Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s Valedictory Speech at the ICIH-2009 — Part Two

Here is the Part Two of Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s valdedictory speech that he gave on January 11 at the Internatonal Conference on Indian History, Civilisation and Geopolitics 2009 (ICIH-2009) at New Delhi’s India International Centre. 

Falsification of Chronology in India’s History

The fabrication of our History begins with the falsification of our chronology.

The customary dates quoted for composition of the Rig Veda (circa 1300 B.C.), Mahabharat (600 B.C.), Buddha’s Nirvana (483 B.C.), Maurya Chandragupta’s coronation (324 B.C.), and Asoka (c.268 B.C.) are entirely wrong. Those dates are directly or indirectly based on a selected reading of Megasthenes’ account of India. In fact, so much so that eminent historians have called if the “sheet anchor of Indian chronology”. The account of Megasthenes and the derived chronology of Indian history have also an important bearing on related derivations such as the two-race (Aryan-Dravidian) theory, and on the pre-Vedic character of the so called Indus Valley Civilization.

Megasthenes was the Greek ambassador sent by Seleucus Nicator in c. 302 B.C. to the court of the Indian king whom he and the Greek called “Sandrocottus”. He was stationed in “Palimbothra”, the capital city of the kingdom. It is not clear how many years Megasthenes stayed in India, but he did write an account of his stay, titled Indika.  The manuscript Indika is lost, and there is no copy of it available.  However, during the time it was available, many other Greek writers quoted passages from it in their own works. These quotations were meticulously collected by Dr. Schwanbeck in the nineteenth century, and this compilation is also available to us in English (J.M. McCrindle: Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian).

When  European indologists were groping to date Indian history during the nineteenth century (after having arbitrarily rejected the various Puranas), the Megasthenes account came in very useful. These scholars simply identified “Sandrocottus” with Chandragupta, and “Palimbothra” with Pataliputra.  Since Megasthenes talks of Sandrocottus as being a man not of “noble” birth who essentially usurped the throne from Xandrames and founded a new dynasty, the western writers took it as enough evidence to  suggest that Sandrocottus was Maurya Chandragupta, who deposed the Nanda (=Xandrames) dynasty, and founded the Maurya dynasty.  This identification, thus places Maurya Chandragupta circa 302 B.C. 

However, Megasthenes also notes that Sandrocottus was a contemporary of Alexander, and came to the throne soon after Alexander’s departure.  With a little arithmetic on how many days it would have taken Alexander to cross the Indus, etc., the scholars arrive at c.324 B.C. as the date of Chandragupta Maurya’s coronation.  It is on this date that every other date of Indian history has been constructed.

The western writers constructed other dates of Indian history by using the data on the number of years between kings given in the Puranas, even though they have generally discredited this source.  For instance, the Puranas give the number of years for the reign of Chandgragupta and Bindusara as 62 years.  Using this period, Asoka’s coronation year is calculated by them as 324-62 =c 262 B.C.  This estimated year is then cross-checked and adjusted with other indicators, such as from the Ceylonese Pali tradition.  The point that is being made here is that some of the important dates of Indian history have been directly determined by the identification of Megasthenes’ Sandrocottus with Maurya Chandragupta, and Xandremes with Nanda.

The founder of the Mauryas, however, is not the only Chandragupta in Indian history, who was a king of Magadh and founder of a dynasty.  In particular, there is Gupta Chandragupta, a Magadh king and founder of the Gupta dynasty at Patliputra.  Chandragupta Gupta was also not of “noble” birth and, in fact, came to power by deposing the Andhra king Chandrasri.  That is, Megasthenes’ Sandrocottus may well be Gupta Chandragupta instead of Maurya Chandgragupta (and Xandremes the same as Chandrasri, and Sandrocryptus as Samudragupta).  

In order to determine which Chandragupta it is, we need to look further.  It is, of course, a trifle silly to build one’s history on this kind of tongue-gymnastics, but I am afraid we have no choice but to pursue the Megasthenes evidence to its end, since the currently acceptable history is based on it.

