1504 years. For the same

period 37 kings, of the Barhadratha (22), Pradyota (5) and Sisunaga (10)

dynasties ruled over Magadha. Tha contemporaries of Buddha mentioned

above are among these and they were of the Sisunaga dynasty.

Panditji gives the following table which helps to understand the

contemporaneity of Buddha with the kings of the Sisunaga dynasty of Magadha.

Kings of Ikshvaku Dynasty. Contemporary Magadha Kings.

20. Rananjaya 28. Sisunaga B.C. 1994 – 1954

21. Sanjaya. 29. Kakavarna “ 1951 – 1918

22. Sakya 30. Kshema

Dharma “ 1918 – 1892.

23. Suddhodana 31. Kshemajit “ 1892 – 1852.

24. Siddhartha. (Birth) “ 1887

Siddhartha became Buddha. “ 1852

(During this period 32. Bimbisara “ 1852 – 1814

Buddha preached his 33. Ajatasatru “ 1814 – 1787.


1. Buddha s birth. 1887 B.C.

2. “ Renunication 1858 B.C.

3. “ Penance 1858 – 1852 B.C.

4. “ Preaching of the

doctrine 1852 – 1807 B.C.

Total life period 80 years, (From 1887 – 1807).

As, regards the names of the contemporary Magadha kings of Buddha

there is perfect concord between Buddhistic literature and modern historians.

If we rightly fix the date of the Mahabharata war (3138 B.C.) and go on

adding up the periods of the reigns of the successive kings, up to the time of

Buddha we come to the 19th century B.C. The western historians arbitrarily

fixed the sixth century for Buddha. They have made 322 B.C. the sheetanchor

of Indian Chronology, by bringing Chandragupta – Maurya of the sixteenth

century B.C. to that date. So Lord Buddha belongs to Ikshvaku dynasty and

his exact date is 1887 B.C. and his Nirvana 1807 B.C.

Reconstruction of Ancient Indian History

— by Sri S.L. Sastry M.A., I.D.A.S

After the great success of the East India Company in converting

the business venture to conquering venture, it became imperative for the British to learn Indian languages, particularly Sanskrit, Indian History and Indian traditions, in order to establish their sovereignty over India.

In the year 1784 AD, the then Governor General Warren Hastings appointed Sir William Jones, an officer of the East India Company as

the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court and ordained him to write

Indian History. William Jones was a man of remakable intellectual

prowess. He immediately founded the Asiatic Society of Bengal and on

its behalf, embarked on the task of writing Indian History. But the

history of India was contained in the Puranas, one of their five

elements being History. He therefore,took the assistance of one,

Radhakant Pandit, a learned Sanskrit scholar, who apprised him of the

great antiquity of Indian history going back to millions of years,

comprising many Yugas (ages) and that, the current, Kaliyuga,

commenced in 3101 BC. Having heard this, Jones was flabbergasted.

He knew from the Dabristan Documents that about 153 Indian Kings

ruled Bactria for about 6000 years before Alexander’s invasion of

India, but millions of years was a bit too much for his consumption.

He, therefore, at once concluded that the first three ages of our Puranas

were chiefly mythological, and the fourth, that is, Kaliyuga or ‘ historical

age’, cannot be carried back further than two thousand years before

Christ’. He however did not dispute the date of the commencement of

Kaliyuga, and published the following chronology on the basis of the

information given to him by Pandit Radhakant, giving the periods of

Kings in each dynasty.

Barhadradhas 3101 – 2100 BC

Pradyotas 2100 – 1962 BC

Sirunagas 1962 – 1602 BC

Nandas 1602 – 1502 BC

Mauryas 1502 – 1365 BC

Sungas 1365 – 1253 BC

Kanvas 1253 – 908 BC

Balin (Andhra) 908 – 452 BC

However, taking into account Buddha’s birth, determined by

another British Scholar M. Dr. Guinness as 1027 BC, and stating that,

according to Bhagavata Mitra (?) Buddha’s appearance was 2 years after

Pradyota, he formulated an absurd chronology of Magadha kings as

chronology – II, as under, eliminating Barhadradhas altogether.

