The Pandyan Kingdom from the Earliest Times to the Sixteenth Century c8.16

c8.16

¹ See A.R.E., 1908, pp. 50 and 55 and H. K. Sastri in E.I., vol. xvii, p. 293. Mr. Venkayya said, ‘ The characters of the Sanskrit portion (of the Veḷvikkuḍi grant) are older than those of the Madras Museum plates of Jaṭilavarman and of the two Śinnamanūr ones.’ Again, ‘ the numerals which are marked in the Veḷvikkuḍi grant are very old, while those of the Jaṭilavarman plates bear a close resemblance to the corresponding symbols used in the larger Śinnamanūr plates.’ Mr. Krishna Sastri in editing the Veḷvikkuḍi grant enumerates the differences in the Grantha (Sanskrit) portions of the two sets of plates; but a careful study of them does not seem to justify his conclusion that the Tamil portion in both the grants formed the original ‘grants proper in both’ cases, and ‘the insertion of the Grantha portion in the Veḷvikkuḍi grant might have been somewhat earlier than that in the Madras Museum plates.’ The only proof for this statement that is furnished by Mr. Sastri is in ‘the remark that the Sanskrit portion (of the Veḷvikkuḍi grant), by its brief notice and the very meagre historical material which it supplies in the form of a general introduction, could not have been contemporaneous with the Tamil portion.’ As against these statements it may be pointed out : (1) a glance at the E.I. and the I.A.) does not support the view that the Sanskrit parts are later insertions ; (2) the differences in the Sanskrit portion enumerated by Mr. Sastri are not serious and may be only due to the facts (a) that different scribes were employed to engrave the two sets of plates and (b) there is an interval of at least fourteen years between them so that in any case the Sanskrit portion of the Veḷvikkuḍi grant will be ‘somewhat earlier than that in the Madras Museum plates’; (3) without the Sanskrit portion, the Veḷvikkuḍi grant will begin with கொல்யானை and the Madras Museum plates with அண்ணனாகிய, and we may take it that no inscriptions could have begun so inauspiciously or so abruptly; (4) the meagreness of the historical particulars in the Sanskrit part is only to be expected because that part was intended only to be a general introduction to be read together with the Tamil portion; it should be noted there is not merely a Sanskrit introduction but also a Sanskrit epilogue to the two sets of plates; (5) lastly, arguments from palæography are always open to doubt and much more so in the case of early South Indian palæography owing to the scarcity of the records available for comparative study.