North Indian Inscriptions

THE KṚITA ERA

Kalki, and the ushering in of the Kṛita Age. Now, P. C. Sengupta who has made the necessary calculations has come to the conclusion that this Kṛita began with 63 B. C., and not with 57 B. C. It is possible to argue that Pushyamitra re-established his power in 63 B. C. but started an era of his own in 57 B. C. which began the Kṛita years. But another calculation of the same data is possible. Thus, according to Harit Krishna Deb, “A.D. 424 (November 20) 425 (November 16) conforms to their requirements.”¹ This agrees with the Jaina tradition to which R. Shamasastry has drawn our attention. Further, he remarks as follows²: “From these facts I am led to believe in the existence of a historical personage Kalki, king of Pāṭaliputra, who, born in 402, started an era after his own name in 428 and who, championing the cause of the Brāhmaṇas against the Huns, the Jainas, and the Buddhists for about 40 years, died in A.D. 472.” It is thus clear that according to the Jaina tradition, that is, according to some Indian tradition at any rate, the Kalki era was originated in 428 A.D., and not in 57 B.C., as surmised by us. To associate the name of Kalki with the foundation of the Vikrama era and to assert that it originated the Kṛita Age in 57 B.C. has not even the background of any Indian tradition. Besides, there is a veritable disorder and jumble of traditions about the origin of the Vikrama Era.

>

This has been pointed out by us in detail before. What is, however, important to remember in this connection is that all the early inscriptions of the Vikrama era, ranging between 282 and 480, record years which are called simply Kṛita and do not make the slightest reference to ‘Mālava’ or ‘Vikrama.’ It is true that Śaka once or twice and Śrī-Vikramāditya only once are used to denote a year of the Śaka or Vikrama era. But this we find done long long after the era had been in vogue, and not at all about the commencement of it. Hence, if we are again allowed to weigh between the two theories propounded by some scholars, we cannot help saying now that the interpretation of the word Kṛita proposed at first is more reasonable than the second one, namely, that it was really Kṛita, ‘made’, that is, invented by the astronomers for the purpose of recknoning years and that it somewhow caught the imagination of the people who, therefore, began to use it and actually styled it Kṛita, ‘invented’. When we broached the theory, we were unaware of what Al Bērūni had said about the eras that were prevalent in India. The Arab historian says that in his time the eras adopted by the Hindus were four in number, namely, those of (1) Śrī Harsha, (2) Vikramāditya, (3) Śaka and (4) Valabha, also known as Gupta, because the epoch of both these eras is “241 years later than the Śaka-kāla.”³ Besides these, there were four more eras of the astronomers, because the authors of them considered them ‘as the most suitable to be used as cardinal points in astronomical and other calculations, whence calculation may conveniently extend forward or backward.”⁴ It is worthy of note here that the eras of the astronomers were considered suitable not only for astronomical but also for other calculations. This raises the presumption that in some provinces the eras of the astronomers were used by the people also. This fits the Vikrama era excellently because in the earliest period when this era is found to be in vogue, it bears no name of its own, but, on the contrary, its years are called Kṛita, ‘made’, invented by the astronomers of a province for the use of their astronomical calculations and adopted by the people for their calculations. This province seems to have been South-eastern Rājputānā and Mālwā, and that appears to be the reason why these Kṛita years were regarded as Mālava-gaṇ-āmnāta, “traditionally handed down according to the reckoning of the Mālavas.” This is quite clear from another inscription which speaks of four hundred and eighty-one Kṛita years as having passed and as Mālava-pūrvāyām—this being the detailed specification (of the date) according to the Malavas.”
________________________________________________________

¹ JPASB., Vol. XXI, p. 217.
² An. Rep., Mysore Archaeological Department., 1923, p. 19.
³ Sachau, Alberuni’s India, Vol. II, pp. 5 and 7.
⁴ Ibid., pp. 7-8.