In order to determine at which Chandragupta’s court Megasthenes was ambassador, we have to look further into his account of India.  We find he was at Pataliputra (i.e. Palimbothra in Megasthenes’ account).  We know from the Puranas (which are unanimous on this point) that all the Chandravamsa king of Magadh (including the Mauryas) prior to the Guptas, had their capital at Girivraja (or equivalently Rajgrha) and not at Pataliputra.   Gupta Chandragupta was the first king to have his capital in Patliputra. This alone should identify Sandrocottos with Gupta Chandragupta.  However some 6-11th century A.D. sources call Pataliputra the Maurya capital, e.g., Vishakdatta in Mudrarakshasa, but these are based on secondary sources and not on the Puranas.

Pursuing Megasthenes’ account further, we find most of it impossible to believe.  He appears to be quite vague about details and is obviously given to the Greek writers’ weakness in letting his imagination get out of control.  For example, “Near a mountain which is called Nulo there live men whose fee are turned back-wards and have eight toes on each foot.” (Solinus 52.36-30 XXX.B.) “Megasthenes says a race of men (exist in India) who neither eat or drink, and in fact have not even mouths, set on fire and burn like incense in order to sustain their existence with odorous fumes…..” (Plutarch, Frag. XXXI). However, Megasthenes appears to have made one precise statement of possible application which was picked up later by Pliny, Solinus, and Arrian. As summarized by Professor K.D. Sethna of Pondicherry, it reads:

“Dionysus was the first who invaded India and was the first of all who triumphed over the vanished Indians. From the days of Dionysus to Alexander the Great, 6451 years reckoned with 3 months additional.  From the time of Dionysus to Sandrocottus the Indians reckoned 6452 years, the calculation being made by counting the kings who reigned in the intermediate period to number 153 or 154 years.  But among these a republic was thrice established, one extending…..years, another to 300 and another to 120.  The Indians also tell us that Dionysus was earlier than Heracles by fifteen generations, and that except for him no one made a hostile invasion of India but that Alexander indeed came and overthrew in war all whom he attacked.”

While there a number of issues raised by this statement including the concoction that Alexander was victorious in battle across the Indus, the exactness with which he states his numbers should lead us to believe that Megasthenes could have received his chronological matters from none else than the Puranic pundits of his time.  To be conclusive, we need to determine who are the “Dionysus” and “Heracles” of Megasthenes’ account.

Traditionally, Dionysus (or Father Bachhus) was a Greek God of wine who was created from Zeus’s thigh.  Dionysus was also a great king, and was recognized as the first among all kings, a conqueror and constructive leader.  Could there be an Indian equivalent of Dionysus whom Megasthenes quickly equated with his God of wine? Looking through the Puranas, one does indeed find such a person.  His name is Prithu.

Prithu was the son of King Vena. The latter was considered a wicked man whom the great sages could not tolerate, especially after he told them that the elixir soma should be offered to him in prayer and not to the gods (Bhagavata Purana IV.14.28). The great sages thereafter performed certain rites and killed Vena. But since this could lead immediately to lawlessness and chaos, the rshis decided to rectify it by coronating a strong and honest person. The rshis therefore churned the right arm (or thigh; descriptions vary) of the dead body (of Vena) to give birth to a fully grown Prithu.  It was Prithu, under counsel from rshi Atri (father of Soma), who reconstructed society and brought about economic prosperity.  Since he became such a great ruler, the Puranas have called him adi-raja (first king) of the world.  So did the Satpatha Brahmana (v.3.5 4.).

In the absence of a cult of soma in India, it is perhaps inevitable that Megasthenes and the other Greeks, in translating Indian experiences for Greek audiences, should pick on adi-raja Prithu who is “tinged with Soma” in a number of ways and bears such a close resemblance to Dionysus in the circumstances of his birth, and identify him as Dionysus.  If we accept identifying Dionysus with Prithu, then indeed by a calculation based on the Puranas (done by D.R. Mankad, Koti Venkatachelam, K.D. Sethna, and others),  it  can be conclusively shown that indeed 6451 years had elapsed between Prithu and a famous Chandragupta. This calculation exactly identifies Sandrocottus with Gupta Chandragupta and not with Maurya Chandragupta. The calculation also identifies Heracles with Hari Krishna (Srikrishna) of Dwarka.

