भारतीय इतिहास के ६ स्वर्णिम पृष्ठ (वीर सावरकर - विदेशी आक्रान्ताओं पर विजय गाथा)

Samvat have yet been found, this myth about the aforesaid era had not so far attained the veracity of a historical event. 224. If, however, any coins or rock inscriptions or other evidence were to come forth any time and if anybody were to propound a new theory about the origin of this Vikram Samvat, we shall be glad to accept it. 225. What is said about the Vikram Samvat can very well be said about the Shalivahan (Salivahan) Saka. The advocates of the first opinion about this era say that when the first King of the Kushans in India, Wima Kadphises [Wemo (Ooemo) in his Greek coin legends and Yenkao-ching of the Chinese historians—of Smith OHI p. 147], whom our people considered no other than a Saka, ascended the throne (of his father) in 78 A.D., it was he who started this ‘Saka’ era. But another class of historians hold that it was not Wima Kadphises, who ascended the throne in 78 A.D. but it was his successor Kanishka who did that, and that it was that Emperor Kanishka who started the Saka era in order to perpetuate the memory of his accession to the throne. Later on, when the Salihavan emperors of Paithan conquered the Sakas, they turned the Saka era into the Salivahan Saka to signalize their victory. Besides these two, there is a third opinion held by some historians that the Salivahan Saka is in no way connected with that of Kanishka or any other Kushan King. They maintain that about 78 A.D., King Hal, who wrote the Gatha Saptasati, himself won a glorious victory over a Saka Satrap in Gujarath or Sourashtra, and to perpetuate this monumental success over these Sakas, he started the Salivahan Saka. 226-229. Since there is no need to discuss this topic here at any great length, it will be quite enough to mention two or three important points from whatever little is written here about the Saka era. They are: (a) Whatever opinion about the Saka and Vikram eras is accepted, it is agreed beyond doubt that both the eras signify the decisive victories the Indians won over the Saka-Kushan. (b) In our count of time, Samvat is a more acceptable term than Saka—We have all along been using right from the Vedic times, Samvatsar and Samvat for the measurement of time. The word ‘Saka’ has not been generally used in that sense. It is quite clear, therefore, that the word must be a corruption of the name of foreign aggressors like the Sakas and the Kushans. ‘Shalivahan (Salivahan) Saka’ is not a pure name of Sanskrit extraction as Vikram Samvat is. So the name ‘Saka’ of our Mlenchcha enemies should be eliminated and only ‘Salivahan Samvat’ should be used at the time of the