The Pandyan Kingdom from the Earliest Times to the Sixteenth Century c21.10

c21.10

Lastly, Mr. Sastri says: ‘The fact that Parānkuśa Arikēsari’s grandson is called Rājasimha in the Śinnamanūr plates suggests the possibility of Arikēsari himself being also called Rājasimha, which title we actually find for the first time given to Tērmāran (No. 6) in the Vēḷvikkuḍi plates’. It is clearly simpler to say that the two Rājasimhas of the Śinnamanūr and Vēḷvikkuḍi grants are identical as well as the two Arikēsaris. Moreover, it is very risky to infer the titles of a king from those of his successors as is done by Mr. Sastri. Thus, none of the considerations brought forward by Mr. Sastri can be accepted as establishing Mr. Venkayya’s system of genealogy, and the reis no reason to modify the conclusions stated by me at p. 41. It may be added that on the other system, we know nothing of Nos. (8) and (9) (of Mr. Sastri’s genealogical table), the so-called Rājasimha II and Varaguṇa I respectively, as neither the Vēḷvikkuḍi nor the Śinnamanūr plates give an account of their reigns.