This calculation must be necessarily long and tedious to counter the uninformed general feeling first sponsored by Western scholars, that the Puranas spin only fair tales and are therefore quite unreliable.  However, most of these people do not realize that most Puranas have six parts, and the Vamsanucharita sections (especially of Vishnu, Matsya, and Vagu) are a systematic presentation of Indian history especially of the Chandravamsa kings of Magadha. 

In order to establish these dates, I would have to discuss in detail the cycle of lunar asterisms, the concept of time according to Aryabhatta, and various other systems, and also the reconciliation of various minor discrepancies that occur in the Puranas.  Constraints of space and time however, prevent me from presenting these calculations here.

However, on the basis of these calculations we can say that Gupta Chandragupta was “Sandrocottus” c.327 B.C.  His son, Samudragupta, was the great king who established a unified kingdom all over India, and obtained from the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras their recognition of him.  He also had defeated Seleucus  Nicator, while his father Chandragupta was king. On this calculation we can also place Prithu at 6777 B.C. and Lord Rama before that.  Derivation of other dates without discussion may also be briefly mentioned here: Buddha’s Nirvana 1807 B.C., Maurya Chandragupta c. 1534 B.C., Harsha Vikramaditya (Parmar) c. 82 B.C.

The European scholars have thus constructed an enormous edifice of contemporary foreign dates to suit their dating. A number of them are based on misidentification. For instance, the Rock Edict XIII, the famous Kalinga edict, is identified as Asoka’s. It was, however, Samudragupta’s (Samudragupta was a great conqueror and a devout admirer of Asoka. He imitated Asoka in many ways and also took the name Asokaditya. In his later life, he became a sanyasi). Some other facts, which directly contradict their theories, they have rather flippantly cast aside.

We state here only a few examples – such facts as (1) Fa-hsien was in India and at Patliputra c. 410 A.D.  He mentions a number of kings, but makes not even a fleeting reference to the Gupta, even though according to European scholars he came during the height of their reign. He also dates Buddha at 1100 B.C.. (2) A number of Tibetan documents place Buddha at 2100 B.C. (3) The Ceylonese Pali traditions leave out the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras from the list of Asoka’s kingdoms, whereas Rock Edict XIII includes them.  In fact, as many scholars have noted, the character of Asoka from Ceylonese and other traditions is precisely (as R.K. Mukherjee has said) what does not appear in the principal edicts.

The accepted history of no country can however be structured on foreign accounts of it. But Nehru and his Leftist cronies did just that, and thus generations of Indians have been brainwashed by this falsified history of India.

The time has come for us to take seriously our Puranic sources and to re-construct a realistic well-founded history of ancient India, a history written by Indians about Indians. Such a history should bring out the amazing continuity of a Hindu nation which asserts its identity again and again. It should focus on the fact that at the centre of our political thought is the concept of the Chakravartin ideal – to defend  the nation from external aggression while giving maximum internal autonomy to the janapadas.

A correct, defalsified history would record that Hindustan was one nation in the art of governance, in the style of royal courts, in the methods of warfare, in the maintenance of its agrarian base, and in the dissemination of information. Sanskrit was the language of national communication and discourse.

An accurate history should not only record the periods of glory but the moments of degeneration, of the missed opportunities, and of the failure to forge national unity at crucial junctures in time. It should draw lessons for the future generations from costly errors in the past.

In particular, it was not Hindu submission as alleged by JNU historians that was responsible for our subjugation but lack of unity and effective military strategy.

Without an accurate history, Hindustan cannot develop on its correct identity. And without a clearly defined identity, Indians will continue to flounder.Defalsification of Indian history is the first step for our renaissance.