Abhimanyu, son of Arjun 2029 BC (!!!)

Pradyota 1029 BC

Buddha 1027 BC (and so on)

This absurd and arbitrary fixation of chronology was not based

merely on conjectures. Apart from the ego elements, it has a deep-rooted

conspiracy behind it. On the basis of the ‘Old Testament’, the Archbishops

of Europe decreed in the year 1649 A.D. that the world was born in the

year 4004 B.C. on the 23rd October at 9 a.m. and that any one contradicting

this would be treated as a heretic. The Christian community therefore,

would not accept any history or culture anterior to this date.

The authenticity of the Puranas was established also by

astronomical calculations such as the movements of the planets, the

Great Bear, the stars, etc. This, in fact, was the guiding light for the

astronomers of the West. Without any knowledge of the systems of

Indian Astronomy and with a narrowed view to condense the Indian

History to limit it within the “Mosaic” history, William Jones ventured

to start questioning whether the Indian Chronology was not the same as

the Christian Chronology (…… but embellished and obsessed by the

fancy of their poets and the riddles of their astronomers ) ……….. On

this hypothesis, he gave another absurd chronological table identifying

ADAM with MANU (4004 B.C.), NIMROD with HIRANYA KASIPU (2218 BC) and so on.

Not quite satisfied at his own arbitrariness and having brushed

aside Puranas where they did not suit his liking and accepting where

they suited him, William Jones tried to find whether he could gather

some informations from the Greek records. He therefore went through

the Greek Classical Accounts and found that at the time of Alexander’s

invasion, the then king of Magadha, Xandrimus, who had a very strong

Army of 4000 elephants etc., was killed and his empire usurped, by his

army Commanders Sandrocottus and (his son), Sandrocyptus. He also

came to know from the Bhagavata Purana that Chandragupta Maurya

killed Nanda and usurped his throne. He therefore linked both the

events and because of the sheer phonetic resemblance of the word

Sandrocottus to Chandragupta, concluded that Sandrocottus was

Chandragupta Maurya, not withstanding the dissimilarity of Xandrimus

to the former King Mahapadma Nanda or Dhana Nanda and that of

Sandrocyptus to Chandragupta’s son Bindusara. William Jones , very

well knew the names of Mahapadma Nanda and Bindusara vide the

chronology published by himself, but had to identifySandrocottus of

327-323 BC with Chandragupta Maurya of 1502 BC ( as per his own

Chronology) in order to stick to his theory that the historical age should be cut down to 2000 years. He therefore changed the date of coronation of Chandragupta Maurya, patently dishonestly, to 324 B.C. blanking

1200 years of Indian History, the full details of which are available in


The Greek Classical Accounts upon which Sir Williams Jones

placed his faith were actually the exploits of Alexander, described by

four chroniclers who accompanied him during his expeditions. They

were lost even a couple of centuries later. However, Megasthenes, the

Greek Ambassador to the Magadha Emperor, wrote a book by name

“Raicoca”(translated as Indica), relating to the social life of the

Indians during his stay in India which was around 300 BC. Even this

book was lost, but a few sheets here and there became available. On

the basis of those fragments. Arrian, an Italian Chronicler, and a few

others recorded their versions of Indian History. Strabo in the lst

century had expressed that “Generally speaking. men who have hitherto written on the affairs of India, are a set of liars”. Nevertheless, a

German historian Schewenbeck, gleaned as much as he could, from the

available sources, added his own impressions, and wrote a book

“Indica”, published in the year 1846 AD. Basing on this, a British

historian J.W. McCrindle wrote two books, one in 1877 and the other

in 1893 under the title “Ancient Indian History as described by

Megasthenes and Arrian”. These baseless Greek Classical Accounts

were taken as the foundation by the British historians to write the

history of India ignoring the vivid history already contained in Puranas

which were in Sanskrit.

