Laksamanasenas Samvat
By Dineshchandra Sircar
Summary
The article investigates the origin and significance of the Lakṣmaṇa Samvat, a little-known era used in a handful of inscriptions from north Bihar. Many historians have associated this era with the Sena king Lakṣmaṇasena, who ruled in Bengal and patronised Sanskrit literature. According to one theory, the era begins in 1119–1120 CE to commemorate Lakṣmaṇasena’s accession or another significant event. However, the article notes that inscriptions dated in Lakṣmaṇa Samvat do not come from Bengal but from Buddhist and Brahmanical sites in north Bihar, such as Bodh-Gaya. The earliest dated inscription mentions year 51 and belongs to a king named Asokachalla. The article examines the use of the term atītarājye (“after the reign”) prefixed to the era year in these inscriptions. Rakhal Das Bandopadhyaya suggested that this prefix denotes that the era counts the years elapsed since Lakṣmaṇasena’s rule, implying that the epoch marks his accession. Opponents, such as R. C. Majumdar, argue that the era may instead count the years since the overthrow or destruction of Lakṣmaṇasena’s kingdom by the Turkish general Bakhtiyar Khalji in the early 13th century, because the era appears in regions outside Sena political control and no Sena charters use it. The article analyses the geographic distribution, the absence of early dates and the absence of the era in authentic Sena documents to question the association with Lakṣmaṇasena. It also considers alternative explanations, such as the possibility that the era commemorates the foundation of a local dynasty in Bihar or a religious event. The conclusion is that the origin of the Lakṣmaṇa Samvat remains uncertain and that evidence linking it to the Sena dynasty is inconclusive.
Conclusion
The article shows that while the Lakṣmaṇa Samvat is often attributed to the Bengal king Lakṣmaṇasena, the available evidence is weak. The inscriptions using this era are from north Bihar and not from the Sena heartland, and scholars disagree whether the era begins with the king’s accession or his downfall. As a result, the origin of the Lakṣmaṇa era remains unresolved, reminding historians to base chronological reconstructions on firm epigraphic evidence rather than assumptions.