The Pandyan Kingdom from the Earliest Times to the Sixteenth Century c11.7
The Pāṇḍyan Kingdom from the Earliest Times to the Sixteenth Century c11.7
- Language
- English
c11.7.1
The kings as a rule seem to have been very generous patrons of learning and the arts. The few long epigraphs of this age that have come down to us furnish, by their poetic merit, clear proof of the high state of literary culture in the Sanskrit and Tamil languages in the Pāndya country and are evidently compositions of court poets who were regularly maintained by the kings. The names of some of these composers of *praśastis* have been preserved in the records. These compositions which are recorded in the copper plates which register the more important royal grants are, as we have seen, the most important source for the general history of the rulers of this age; but they also furnish information on several minor matters of considerable interest to the student of social life. We learn very casually from the Madras Museum plates that there was a colony of Brahmins from Magadha; and that they had a separate *grāmam* set apart for them by name Śabdāli and this may be accepted as some evidence that the south of India was in those days not isolated from the north as is sometimes thought. We are able to trace the prevalence of two subordinate divisions adapted evidently to local administrative purposes. One of them is referred to as *nāḍu* or *kūrram* and the Sanskrit part of the Sinnamanūr grant even applies the term *rāṣṭra* to the same division.
c11.7.2
The *nāḍu* seems to have been the connecting link between the kingdom as a whole and the smallest unit of local administration which is referred to usually as *grāmam*. The names of *grāmams* usually end in *mangalam*, *kuḍi* and *ūr* and occasionally in *vayal*. The forms observed on the occasions when kings made gifts of whole villages are very interesting and deserve some notice. The gift is always a *dānam* in the religious sense and is expressed usually by the phrase நீரோட்டடிக்கொடுத்தான், which the Sinnamanūr plates render into *ambupūrvam*. The boundary of the village to be given away was generally fixed by following the beat of a female elephant that was let loose for the purpose as is indicated by ‘மன்னவனது பணியால் வடிவமையப் பிடிசூழ்ந்தான்’ of the Madras Museum grant and *karēṇu sañcāra vibakta sīmā* of the Sinnamanūr grant; and the boundary was marked by stones and live fences of *kaḷḷi* (எல்லை யகத்துக் கல்லுங் கள்ளியும் நாட்டி) and also clearly recorded in writing. The grant was invariably engraved on copper plates and a high officer of state was entrusted with the task of drawing up and recording the *āṇatti* or royal order in proper form. It is curious that the scribes are generally the *Perumbaṇaikkārans* of the kings making the grant.¹ All the gifts, when they did not go to temples, seem to have been in favour of Brahmaṇas and the lands so granted to Brahmaṇas had a recognized legal status *brahmadēyam*.
c11.7.3
This status is expressed in set phrases of which the Madras Museum grant is a good example: ‘பிரம்ம தேயமாகக் காராண்மையும் மீயாட்சியும் உள்ளடங்க ஸர்வபரிஹாரமாக நீரோட்டடிக் குடுக்கப்பட்டது’. *Kārāṇmai* and *Miyātci* are technical terms as can be seen from the Sanskrit part of the Sinnamanūr plates which keeps the terms as such in the phrase ‘*Kārāṇmai mīyātci yutam samastam*’. We have at present no means of fixing the exact meanings of these terms. But as *Kāraṇmai* seems etymologically connected with cultivation and *Miyātci* likewise with supervision and control, we may not be far wrong if we take the terms to indicate the rights of tenancy and landlordship respectively.¹ The clear renunciation of all the rights of the donor contained in the phrase *sarvaparihāramaka* must also be noticed. When the gift has been completed the king generally requests his successors a d every one that comes after him to respect his *dāna* and this request is reinforced in the records by suitable quotations from the sacred laws (*Smṛti*) of the land. One circumstance recorded in the Vēḷvikkuḍi grant is of considerable importance and it is unfortunate that the meaning of the text here should not be clearer than it is. The conditions under which this grant was made are very peculiar. The donee claims that Vēḷvikkuḍi was granted to his ancestors by an ancient Pāṇḍya king Kuḍumi and that this gift was cancelled by the Kaḷabhra interregnum and that this ought to be restored to him.
c11.7.4
It is strange that this man should have waited for seven generations after the Pāṇḍyan restoration to reclaim the grant and at that late day should start by quarrelling with the king over the matter (*ākrōdhikka*). What followed must be related in the words of the grant ‘என்று நின்றவன் விஞ்ஞாப் பியஞ்செய்ய நன்றுநன்றென்று முறுவலித்து நாட்டானின் பழமையாதல் காட்டிநீ கொள்கவென்ன, நாட்டாற்றன் பழமையாதல் காட்டினானங்கப் பொழுதேய்.’ Evidently the king does not seem to have at first taken the petitioner seriously; he laughed at his impudence and perhaps thought it an easy way of dismissing the petition by demanding a proof (நாட்டு) of the original gift and of the antiquity of the petitioner's rights; but strangely enough, the proof was produced then and there, and the king forthwith renewed the gift. The difficulty lies in our inability to understand நாட்டு in the passage cited above.¹ But most probably it was only a general term for satisfactory evidence. And the evidence that was produced in this case was most likely a written document which had just been found by the petitioner on the strength of which he made bold to press his suit in the manner indicated.