Indian Antiquary Vol 46

SR No.: 032538
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 508
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 20 MB

Page 169

JULY, 1917]
THE HISTORY OF THE NAIK KINGDOM OF MADURA
157
if imaginative,31 story is current ir. regard to Mangammâl, which at once gives an adequate idea of the remarkable affection she commanded among her contemporaries, not only at Madura but abroad. It is a story illustrative of the generosity of the Queen-Regent and the parsimony of a contemporary king of Mysore. A few months before Mangammal's32 death the Mysore monarch, a miser, had died and gone to hell, while his crown was inherited by a more miserly son. About the same time, a Vangia merchant of Mysore died and was carried by the a,ents of the god Yama, but on reaching the city of death they were told that a wrong man 'ad been brought by them. The Vangian was therefore about to be taken back to the arth, when the royal sufferer, who was undergoing the tortures of hell, recognised him as a former subject and took advantage of his return to the world of life to send a message to his son, the then king! The penitent and fallen chief said that, waile he was ruling Mysore, he had amassed an abundance of wealth, but instead of spending it on behalf of the people he had buried it. No thought of charity or benevolence had ever entered into his mind and the result was his terrible fate. On the other hand, Queen Maigammal of Madura had done innumerable acts of benevolence, and the beings of heaven were erecting triumphal arches to receive her and honour her. The repentant chief therefore asked the merchant to proceed to his son, take the buried treasure out, and expend33 it in charities, so that he might be emancipated from the trials of hell. The Vannian, the story continues, did so, and a lesson was learnt by all future kings.
The general events during her regency.
Such was the golden opinion that Mangammâ inspired in her own days. What Tirumal Nâik did in regard to architecture, she did in regard to roads and choultries. The one was famous for his architectural monuments, the other for her philanthropic labours. The one appealed to the artistic instinct in man, the other to his heart. The former again dazzled men by his splendour, the latter won them by her generosity. And yet Mangamma]'s claim to greatness consisted not merely in her generous nature or her benevolent virtues. Endowed with many masculine virtues, she proved a politician of no mean talents. For a space of seventeen years3 she conducted the affairs of State in such excellent spirit that her regency became, if not a model of good government, at least strong enough to secure order within the state and victory abroad. She had a certain vigour and independence of character which ensured the security of her reign and the discomfiture of her enemies. The circumstances under which she found herself in power were more gloomy
31 The Telugu Record of the Carnatic Governors from Tirumal Ndik onward.
32 Mangammal died in 1705 and Chikka Dêva in 1704. The latter is thus clearly the person referred
to.
33 The story, of course, is a myth and has been invented by a fertile imagination to contrast the liberality of Mangammal with the parsimony of the contemporary Mysore ruler, Chikka Dêvs Raja, (1672-1704) who, in spite of his victories, introduced a number of vexatious taxes, and never broke his fast every day till he deposited two bags of pagodas in the treasury out of the revenues. See Wilks. Mysore, I, 63; Rice I, 306 to 369.
34 1689-1705. The Hist, Carna, Govrs, attributes her reign to S. 1617-1635, i. e., A.D. 1685:1713, from Yuva to Nandana. The Pand. Chron. says that she was regent from Raudri for 12 years. It does not specify particularly the date. The Supple. MS. agrees with the Hist. of Carna. Gours., which assigns 19 years from Pramoduta to Vikrama. Kali Kavi Rayan's chronicle, with its usual vagueness, attributes 8 5 years to her regency and further says that she was the sister of Vijaya Ranga! The Telugu chronicle says that she ruled from 1707-1725. This is wrong. Epigraphy shows that she came to power before -1690. (Sewell's Antiquities II, 85.)