I have deep interest in ancient Indian history and believe that there are serious problems with the currently accepted version of Indian history. Based on 15 years of extensive research involving the analysis of source materials and going through numerous records of British era searching for clues that don't fit the currently accepted chronology, I have written a trilogy on the reconstruction of Indian history: "India before Alexander: A New Chronology", "India after Alexander: The Age of Vikramadityas" and "India after Vikramaditya: The Melting Pot".
The idea to write these books came about 15 years ago in 2001 when I came across a verse by Varahamihira, which has two interpretations. Official interpretation says that it defines the time of Yudhisthira counting from the Shaka era, while the native interpretation insists that it defines a Shaka era starting in 550 BCE counting from the date of Yudhisthira. The existence of this earlier Shaka era is denied by official historians. This is a difference of 628 years and I asked myself whether Varahamihira has made any astronomical observation that would settle this debate one way or other. This brought me to the observation by Varahamihira about precession of the equinoxes. This is also well known, but strangely the date of this observation is not fixed from actual star positions. It is just assumed that this observation was made in 505 CE. According to my calculations, the date of Varahamihira's observation is close to 170 BCE. This made me think that it was possible for Varahamihira to be one of the gems in the court of Vikramaditya and that there could be a historical Vikramaditya who died in 57 BCE and in whose honour the Vikrama era is instituted. Little more research and I formed the idea that Yashodharma Vishnuvardhana could be the real historical Vikramaditya. He is now placed in sixth century, which is based on the assumption of the equivalency of Malava era and Vikrama era. There is no literary or inscriptional evidence to my knowledge that makes such an equation. Trying to find the starting point of Malava era brought me to the mother of all problems, the identification of Devanampriya Priyadarshi with Ashoka Maurya. Most of pre-Islamic chronology is based on two sheet anchors - the identification of Sandrokottos with Chandragupta Maurya and the identification of Devanampriya Priyadarshi with Ashoka Maurya. For Sandrokottos we have another candidate which fits better, Chandragupta I of Imperial Gupta dynasty, but so far since the identification of Devanampriya Priyadarshi with Ashoka Maurya by Princep in 1838, no one has found an alternative identification of Devanampriya Priyadarshi consistent with the identification of Sandrokottos with Chadragupta I. Devanampriya Priyadarshi mentions five Greek kings in his 13th Rock edict and it fixes the date of writing of these inscriptions to a precision of two years. So basically most of Indian chronology is based on the single set of evidence identifying Devanampriya Priyadarshi with Ashoka Maurya. The most important discovery that I claim in my books is the never before proposed identification of Devanampriya Priyadarshi with Kumaragupta I, the great grandson of Chandragupta I of Imperial Gupta dynasty. This has profound implication for the identification of the five Greek kings mentioned by Devanampriya Priyadarshi. As Ashoka Maurya was grandson of Chandragupta Maurya, Antiyoka of inscriptions must be identified as Antiochus II, but he was involved in continuous warfare throughout his reign and connection with India was totally cut during his time. As Kumaragupta I was great grandson of Chandragupta I, I have identified Antiyoka of inscriptions as Antiochus III, and it is known that he made a visit to India. Therefore Antiochus III has a far better claim of being Antiyoka, which is totally inconsistent with Devanampriya Priyadarshi being Ashoka Maurya.
In "India after Alexander: The Age of Vikramadityas", the chronological reconstruction of the Indian history is continued, starting from the invasion of India by Alexander. A proper understanding of the various eras used in ancient India is developed, and for the first time the correct starting dates of the Nanda Era, the Mālava Era, the Imperial Gupta Era, and the Śūdraka Era are proposed. For the first time king Śūdraka is identified with Skandagupta Vikramaditya. The focus of the book then shifts to establishing the historicity of Emperor Vikramāditya. The scientific meaning behind the legend of Vikramāditya is revealed, and different stories of the historical Vikramādityas are attributed to the respective Vikramādityas -- Samudragupta, Chandragupta II, Skandagupta, and Yaśodharmā. It is then proposed that the Vikrama Era was instituted to commemorate the death of Emperor Yaśodharmā Vishṇuvardhana Vikramāditya in 57 BCE.
In "India after Vikramaditya: The Melting Pot", the history of Persia is analyzed for the chronological reconstruction of Indian history with startling findings. Kushāṇa king Vasudeva II is identified with King Basdeo, whose daughter was married to the Persian king, Bahram V. The chronology of the Vallabhī kings is calculated by counting their dates from the Shaka Era instead of the Vallabhī Era. The new chronology validates the numerous Rajput genealogies describing the celebrated Bappa Rawal as a descendant of Śilāditya VII in the eighth generation. Current historians place Śilāditya VII chronologically after Bappa Rawal. Documentary evidence is presented about the existence of three inscriptions of Gurjaras dated in the Shaka era. These inscriptions have been declared forgery without any good reason and are not even listed in the Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum. The chronology of the Gurjara kings is fixed by counting their dates from the Shaka Era instead of the Kalachuri-Chedi Era. For the first time, the histories of Persia, Vallabhī, the Gurjaras, the Later Guptas, the Pushyabhūtis, the Maukharis, the Hūṇas and the Turks are critically analyzed to reconstruct the epic Battle of Korūr, which is currently deleted from the pages of history.