1878 .] 
and the Sena Rajas of Bengal. 
399 
happened, yet remains undetermined. When writing my paper on the 
Sena Rajas I accepted as a fact the opinion then prevalent, that this 
happened in 1203 A. D. This, however, has since been questioned. The 
late Mr. Blochmann, whose researches into the dark points in the Muham¬ 
madan history of India were unrivalled, came to the conclusion, that the 
transfer must have taken place four years earlier, or between 1198 and 
1199, whereas Major Raverty, in his translation of Albiruni, removed it 
590 H. = 1194 A. D., # while Mr. Thomas placed it at 599 H. = 1204 
A. D. Even the latest of these dates would seem to be a little too early, 
if we should take the statement of the author of the SaduTcti-Jcarnamrita, 
who completed his work in 1205, when he described himself as a district 
Commissioner in the service of Lakshmaneya, to mean that his master was 
then reigning at Nuddea. He could not have held that position in 1205, 
if the kingdom had passed away to the Muhammadans five years before. 
Rut it was possible for him to describe his official rank in his work, even 
after he had lost it, or to refer to the king when he reigned at Sonargaon 
after his retirement from Nuddea ; for it is now well-known that he and his 
descendants lived at the latter place for several years after his overthrow 
by Bukhtiar Khiliji.fi Hr. Wise believes that there must have been a 
Ballala Sena reigning in Vikrampur or Sonargaon after Lakshmaniya, and 
Susena and Sura Sena, whose names I once took to be aliases of Laksh- 
maniya, were probably those of other successors. On this point, however, 
there is no reliable information at hand ; and as the question of date is 
related to Muhammadan history, I shall leave it unnoticed for the present. 
Turning to the ancestors of Lakshmana Sena, the first name I have to 
deal with is that of Ballala. The close of his reign of course took place in 
the year of the commencement of the reign of his son. But when it com¬ 
menced, remains uncertain. The Ain i Akbari makes it begin at 1066, which 
would give it a duration of 41 years. The authority of Abul Eazl, how¬ 
ever, is not great in such matters ; and, as I have rejected it in the case 
of the Palas, I cannot consistently accept it in the present instance. This 
much, however, may be unhesitatingly stated, that Ballala’s reign was a 
long and prosperous one. He is the best known to this day of all the Sena 
Rajas, and the system of nobility or Kulinism which he organized, exists 
to this day in full force. None but a powerful sovereign, reigning with 
considerable eclat for a prolonged period, could have carried out the sys¬ 
tem so thoroughly as he did; and a reign of 41 years is after all not 
so improbable as absolutely to necessitate its rejection. 
Of the predecessors of Ballala we have lapidary proofs of four names, 
Vijaya Sena, Hemanta Sena, Samanta Sena, and Vira Sena, extending, at an 
average of 18 years, to 994 A. D., or at 20 years, which I have reluctantly 
* Ante XLIV, p. 277. t Ante XLIII, p. 83. 
