North Indian Inscriptions

THE KṚITA ERA

clearly that these are not the years, started by a king called Kṛita, but assuredly as years named Kṛita. Or, we may take the Bijayagaḍh pillar inscription which is the next earliest Sanskrit inscription and is dated, as follows: Kṛitēshu chaturshu varsha-śatēshv=ashṭāviṅśēshu 400 20 8 Phālguna-bahulasya pañchadaśśyām= ētasyām pūrvvāyām. The language of this date also is Sanskrit, pure and simple. And here also Kṛita stands in apposition to the group of years, namely 428, unmistakably proving that they are not the years of any era originated by Kṛita but most certainly the years themselves styled Kṛita. As these two are the earliest Sankrit records where the years have been named Kṛita and not Kārta, it is not clear what Altekar means by saying that as the authors of the early inscriptions were not particularly strong in Sanskrit, the expression Kṛita for Kārta is quite possible in their compositions. Further, as a matter of fact, the term Kārta is nowhere yet found employed in Indian epigraphy in place of Kṛita. And, further still, in the Mandasōr inscription of Naravarman, as he himself admits,¹ “it is expressly stated that Kṛita was its proper name, thought it was traditionally handed down among the Mālavas.’’ It is true that this statement is confusing though he is right in saying that the name was Kṛita. But he creates confusion by assigning the name Kṛita to an era. In the record in question it is the years (461) that have been styled Kṛita. And this confusion has become worse confounded by his remark that the era was traditionally handed down among the Mālavas. As a matter of fact, the Mālavas were connected, not with the founding of the era, but with the computation of the years which are now known as those of Vikrama. This point we have already expatiated upon and it need not now detain us here.

        Let us, therefore, turn again to the important question of the determination of the meaning of Kṛita. We shall now consider or rather re-consider the second suggestion which was put forward by us,² which, strange to say, was not known to Altekar when he wrote his learned articles on the Baḍvā and Barṇālā Yūpa inscriptions, although the articles containing our view was published as early as 1932 in the Indian Antiquary. He refers to it only casually on page 90 in his popular article in the vikramāṅka Number published by the Nāgarī Prachāriṇī Patrikā in Saṁvat 2000 Vikrama. What we contended in that article may be set forth here again, as our theory has not yet been well controverted and not at all upset.

       Enough attention has not been drawn to the importance of ‘the Brahmin Empire’ established by the Śuṅgas sometime before the Christian era. K. P. Jayaswal was the first to bring this subject to our notice in two papers on the Brahmin Empire.³ In the second of these, he has quoted a passage from the Harivaṁśa attached to the Mahābhārata where Pushyamitra and his revival of Brahmanism have been clearly hinted at. Soon after reading this paper we happened to light upon Chapters 190-91 of the Vanaparvan of the Mahābhārata which describe the Kaliyuga and its atrocities. We are told that during the Kali Age the Śūdras will be the preachers and Brāhmaṇas the hearers, that the earth will be adorned, not by shrines of gods, but by Buddhist stūpas(ēḍūka) and that India itself would be overrun by the Mlēchchha hordes. This has been described as the character of the Kaliyuga, but Kaliyuga will gradually, we are told, develop into a sandhi period before the Kṛitayuga is ushered in. In regard to the Kṛitayuga, we are informed that a Brāhmaṇa named Vishṇuyaśas will be born as Kalki in the town of Sambhala in a Brāhmaṇa family and that he will be not only a supreme ruler (chakravartin) but also a righteous conqueror (dharma-vijayī). He will exterminate the Dasyus, perform a great Horse Sacrifice, give back the earth to the Brāhmaṇas, establish the worship of triśūlas, śaktis and deer-skins, and will usher in the Kṛita Age (chapter 191, verses 1-9).
____________________________________

¹ Ep. Ind., Vol. XXVII, p. 51.
² Ind. Ant., Vol. LXI, pp. 101 and ff.
³ JBORS., Vol. IV, pp. 257 and ff.; Vol. XIV, p. 24.