________________
260
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[DECEMBER, 1914.
establishment of Visvanatha on the Madura throne was a short, sharp, decisive affair. No doubt, as we have already seen, he was viceroy for years before his elevation to the royal dignity; but his actual elevation to the Pandyan's throne was posterior to his earlier viceroyalty and the immediate outcome of his father's revolt and the Pandyan's weakness. Almost every chronicle seems to imply that Nagama Naik's expedition to the south was promptly followed by his revolt and then his subjugation by his son. They seem to imply that the various stages of these events followed one another in rapid succession. They do not seem to say that they covered the long period of a generation. The evidences of inscriptions moreover give a passive proof of this fact. They clearly point out that Achyuta Raya led an expedition to the south in 1532, that he wielded a real power throughout his reign, that his successor Sada iva Râya was an equally powerful sovereign. They also point out how from 1535 to 1557 Visvanatha Naik and Vixhala were the imperial viceroys. If Nagama Naik's revolt had taken place during the administration of these viceroys, it would certainly have been recorded in some at least of the inscriptions of the day. In fact we have positive reasons to show that he could not have rebelled in this period; for the first of the two viceroys was his son, the other his relative. If he had attempted independence, it must have been before 1535 ; but we have already seen how in 1532-33 Achyuta Râya had Nagama as a loyal lieutenant of his and how his power was not menaced after his victorious campaign. All these facts go to prove that Nagama's defection must have taken place in 1557 or 1558 and that his defeat and his son's elevation must have been accomplished in 1559.
The Nature of the Naik Accession. The date having been thus disposed of, the circumstances under which Visvanatha's elevation took place remain for consideration. It is to be feared that no solution can be reached in regard to this question. We have already seen how variant are the accounts of his relations with the Pâriyas. We have seen how some say that Chandra-Sekhara was the last of the line and that the crown naturally devolvad on Visvanatha as he was adopted by him; and how others say that Chandra-Sekhara was succeeded by his son Vira-Pandya who, however, died childless, bequeathing his crown to Visvanatha ; and bow still others maintain that Visvanatha destroyed the Pandyan family and usurped the crown. All agree that the Râya supported Visvanatha and recognized him to be the ruler in place of the ancient Pandyan dynasty. Was Visvanátha a usurper or legitimate claimant ? Was he in reality a destroyer of the old Pandyan line or an adopted and therefore legitimate heir ? The question will perhaps be never solved. The chronicles unanimously give a favourable view of Visvanatha's conduct; but Wheeler gives, as we have already seen, a diametrically opposite version. The late Mr. Nelson also points out that, even after his full attainment of power, Visvanatha had under his control two Pâydyan princes.
The Characteristics of Naik Rule. However it was, there can be no question that the establishment of the Náik dynasty was of immense significance in South Indian History. For the next two centuries the country from the Kâvêri to the Cape and from the western mountains to Ceylon, was under the Sway of Visvanatha's descendants. They were not great men, as a rule, in the ordinary sense of the word. High statesmanship was comparatively rare among them, but they left, throughout the land which acknowledged their rule, & series of monuments which will never die, and which will ever keep their memory fresh in the annals of India and of art.