The following are some of the details about what Megasthenes

had to say in regard to India at the time of his stay

(i) At the time of Alexander’s invasion the king of Magadha

was Xandrimus whom Sandrocottus killed and usurped the


(ii) Pataliputra was the capital of Magadha.

(iii) Xandrimus had a large Army of 4000 elephants, 2000

chariots, 20,000 horses and 2,00,000 infantry.

(iv) The kings had a title tagged to their names.

(v) Seleucus had sent ‘Megasthenes’ there, as his ambassador,

and ‘Demoeos’ to his son Sandrocyptus at Pataliputra.

(vi) Sandrocyptus conquered the whole of Bharat and also up to

Oxus River.

(vii) Seleucus married his daughter to Chandragupta.

Out of all these accounts, only one – that he killed the previous

king and usurped the throne, would apply to Chandragupta Maurya –

not any one of the rest. The puranas mention that Mahapadma Nanda

was coronated 1505 years after the birth of Parikshit which means that

Mahapadmananda became king of Magadha in 1634 BC. The Nandas

ruled for 100 years, after which Chandragupta killed the last of the

Nandas and became king, i.e. in 1534 BC which was dishonestly

vetoed by Sir William Jones.

Sir William Jones stopped with the end of Andhra dynasty, which

according to him was 452BC. The history of further dynasties are

contained in many other puranas like the Vayu Purana, the Matsya

Purana, the Bhavishyath Maha Purana etc., According to them, the last

of the Andhra Kings, Chandrabija, was killed by his army commander

Chandragupta, of Gupta dynasty. Chandragupta usurped the throne with

the help of the army, which was already totally under his control. It

was this Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty that was the ‘Sandrocottus’

of Megasthenes;and the ‘Xandrimus’ he killed was Chandrabija who

had a large army of 4000 elephants etc. Chandragupta also had a title

‘Vijayaditya’as did the other Gupta Kings, titles such as ‘Asokaditya’,

‘Vikramaditya’, ‘Mahendraditya’, ‘Baladitya’ etc. During

Chandragupta Maurya’s time, and even later till the Andhra Kings’

time, the capital of Magadha was Girivraja and not Pataliputra. It was

only Chandragupta of Gupta dynasty that shifted the capital from

Girivraja to Pataliputra. Chandragupt’s son was Samudragupta, whose

name corresponds to Sandrocyptus. It was he, who expanded his

kingdom throughout Bharat etc. There is no evidence anywhere that

Seleucus married his daughter to Chandragupta Maurya. On the other

hand, as per Allahabad inscriptions, Samudragupta received in

marriage a daughter of a foreign king. With his mighty army, Samudra

Gupta conquered the entire Bharatavarsha, not Chandragupta Maurya.

Thus all names, and attributes, contained in the description of

Megasthenes fully correspond to Chandgragupta of the Gupta Dynasty

and not Chandragupta Maurya.

By identifying Sandracottas with Chandragupta Mourya, Sir

William Jones and later historians wilfully and dishonestly curtailed

the history of India by 1200 years on this count alone.

Prof. M. Troyer raised objection to identifying Chandragupta

Maurya with Sandracottus, on the basis of Rajatarangini (which was

the history of the kings of Kashmir from 3450 BC to the date of its

writing by Kalhana in 1148 AD), in his edition of the book in 1859 AD. V.A. Smith described the book as “The Sanskrit book which comes

nearest to the European notion of a regular history is the Rajatarangini

of Kalhana…”. It is unfortunate that, despite objections raised by some

of the western ‘orientalists’ and many Indians, Max Muller branding

the writings of the Indian historians as vague, chose to declare the

theory of William Jones as the ‘Sheet Anchor’ of Indian History. The

ancient Indian history in its entirety has been constructed on the basis

of this sheet anchor!

Apart from Troyer a number of other European and Indian

scholars such as Rapson, Fleet, Wilson etc. Categorically differed

from or objected to Max Meuller’s ‘Sheet Anchor’ of Indian History.

