Varahamihira in Brihatsamhita writes,
And Kalhana builds upon this.
Going by the traditional Saka Era starting in 78 AD, we are seeing a difference of around 700 years between the current Saka Era and the Saka era mentioned by Varahamihira. Saka Era represents the victory of Indians over Western Kshatraps or in simpler terms, Western invaders. The question, then is this. Were there two different Saka Eras and were confused by the similarity of name? Were there even more, because of which there is a big mess up by the interpreters? Varahamihira wrote he is 427 years after Saka Era. Which Saka Era? We don’t have an answer.
If there is another Saka Era which Varahamihira is referring to, do we have any case of some westerner invading India in the period 600-800 BC? We have two – Semiramis(824-811) and Cyrus(559-530). KR Malkani, in his Sindh Story, writes,
Obviously Alexander’s Indian trip was about as “successful” as Napoleon’s invasion of Russia. He, however, consoled himself with the thought that Queen Semiramis of Assyria, who had invaded Sindh, had been able to get back with only 20 men — and Cyrus of Iran, with only seven.”
The numbers and even the names, I am not sure, but the reality is that there should be some historic basis for what is being said – there were two major invasions which entered India proper before being beaten down. Incidentally, we have accounts of a Stabrobates, the word which can also be read as Chandragupta, an Indian king who defeated Semiramis. Well, this is relegated to history, but if it is true?
And if these 800 years are added to Indian history, what is going to happen to the redating of Indian history? How is it going to impact our perspective of Indian and world History? And ironically, it’s the same time frame between Sandrocyptus the Maurya Bindusara and Sandrocyptus the Gupta Samudragupta. But, the most surprising thing here is, the ease with which you can reinterpret the complete story using a single sloka.