Filed under Uncategorized

5 responses to “Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s Valedictory Speech at the ICIH-2009 — Part Two

  1. Jagdish Shetty

    The nation has not properly understood the scholar that Dr. Subramanian Swamy is and this well written article on Indian History and need of an identity.

    A learned scholar from Harvard and who has taken to politics should be encouraged and we all right thinking persons should ensure that he is at the helm of affairs.

    An economist have such an insight into History is remarkable.

    How much such Statesman do we have in Politics in India ?

  2. So, when do we see a revised history of India ?
    Someone should start and with the internet, you don’t need much money to publish the ideas either !

  3. Milind

    Well, I’m afraid that defalsification of our history can be done. The christist evangelical goons are just so richly resourceful. With their enormous money, those conspirators will not let any revision of indian history.

  4. Dr. M. P. Ajith Kumar

    Sheet Anchor of Indian Chronology – A Critique
    Dr. M. P. Ajith Kumar
    (Senior Lecturer in History, Sanatana Dharma College, Alappuzha, Kerala, India)
    (Published in Haindavakeralam)
    Western scholars like William Jones, Pargiter, James Princep, George Turnour, etc, have commendably contributed to Oriental studies. Sir William Jones, a judicial officer in the East India Company was the founder and President of the Royal Asiatic Society established in Bengal in 1784. Widely traveled in North India, Kashmir and Western Asia, he studied the history of these areas. He collected from Kashmir a text of the history of Bactria called Dabistan Document and concluded that kings of Indian origin ruled Bactria since 6000 years before Alexander’s invasion of India. In 1793 he declared that he had solved the riddle of ancient Indian chronology, stating that Sandrokottas referred to in the accounts of Megasthanes (Greek writer of the 4th century BC) was Chandragupta Maurya of the Indian Puranas and other literatures like Mahavamsa. According to the Greek accounts Alexander’s invasion of India lasted from 327 BC to 323 BC. As per the Greek accounts the Indian king Sandrokottas who defeated Alexander’s successor Selukos took over as the king of Palibothra during 320 BC. Basing on these Greek accounts William Jones concluded that Sandrokottas and Palibotra of the Greek accounts were Chandragupta Maurya and Pataliputra respectively. Jones took 320 BC as the year of Chandragupta Maurya’s coronation. This is called the sheet anchor of ancient Indian chronology. Thus having bridged the gulf between the chronologies of India and Europe, European Indologists prepared the ancient Indian chronology on the basis of this sheet anchor.
    First of all it may be noticed that primary sources are of cardinal importance in historical research. Secondary sources regarding a datum could of course be relied upon but only if the primary source is available. But in the case of Megasthanese’s Indica no body ever had seen or read it in original. Suffice it to say, there is no such a work as Indica. In fact our knowledge about the Indica is based just on hearsay. We come to hear of the Indica just from the information provided by the later Classical scholars like Arrien, Strabo, Plutarch, Curtius etc. And whatever smattering we have about Indica is from the few quotations the later classical writers give in their writings. Indica as we get it at present is thus only a collection of the copious extracts which these classical writers say they quoted from Megasthanese.
    Authenticity itself of the Indica could thus be questioned on the basis of its own absence, let alone any statement or finding based on it. Indica is just a myth and any writing based on this myth could be none other than fiction. Myth won’t make history. This is the opinion of the methodology of history.
    Even if just hearsay about the Indica shall be used to write the history of ancient India overlooking the inevitability of the primary source, still Jones’ Sheet Anchor of Indian chronology remains a grope in the dark. It is the conclusion of an intellectual slapdash rather than meticulous research. Mere verbal semblances between Palibothra and Pataliputra, and Sandrokottas and Chandragupta (Maurya) made Jones conclude that Palibothra was nothing other than Pataliputra and Sandrokottas, Chandragupta Maurya. But had Jones been a bit keener in his observations and reasonable in his research he would not have concluded so. It was indeed an inattentive conclusion, a lax finding. To prove this argument right we may take some of the following and relevant portions from the Classical accounts.
    1. Prassi surpasses in power … their capital being Palibothra, a very large and wealthy city, after which some call the people itself Palibothri … nay even the whole tract along the Ganges.1
    Arrain, depending on Megasthenes’ and other Greek writers’ account writes, “Megasthenes stayed in the court of Sandrokottas. He also stayed in the court of Porus. Porus was a mightier king than Sandrokottas”. This means that Sandrokottas was only an insignificant king before Porus who was the ruler of the territory comprising only two districts. Thus the Sandrokottas referred to in Classical accounts was only a dwarf compared to the Emperor Chandragupta Maurya of the Puranic and Buddhist accounts. Sandrokottas of the Classical accounts was not Chandragupta Maurya.