Justice Telang wrote: “It appears to me that in these days there

has set in a powerful tendency in Europe to set down individual and

classes of works of our ancient Sanskrit literature to as late a date as

possible… I cannot leave this topic without entering an emphatic

protest against the perfectly arbitrary method of fixing dates”.

A. Somayajulu (Dates in Ancient History of India) wrote :

“The history now taught in Indian schools is simply a heap of such

misrepresentations and baseless conjectures”.

Many other Indian and foreign scholars (Col. Tad, M. A. Stein,

Prof. B. Keith, Prof. T. S. Narayana Sastry, Kuppiah etc.) pointed out

the inaccuracies of the arbitrary assignment of dates to Indian dynasties

and Indian literature. Dr. Kota Venkatachalam threw a “challenge” to

the blievers in the current false history of India, to come out with their

authorities and arguments in support of their views and submit their

report in writing to the judgement of any tribunal competent to deal

with the matter; but it evoked no response. Dr. Sri Ram Sathe followed

up with a letter to Dr. Mujumdar of the Archeological Society of India,

and an eminent historian, who replied;

“……. When the study of Indology was in its infancy, one could

not be expected to be very critical of the sources of the first rare

importance then available to him. Schwanbeck’s reconstruction of

Megasthenes’s “Indica” was therefore accepted without criticism and

this mental attitude, by sheer inertia, has persisted amongst the students

of ancient Indian history even today. But the progress of Indological

studies has rendered it necessary to subject many of the old accepted

notions to a searching criticism. On the whole, time has come now

when we should make a reassessm.ent.”

The arbitrary imposition of their views on ancient Indian history by western scholars had their effect on a number of other events such as the reigns of Vikramaditya and Salivahana, age of Buddha and in fact the entire Ancient Indian history. Rewriting true and correct history is necessary in order to erase the false history which our children are being taught for the last century or so by the so called eminent scholars (eminent in false history) by slavish attachment to the wetern mind blunting the spirit of research. Our children should know their past

and feel proud about it. They should not think they are charitraheen.

Courtesy : Organiser




6 thoughts on “SRI KOTA VENKATACHALAM – a complete scholar – historian

  1. Krishna Baalu says:

    Thanks a lot for this post.

    I was searching for Sri K V Chalam’s telugu books written on Indian History. I read it long ago (1969-72) if I am not wrong it was in Sri Krishna Devaraya Andhra Bashanilayam at Koti.

    I was fascinated by these books and now I have been searching for these books now, but I could not trace it.

    I remember it was Sri Kota Venkatachalam who first brought to fore the real calculation of this universe and Yugas which perfectly matched with astronomy and other vital statistics.

    thanks for sharing


  2. Nitin says:

    I am incredibly confused by this site. It is extremely difficult to read the text.

    Are the articles separated by 5 asterisks?

    Why is there hardly any formatting?
    Was the information scanned and OCRed?
    Is there anywhere I can find the articles in a form I can actually read??

  3. Namaskar !
    Shodh-Lekh kafi badhiya hai. Meri Badhai Sweekar Karen.

  4. vajjala ravi kumar says:

    to all concern

    it is essential that govt of india take note these research activities about ancient history
    and incorporate the facts to be taught in schools and
    kota venkatachalam sould be given bharataratna for extra ordinary work
    in this century by any indan till today.

    i hope his work goes to the notice to president of india.

  5. M.K.NEHRU says:

    Thanks to Dr K.M.RAO for bringing these historical facts to the knowledge of the world.It is afact that there are many distortions created by many foreign writers about indian history culture and religion .Kota venkatachalam deserves salutations for his work.Those writers who at present are working on this type of writings also deserve respect and salutations as they ARE working for bharat mata.GOD BLESS THEM ALL.

  6. I like the valuable information you supply in your articles.
    I will bookmark your blog and take a look at once more right here regularly.
    I’m slightly sure I’ll be told lots of new stuff proper here!
    Good luck for the next!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: