________________
No. 35.]
THE SMALLER LEIDEN PLATES OF KULOTTUNGA I.
275
Larger Leiden Plates, figures as the first item of the Payichchandas belonging to Rājarājapperumpalli in the Smaller set, proves definitely the identity of the donees of the two sets. Therefore it must be regarded that Sõlakulavallipattanam and Geysmänikka-valanadu are but the altered names of Nägapattanam and Kshatriyalikhamani-valanādu respectively.
Of the terms that occur in the inscription, kānikkadan, kāniyālan, nichchayitta-nellu and Sangattar deserve to be noticed. Kānikkadar is made of kāņi -lands and kadan-duty, and may be taken to mean "the assessment payable on lands to the king ". From the occurrence of this word in the Larger Leiden Plates in this very sense with respect to the total quantity of income from the entire extent of lands in the village of Agaimangalam and the repetition of the term and the quantity in our plates, the meaning suggested above seems to be decisive. Kaniyalar means literally " the persons that manage lands" and may be taken to refer to the men employed by the State to lease its lands for purposes of cultivation, to afford facilities to farmers by way of irrigation, etc., and to see to the realisation of rents or assessments. The term nichchayitta-nellu is rarely met with in inscriptions. In this record, which relates to an application made to the king to terminate the functioning of the kaniyalar and to transfer the lands from their possession and management to the authorities of the Buddhist monasteries for being dealt with directly by them, there is evidently some further gain to be derived by the monasteries in the proposed change, to wit the rights and privileges which the kāniyālar might have had. Perhaps the term nichchayitta-nellu stands for the quantity of paddy settled to be paid by the cultivating tenants to the kaniyalar to meet the cost of affording facilities, etc., and for their remuneration for performing the function as middlemen between the State and the tenants.
It is not unlikely that the term Sangattar of the palli has the same significance as the Paņmāhēgvaras (or Māhēśvaras) of Siva temples and Sri-Vaishnavas of Vishņu temples. In many inscriptions we meet with the clauses “idu Panmānēsvarar rakshai", "idu Sri-Vaishnavar rakshai". In the case of grants of Buddhist or Jaina shrines the above clauses would be altered into "idu paļlickChangattar rakshai." The translation of these clauses into “This shall be under the protection of all the Māhēsvaras or Sri-Vaishnavas or the Sangattar or others of the monastery" may not make clear whether by the terms Paņmāhēsvaras, Sri-Vaishṇavas and Sangattar individuals belonging to the respective sects are meant or whether they have any particular reference to regularly constituted bodies of men drawn from the said sects in accordance with set rules as in the case of the Sabhā or other constituted bodies and having concern with the management of the properties of the temple or other institutions with which they are associated. Judging from the single fact that the objects of the grants had to be fulfilled daily or at specified occasions, not for a fixed number of years only, but perpetually " as long as the Moon and the Sun last" as the inscriptions put it, in the manner stipulated by the donors, it can be said that the recipients who undertook to effect them could not have been a chance collection of individuals but could only have been responsible members of regularly constituted bodies whose duties were to accept such gifts and to execute the will of the donors. In this connection a few more facts contained in some of the inscriptions are worth noting. It is stated that the donations made have to be maintained as a whole, undiminished for ever and that the expenses involved in fulfilling the objects of the grants have to be met only from the incomes. It is unnecessary to say that on the part of the recipients, the safe investments of the endowments and the timely realisation of interests and the utilising of the latter without default for the specified purposes involve a very high responsibility and considerable amount of work. Here again we are obliged to think that the recipients must only be members of regularly constituted committees wielding influence and authority and not mere chance colleotions of individuals. Unless this be the case, it is impossible to perceive how costly gifts of lands, villages and the