    According to this statement Palibothra had lain (from the north-west) before the Ganges-Yamuna confluence. But Pataliputra or modern Patna lies south-east of the confluence.
    2. The situation of Palibothra is given as 425 miles from the confluence of Ganges and Jomanese and 738 miles from the mouth of Ganges where it meets the sea.2
    This argument is again buttressed up by Arrain’s account that “Thence to the confluence the Jomanese and Ganges 625 miles and to the town of Palibothra 425 miles” This means that the confluence was 200 miles ahead of Palibothra. But Pataliputra was ahead of the confluence and not 200 miles before it. Thus taking the geographical location of Palibothra as given in Classical accounts it may be concluded that Palibothra of Megasthenes and Arrain was not Patiliputra.
    3. The people in whose country this city-Palibothra is situated, is the most distinguished in all India and is called Prassi. The king in addition to his family name must adopt the surname Palibothras, as Sandrokottas for instance did, to whom Megasthanese was sent as an embassy.3
    But nowhere in Indian literature or any other source material related to the Mauryan dynasty it is mentioned that the Mauryan kings assumed any dynastic title. Here also it is fallacious to take Sandrokottas for Chandragupta Maurya.
    4. About Sandrokottas, it is said that he was the greatest among the Indian kings and he was the king of Prassi whose capital was Palibothra.4
    5. Sandrokottas killed the previous king and became king himself.5
    It is true that Chandragupta Maurya had defeated the early Magadhan king Dhana Nanda. But he did not kill the latter. The literature on the other hand informs that Chandragupta Maurya had allowed him to quit Magadha taking as much money and material as could be carried in a cart.
    6. Seleukas Nikator had given his daughter in marriage to Sandrokottas.6
    But this reference is also not agreeable with the history of Chandragupta Maurya. Such a thing is not mentioned by any of the contemporary Indian evidences.
    7. Heracles (identified by historians as Surakulesh Vishnu) was the founder … of no small number of cities, the most renowned and greatest of which was Palibothra.7
    Here it is mentioned that Palibothra was founded by Surakulesh Vishnu. It may be noted that Pataliputra on the other hand was founded by Udain. Again it might be noticed that the capital of Magadha up to the time of the Andhras was Girivraja or Rajagriha and not Pataliputra (which again was not Palibothra of Megasthenes)
    8. The river Jomanes flows through the Palibothri into the Ganges between the towns of Methora (Mathura) and Carisobaras (Kalisarovar according to the British Indologists).8
    But it may be noticed that Yamuna is not flowing through Pataliputra. Yamuna flows into the Ganges even before the Ganges reaches Patna or Pataliputra.
    Besides here it is to be correctly understood as to the Greek pronunciation of the Sanskrit name. It is to be noticed that Pataliputra can’t be written as Palibothra if to place our argument regarding this on the Greek word Palibothra itself. The letter ‘p’ in Patali is written in Greek as English ‘p’ only. Then why the ‘p’ in Putra is changed into Greek ‘b’ is surprising. There is no instance of the Sanskrit ‘p’ is changed into Greek ‘b’. It is thus clear that putra is not bothra. Pataliputra is not Palibothra of the Greek accounts.
    All these possible and convincing arguments likely to come up against the sheet anchor given by the European Indologists notwithstanding, this chronological setting still continues to dominate the study of ancient Indian history. Classical accounts are still relied to construct the history of India’s past as well as its chronology even as they often disagree with each other and contain mutually contradictory statements regarding incidents or places and persons. Even the very question regarding the originality of Indica as noted earlier combined with the ambiguity of these accounts would suffice to make one doubt the reliability of these accounts. Yet the modern Indologists continue to stereotype William Jones fallacy.
    Dr. R. C. Majumdar, an authority of Ancient Indian history states that “… a perusal of the different accounts [of the Greek writers] raises grave doubts whether they are all derived from a common reliable source”. He says that though Megasthanes’ “Indica, or collection of fragments preserved in later writings, has long enjoyed the reputation of being a rich mine of useful and authentic information about India, … the question of how far the fragments usually ascribed to him, can really be accepted as such, and may be relied upon as authentic” is something to be addressed with caution and utmost care.9
    In fact many authorities including H. C. Raychaudhuri doubted the reliability of the Classical accounts of India though he too followed the British Indologists in many of his writings including his masterpiece, Political History of Ancient India. The fallacy of Jones’ Sheet anchor being thus clearly established in the light of the Classical accounts, it would be interesting to enquire whether there was a place in India that would agree with Palibothra of the Greek accounts.
