North Indian Inscriptions

THE KṚITA ERA

seems that it was soon after called in question by a number of enemies who had arisen. These were, however, put down, and he re-established his supremacy, which was signalised by the second performance of the horse-sacrifice. Although he thus first came to power in 75 B.C., it was not till 57 B.C. that he became an undisputed supreme ruler and a righteous conqueror (dharma-vijayī) . So the Kṛityayuga must have been ushered in by him when his power was established for the second time and placed on a firm footing.

        Now only one difficulty remains in regard to the theory that the so called Vikrama Saṁvat years are years of the Kṛita era. It may reasonably be asked how Kṛita in such a case stands in apposition to varsha. We would rather have Kṛita-vatsarāḥ or Kṛitāh vatsarāḥ. It seems that we have a parallel for such terminology in the Śaka era. It is well-known that the years of this era have once been called Śaka-nṛipati-rājy-ābhishēka-saṁvatsara,¹ but that they are generally Śaka-saṁvat. It is true there are some inscriptions, where Śaka seems to stand apparently in apposition with Saṁvatsara as Kṛita does. Thus, a grant of Harihara II of the Vijayanagara dynasty has the following: Śrī-Śakē trayōdaś-ādhika-triśat-ōttara-sahasrē gatē.² If we proceed to an earlier period, the Paiṭhaṇ plates of the Dēvagiri-Yādava Rāma (=Rāmachandra) have : Sa(Śa)kē cha ēkādaśasu triṇavaty-adhikēshv=atītēshu 1193³ etc. Similar is the case if we go up to a still earlier period. Thus the Kokaṭnūr plates of the Kalachuri Mahārājādhirāja Sōma (=Sōmēśvara) give the date: Shaṇṇavaty-adhika-sahasratamē Śakē⁴ etc. If any inscription from Northern India is required in support of our proposition, it is supplied by that of Sōmavaṁśi king Karṇarāja of Kākaira, bearing the date Chaturddaś-ōttarē s=ēvam=ēkādaśē śatē Śakē.⁵ In all these cases Śakē has been used in the sense of “the years of the Śaka era. i.e., (Śaka-saṁvatsarēshu)” which means that the original sense of Śaka-nṛipa-kāla is completely for- gotten. If we want an instance about the Vikrama era in a similar deteriorated sense, it is supplied by the Delhi (Siwālik) pillar inscription of the Chāhamāna Vīsaladēva Vigraharāja, one date of which is Saṁvat śrī Vikramādityē 1220 etc. etc. This naturally puzzled even the scholar who edited them, namely, F. Kielhorn, who in a note below says : “One would have expected here Vaikramādityē”.⁶ Kṛita had, however, been ever since 282 (226 A.D) the name of the year and not of any epoch or era. And it continued to be so still Vikrama year 461 in a Mandasōr inscription as shown above where the years have been explicitly called Kṛita (Kṛita-saṁjñitāḥ). There is, therefore, no reasonable ground against the supposition that Vikrama years were, from the beginning, known as the name of years and not of any epoch.

        This theory about the origin of the Vikrama era has, no doubt, been propounded with all the air of plausibility and speciousness. But it cannot commend itself to the sober judgement of any savant. It is true that an era was started by Kalki who is believed to have ushered in the Kṛita Age. The question, however, arises: when did it commence? In this connection we may notice a couplet which occurs not only in the Vāyu, Vishṇu and other Purāṇas but also in the Mahābhārata, Vanaparvan, Chapter 190, verse 91, and which runs as follows:

.......................Yadā chandraś=cha sūryaś=cha tathā Tishya-Bṛihaspatī /
.......................ēka-rāśau samēshyanti tadā Kṛita-yugaṁ bhavet //

“And then when the Sun, the Moon, and Bṛihaspati will, with the constellation Pushya, be together in the same sign (rāśi), the Kṛita Age will begin again.”

       We have above referred to this chapter from Vanaparvan while expatiating on the rise of
______________________________________________________

¹ Ind. Ant., Vol. XII, p. 210.
² JBBRAS., Vol. IV, pp. 115 and f.
³ F. Kielhorn’s List Inscrs. South India, No. 369.
⁴ Ibid., No. 288.
⁵ Ep. Ind., Vol. IX. pp. 185 ff.
⁶ Ind. Ant., Vol. XIX, p. 218, note 22.