1888.] 
H. Beveridge —The Era of Lachhman Sen. 
5 
putting it and Abu-l-Fazl’s statement together, we may take it that 
Lachhman the father of Lakhmania ruled Bengal. 
Dr. Mitra, in the paper already quoted, describes Abu-1-Fazl as saying 
that Lachhman ascended the throne in 1116 and reigned eight years. 
But I have not been able to find either of these statements in Abu-1-Fazl. 
Apparently the Lachhman to whom Dr. Mitra refers is the Laklian Sen 
who succeeded Balal Sen. But Abu-1-Fazl makes him reign only seven 
years. I submit too that clearly this Lakhan Sen or Lachhman Sen 
has nothing to do with the era we are considering. He succeeded Balal 
Sen the builder of the Fort of Gaur, and was in his turn succeeded by 
Madhava Sen who, according to Abu-1-Fazl, reigned ten years. Then 
came Kesava Sen who reigned fifteen years, then Suda Sen (no doubt 
the Sura Sen of the Rajavali, quoted by Dr. Mitra at p. 134 of his paper) 
who reigned eighteen years, and finally Nojah who reigned three years. 
Thus we have from Lachhman Sen or Lakhan Sen, the son of Balal, to 
Lakhmania, the son of Lachhman, a period of forty-six years. Four 
princes too intervened, so that Lakhmania can hardly have been the 
grandson of Lakhan the son of Balal. As Lakhmania reigned eighty 
years, his accession must date from 1114 or 1119, according as we take 
1194 or 1199 as the date of the capture of Nadiya. If then the Lakh¬ 
mania era took its rise with Lakhan Sen, the son of Balal, its first year 
would be in 1068 or 1073 A. D., if we count from his death, and in 1061 
or 1066, if we count from the beginning of his reign. Such dates, how¬ 
ever, would be contrary to all the authorities. I venture, therefore, to 
think that the view of Dr. Mitra and of General Cunningham that the 
Lachhman Sen who gave his name to the era was the son of Balal 
Sen, is one which cannot be sustained. 
In connection with this part of my subject I wish to caution my 
readers against accepting the lists of kings of Bengal given in Gladwin’s 
translation as a correct rendering of the lists of Abu-l-Fazl. A reference 
to the original will show that Gladwin’s translation is not quite ac¬ 
curate. 
The last Hindu king of Bengal mentioned in Abu-l-FazTs list, A'in 
p, 413 Bibliotheca Indica edition, is Baja Nojah who ruled three years. 
This is the Raja Noe or Noujah of Gladwin, for he has both spellings, and 
the Raja Bhoja of Lassen. Abu-l-Fazl says that when Raja Nojah died, 
the kingdom passed to Lakhmania the son of Rai Lachhman. He also says 
that Lakhmania ruled at Nadiya and was expelled by Bakhtiyar Khilji 
(A'in, p. 414). 
In my humble opinion this Lakhmania is the Lachhman Sen of the 
Akbarnama, and the prince who gave his name to the Lachhman era. 
The point is, I submit, a most interesting one ; for it concerns the 