    Jones and his followers mistook Prassi as Prachya which in Sanskrit means the Eastern country. Jones took the statement in the Greek accounts that “Palibothra stood at the junction of Ganges and Erannoboas” and believed that Erannoboas was Hiranyabahu which was also called Sone. River Sone no doubt was also known as Hiranyabahu.10
    The conclusion of Jones thus appears correct and justifiable but for another statement of Megasthenes wherein he describes Erannoboas and Sone as different rivers. Megasthenes has stated, “Nineteen rivers are said to flow into it (Ganges), of which … the Condochates, Erannoboas, Coseagus and Sonus are navigable”.11
    Thus with Megasthenes himself having described Erannoboas and Sone as different rivers Jones’ attempt at identifying Erannoboas with river Sone to locate Palibothra near latter in Eastern India proves untenable. Megasthenes’ Palibothra was not in Eastern India. His identification of the city of Palibothra, the country of Prassi and the river Erannoboas thus proves the best examples of the hasty conclusions he slap-dashed to without checks and counterchecks of the data.
    Jones Calls Megasthenes ignorant and inattentive. But it could hardly be believed that a person of such a high office as that of an ambassador was ignorant and inattentive. Megasthenes was well familiar with the places he visited in India. According to him “The Indus skirts the frontiers of Prassi”.12
    It may be noticed that Mahabharata refers to the country of the Sindhu Pulindakas along with Chedi, Vatsa, Karusha and Bhoja. (chedivatsa karushaschabhoja sindhupulindaka) which situated in the Madhyadesa. Megasthenes might have meant this Sindhu-Pulinda of Madhyadesa which in later times was called Kali Sindh. It is interesting to note that Mac Crindle’s English translation of Schwanbeck’s Indica shows one Sindhu river to the south of Parnasha and Chambal which join Yamuna. The Prassi of Megasthenes must have situated near the Sindhu Pulindaka country and around this Sindhu river. (Again it may at least be noticed that there was no river called Sindhu near Patna or Pataliputra. The Sindhu and its tributaries flow or end up in the North-western India itself. Besides archaeology has it that many rivers of the north-western India changed their course, and some of them even submerged or dried up.
    According to the archaeological excavations conducted by the Indian and Pakistani archaeologists and geologists River Yamuna and some of the present tributaries of the River Indus flowed into River Saraswati of which some remaining channels are still called Saraswati, Sarsuti etc. Taking these archaeological, geological and other findings which have come up so far we may believe that there might have been a certain minor river which the people of Kali-Sindh called Sindhu. Though unknown to other parts of India and also incomparably insignificant before the then mighty Sindhu or Indus River, Megasthenes who stayed in Palibothra for a good number of days must have noticed this minor river that might have skirted the frontiers of Parssi.)
    According to Classical accounts the river Jomanes flows through the Palibothri into the Ganges between the towns of Methora (Mathura) and Carisobaras (not Kalisarovar as taken by European Indologists but Karushasarovara).13 Thus as previously said Karusha was also located in Madhyadesa, quiet near to Sindhu Pulinda, i.e., between Sindhu Pulinda and Prayaga. Taking the Classical accounts in corroboration with the study of the geography of the Madhyadesa it could be concluded that Palibothra, the Prassi capital was near Mathura, Karushasarovara and Sindhu Pulinda or Kali Sindh. Palibothra was not Pataliputra as William Jones mistook.
    Then, was there an ancient kingdom in the Madhyadesa that agrees with the Megasthenes’ description of Palibothra? The question brings us to the country of Prabhadraka, Prabhadra or Paribhadra which reigned in Madhyadesa from the very Mahabharata times. Certainly it must be the Palibothra of Megasthenes where he is said to have stayed as an ambassador. The Mahabharata, Parasara’s Jyotisha-Samhita, Varahamihira’s Brihatsamhita and Puranas equally refer to the kingdom of Prabhadrakas. As the later literary works than the Mahabharata make mention of the Paribhadrakas it could well be assumed that they continued to rule and were known to the writers of the Gupta period. They also allude to the king called Chandraketu as the head of the Prabhadraka Kshatriyas. But it is yet to be ascertained whether he was the Sandrokottas of the Greek accounts. The Bhadraka kingdom or Paribhadra and its people, the Paribhadrakas or Palibhadrakas must be the Palibothra and, the Palibothris of Megasthenes’ accounts.
    Thus while studying the Megasthenes’ accounts one could come up with the following conclusions. Yamuna was flowing through Prabhadra or Palibhadra, the capital of the Prassi kingdom which was 200 miles from Prayaga on the way to Mathura. Paribhadra or Palibhadra was near Sindhu-Pulinda or Kali Sindh. The Karushasarovara was between Sindhu-Pulinda and Prayaga. Palibothra could thus be Paribhadra rather than Pataliputra.

