1896.] N.N. Vasu—Chronology of the Séna Kings of Bengal. 27 
According to the Ain-i-Akbari! Laksmana reigned only seven 
years; but this cannot be accepted as correct. Again, according to 
Minhaj, ‘He reigned for a period of eighty years.’ On this 
Mr. Beveridge writes : — 
‘If then Laksmana began to reign in 1119 A.D., and reigned eighty 
years, this would bring the termination of his Government to 1199 A.D., 
which is a tolerably close approximation to the dates of the capture of 
Nadiya, given by Major Raverty and Sir Alexander Cunningham. If we 
take Mr. Blochmann’s date for that event, viz., 1198 or 1199, there is an 
almost coincidence between Abu-l-fazl’s date of 1119, for the commencement 
of Lakgsmana-séna’s reign, and the statement inthe Tabaqat of Minhaju-d-din 
that Laksmana reigned eighty years.’ 
I have shown above that Mithila was conquered by Ballala-séna, 
and that in order to signalise the birth of Lakgsmana a new era was 
inaugurated in that kingdom. I have also stated that Ballala-séna was 
living in the year 1169. Taking these facts into consideration, neither 
a reign of 7 years mentioned in the Ain-i-Akbari nor one of 80 years, 
put forward by Minhaj can be attributed to Laksmana-séna. After 
Ballala-séna Lakgsmana-séna reigned from 1170 to 1198, 7.e., 27 or 28 
years in all. It is very likely that Abia-l-fazl by mistake put 
down 7 in place of 27. It is probable that Minhaj while travelling 
from Delhi on his way to Lakhnauti, through Mithila, heard that 
Bengal was conquered in the 80th L.S. and jumped to the conclusion 
that Laksmana must have reigned for 80 years. 
Minhaj relates :— 
‘When he (Mahammad-i-Bakhtiar) subdued Bihar, his fame had reach- 
ed the hearing of Rai-Laksmaniah, and the different parts of his dominion 
likewise. A number of astrologers, wise men and counsellors of his king- 
dom presented themselves before the Rai and represented, saying: ‘In our 
books of the ancient Brahmans, they have foretold that this country will 
fall into the hands of the Turks and the time of its fulfilment has drawn 
near. The Turks have subjugated Bihar, and next year they will surely 
come into this country. It is expedient for us that the Rai should consent 
so that he, along with the whole people should be removed from the country 
in order that we may be saved from the molestation of the Turks’ $ 
‘When they became assured of these peculiarities, most of the Brahmans and 
inhabitants of that place left, and retired into the province of Sankanat, 
the citiesand towns of Bang, and towards Kamrud; but to begin to 
abandon his country was not agreeable to Rai Laksmaniah.’4 
It appears from a statement made by Minhaj that before Muham- 
mad-i-Bakhtiar attacked Nadiya, several Pandits and other residents 
or 
or 
(=>) 
. 
587. 
1 Jarrett, Ain-i-Akbari, Vol. II. p. 146. 3 Raverty, Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, p. 
2J. A. 8. B. 1888, Pt. I. p. 3. 4 Raverty, Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, p. 
