________________
DECEMBER, 1914.) THE HISTORY OF THE NAIK KINGDOM OF MADURA
255
Visvanatha himself promptly unsheathed his sword, and was about to shed, for the sake of his suzerain, the blood of his father, when Sadasiva, surprised at such an extraordinary devotion and sense of duty, stopped the tragedy, and pardoned the father for the sake of the son. The memoir of the Sukkampattis Polygars gives a slightly different version. It says that their ancestor_Balamukunda-Muttiah-Naik, once the leader of the vanguard of Nagama's army, and then a lieutenant of Visvanatha Naik, offered to sacrifice himself in the place of his old benefactor, and that the Raya, impressed with the loyalty of the son and the fidelity of the servant, pardoned Nagama Naik for their sake.
As for the man who was the cause of these scenes in the imperial court, he was not destined to enjoy his restored fortunes for long. A few months—according to one MS. three years-after his recovering the throne, Chandra-Sekhara joined his fathers, closing thereby a chequered career of momentous significance in South Indian History.
The Death of Chandra-Sekhara. His death was instantaneously followed by important events. One set of chronicles describe him as the last of the Pandyans, and aver that, immediately after his restoration, he adopted his deliverer and benefactor as his son and heir, and that as a result of this, the responsibilities of the royal office devolved on his death on Visvanatha. Another set of chronicles, on the other hand, maintain that Chandra-Sekhara was not the last of his dynasty; that he was really succeeded on the throne by his son Vira-Paudya ; but that Vira-Pandya soon followed his father to the grave,-leaving none to continue the Pamilyan line and thereby giving rise to the grave question as to who was to be his successor. The power of decision, these chronicles continue, lay in the first instance with the emperor. The absolute master of the Empire, he had the power of making and unmaking kings, of creating and abolishing royalties; and he promptly exercised this privilege in favour of Visvanatha. In appointing Visvanatha, moreover, he was only fulfilling the promise which his predecessors had made on the occasion of Visvanatha's service during the Navaratri festival. Again Visvanatha had been the Viceroy, the de facto king, of the Madura country for years. He had moreover been adopted into the Pandyan line, and so was from the view-point of law, not a foreigner. Above all, he had distinguished himself as a staunch and faithful servant of the Empire, as a fine soldier, as a loyal vassal, as an ideal servant. If he had willed, he might have joined his father and secured the southern part of the Empire months back for himself, but he had voluntarily preferred honour to ambition, and sovereign to parent. Considering all these, the claims and qualifications, the services and attributes, of his favourite, the emperor felt that, by raising him to the vacant throne, he would not only give virtue its reward and possess a vassal according to his own heart, but fulfil the promise of his predecessors and at the same time respect the principle of hereditary right.87
Visvanatha's Elevation to the Throne. The elevation of Nagama's son seems, however, to be due as much to popular desire as to imperial initiative. If verbal tradition is to be believed—and there is nothing incredible or improbablo about it-the people of Madura, Brahmans and Sadrâs, soldiers and citizens, priests and merchants, were united in their solicitation to the Emperor to have Visvanatha for their sovereign. They had already had a taste of Visvanatha's capacity to rule and protect them. Both during his viceruyalty (1535-44) and after Chandra-Sekhara's restoration, Visvanatha bad been the real ruler of Madura. Chandra
86 See Appendix IV
57 The Pand. Chron. The Supple. MS. represents the majority of the chronicies when it attributes the event to 8 1354; Paritapi. Kali Kavi Raya's account says that it took place in 8. 1350. One of the Mirtanjiya MSS. says that it took place in Margali 11, of Raudri 8. 1499. There is thug a sligh. difference between the Pand. Chron. and this MS.
