The Pandyan Kingdom from the Earliest Times to the Sixteenth Century c11.10

c11.10

¹ See K. G. Sankara in *I. A.*, vol. li, p. 215. Mr. L. D. Swamikkannu Pillai was surely wrong if he assumed that oral evidence was in question here. I am unable to accept Mr. Krishna Sastri's translation of நாட்டால் into ‘(by a reference to) the district (assembly)’. நாடு does mean ‘district’ as I have pointed out above and this explanation of நாட்டால் as the instrumental of நாடு will be plausible if we had clear proof otherwise, which we do not have, of the existence, at this period of such district assemblies. But this is not the only difficulty. If it was a reference to the district assembly, that ought to have been found easier to make soon after the Pāndya restoration under Kadungōn than so many generations after him; and we do not say why the petition was not made earlier. Again the proof must have been such that (1) it was missed for long; (2) it was capable of production before the king at a moment's notice; and (3) it must have been so conclusive as evidence that the king was ready to accept it on the spot without any further enquiry. The phrases in the text of the grant clearly imply all this. And these conditions are best satisfied by a written document like a copper plate grant--what shall we not pay to get this plate if that were possible! I therefore propose to follow Mr. K. G. Sankara and make நாட்டால் the instrumental of நாட்டு der. from நாடு = fix, establish,