CORRESPONDENCE, &c.
MARCH, 1873.]
gulated as near as may be after Muslim fashion; and let the legal officers of such courts, from the highest to the lowest, be invested with all the sanc tion that our own Indian Government, the only one
on Muslim, no less than on non-Muslim, principles competent to do so within Indian limits, can give. A Kazi-el-Kuzăt in each Presidency, with a Sheykh Islam at Calcutta, nominated by the Government, salaried by Government, removable by Government —all conditions, be it observed, of the Sheykh Islam and of every Kadi in the Ottoman Empire itself— endowed with the appropriate patronage for sub ordinate appointments, but requiring for the valid ity of each and every nomination our own con firinatory sign and seal ; good Muhammadan law colleges and schools, conducted under our super vision, and maintained on our responsibility – these are what would give us a hold over the most important, because the most dangerous, element in our Indian Empire, such as nothing else could give : a hold that the disaffection, did it ever occur, of others from within, or the assaults of rival powers, not least of “infidel ones,’ from north or elsewhere without, would only strengthen.
93
“Let us be wise and understand this, and not
incur the reproach of those, rulers too in their day, who ‘could not discern the signs of the times.' We can no more check or retard the Mu hammadan ‘revival' in India than we can hinder
the tide from swelling in the English Channel when it has risen in the Atlantic.
The “Revival' is a
world-movement, an epochal phenomenon; it derives from the larger order of causes, before which the lesser laws of race and locality are swept away or absorbed into unity. But we can turn it to our own advantage; we can make the jaws of this young-old lion bring forth for us honey and the honey-comb. And this we can do without in the least compromising our own Christian character as a Government or as a nation. The measures required at our hands in our Indian heritage are simply mercy, justice, and judgment ; and these belong to no special race or creed ; they are the property of all, Christian and Muslim alike—of West as of East, of England as of Mecca.”
No finer contribution has recently been made on a question of vital importance to the government and destinies of India.-A. H. B.
CORRESPONDENCE AND MISCELLANEA. ON INDIAN DATES.
To the Editor of the Indian Antiquary. SIR,--So much of our knowledge of the mediaeval
history of India depends on the correct decypher ment of inscriptions on rocks and stones or copper
plates, that it is of the utmost importance, not only that their meaning, but more especially their dates,
should be tested by every available means. The inscriptions, it must be confessed, have hitherto proved of very little use in settling our chronology, or affording dates for buildings; and this state of things must continue until orientalists can agree among themselves as to the eras from which they are dated. So long, for instance, as Mr. Thomas is of opinion that the Sah kings date their coins and inscriptions from the era of the Seleucidae (311 B.C.); Mr. Justice Newton from that of Nahapāna, practically Vikramāditya, which is a favourite with others (56 B.C.); and Dr. Bhàu Dāji from the Saka era (78 A.D.)—we have some 400 years
among which to choose for the date of the famous repairs of the Palesini bridge. In like manner, till it is agreed whether the Guptas began to reign 318 A. D. or were then exterminated—and those
who have treated this subject are about equally divided on this point—we have at least a couple of centuries to veer and haul upon for all the dates of this period ; and, except Lassen, I know of no distinguished orientalist who has fairly looked on both sides of the Ballabhi difficulty, and assigned
to its kings what I believe to be their true date— though, in doing this, he differs to the extent of 300 and 400 years from Wathen, Dowson, and almost every other recent writer on these subjects.”. All this is bad enough, and renders inscriptions per se nearly useless for the purpose of fixing the dates of buildings or events; but it would be a fear ful aggravation of the case, if, besides the difficul ties attaching to the initial date, it should turn out that, either from negligence or design, the dates in the inscriptions were so falsified that they could not be depended upon. I have recently been led to suspect that this is the case in more instances than one ; and it seems so important that it should be ascertained whether this is so or not, that I request you will allow me an opportunity of laying the case before your readers. The first case I wish to refer to, is the well-known copper-plate grant of Pulakesi I. of the Chālukya dynasty, dated in 411 Saka, or 489 A.D. This was first brought to the notice of the learned by Sir Walter Elliot, in the 4th volume of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, p. 7, et seqq.; but even at that early date he saw the difficulty of reconciling this date with the circumstances narrated in the inscription, and there fore proposed (page 12) to substitute Saka 610 for Saka 411.
When I wrote on the subject in 1869 (J. R. A. S., new series, volume IV. p. 92), this appeared to me too violent a correction, and I suggested substituting
- * Conf. Ind. Ant, vol. I. p. 61,–ED.