    Hence the need to neglect a non- existing datum like Indica and restructure the chronology of ancient India depending on original and authentic sources

    Foot Notes

    1. Pliny, II, 22; Pandit Bhagavadatta, Bharatavarsha ka brihat itihas, quoted by Shriram Sathe, Dates of the Buddha, Hyderabad, 1987, p. 16.
    2. R. C. Majumdar, Classical Accounts, Calcutta, 1960, p. 130.
    3. Ibid.
    4. Ibid. pp. 4, 12.
    5. V. A. Smith, Early History of India, Oxford, 1924, p. 124.
    6. Mac Crindle, Ancient India as described by Megasthanese and Arrian, Calcutta, 1926)
    7. Diodorus Selucos, General Description of India, Book II, 39. Also see Pandit
    Bhagavadatta, Bharatavarsha ka brihat itihas, quoted by Shriram Sathe, Dates of the
    Buddha, Hyderabad, 1987, p. 16.
    8. Shriram Sathe, Op. Cit, p. 16.
    9. R. C. Majumdar, op. cit, pp. XX-XXIV; Also see appendix – I
    10. sono hiranyabahu syat, Amarakosa. 1-10-33.
    11. Pliny, VI. 22, John Bostock and T. R. Riley (trans.), The Natural History of Pliny,
    London, 1890; R. C. Majumdar, op. cit, p. 341.
    12. Frag. LVI. Pliny. 22, Quoted in Shriram Sathe, op. cit. p. 104.
    13. Shriram Sathe, Op. Cit, p. 16.

  5. akhileshwar kr. shrivastva

    sir, comment on the subject is not bad but we should concentrate our other historical mention as in Balmiki Ramayana where detailed journey of Ram and Lakshman with vishwamitra Muni where they came near confluence of river sone and Ganges naming a number of nearby villages and they cross the river Ganges reaching Vishala (present Vaishali) and after stay reached Janakpur.secondly second wife of king dasarath Sumitra was of magadh empire another king Dilip’s wife Sudakchhina was also from magadh this has well been confirmed by the Kalisasa Magadha Empire is well mentioned in Purana and Mahabharata including Vedas as place of Pinda Dan.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s