Indian Antiquary Vol 43

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 34

30
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(FEBRUARY, 1914.
“After Chandra Sêkhara the Pandyan kingdom became extinct. For he had no child, and Vira Sekhara Cho a invaded the kingdom, seized it, and drove him away. Chandra Sékhara, thereupon, went to the Raya and complained, and he sent Nâgama Naik to restore him. He came, defeated and drove out the Chola ; but, turning traitor, seized the Paidyan crown himself, and ruled for four years. Then owing to the Râya's orders, Visvanatha Naik came to the south, defeated his father Nâgama Naik, and gave back the kingdom to the Pâidyan. Subsequently, however, the Pâi dyan, owing to his having no heir and owing to his fear that after him his kingdom would be seized by his enemies, adopted Visvanatha as his son, gave him the royal seal, and crowned him in Minakshi's temple. From that time, Visvanatha and his descendants ruled the Paidyan kingdom."
The MSS. thus agree in mentioning fifteen kings as the rulers of the Pandyan realm from the time of Kampala Udayâr to the time of Vi vanatha Naik. But, in spite of this agreement, the list must be considered a spurious one. Messrs. Nelson and Sewellssolved the problem for their part by putting these monarchs to the pre-Musalman period, to, in fact,a Parâkrama Paidya who is said to have been the victim of the Islamites,-a procedure which is directly against the account of the MSS., which plainly indicate that they were the successors of Kampaia Udayar. Mr. Taylor, on the other hand, believed in the existence of the kings, but not the dates3 ascribed to them by the “Supple. MS." He says that the period of 345 years assigned to them cannot be accepted, as it would bring the last Paidyan king “ too low down." Nor is he prepared to believe the date S. 1354 so inconsistently attributed by the MS. to Chandra'êkhara. He gives three reasons for his contention. First the period of 61 years which will have to be assigned to the 17 kings in case the date S. 1354 is accepted, is too small as the average comes to less than four years. Secondly S. 1354, he surmises, may be a mistake of the copyist for S. 1454. Thirdly, Nagama Naik, the founder of the Madura Naik dynasty, was, according to many authorities, a general of Krishna Deva Raya in the 16th century. For these reasons he adds 100 years to S. 1354 and concludes that the dynasty must have ended about S. 145481 i.e., 1532 A.D. In spite of Mr. Taylor's opinion, there are certain reasons which warrant the belief that the list of kings is not genuine. It is more than probable that the three MSS. were taken from a single source.
Their Existence doubtful. Then, again, all of them are suspiciously short and vague, and while the chronology of . one is distinctly absurd, the chronology of the others is a perfect blank. Above all, there is a singular lack of epigraphical evidence to support the existence of these kings. Had they existed, they would certainly have left the marks of their sway in stone or metal, as the kings of those days invariably did. A Hindu king without resort to the panegyric of Brahmans and the reputation of a donor to tem ples and priests was, in the medieval age of Indian history, & practically impossible phenomenon. The name of religious benefactor was as dear as life to the kings of those days. Charters and grants carved in undying plates, and inscriptions cut in undying stone were, for them, the only means of ensuring an eternity of fame and a perpetuation of remembrance. A king indifferent to such means of reputation in such an age would indeed be a marvel, and a series of such kings would be a still greater marvel. And yet, throughout the 15th century, we do not meet with any inscription of these kings. Only one conclusion is possible,-they had not existed at all.
If the information given by the " Supple. MS." and other MSS. in regard to the Pandyan line of Somasekhara can be thus dismissed as a fabrication, it ought not to be concluded that there were no indigenous rulers in Madura during the period of 1) centuries which we have surveyed. We have already seen how during the Muhammadan occupation and rule of Madura in the 14th century, kings of the Paidyan dynasty continued to rule. We have seen how according to Kielhorn, three of them at least, Mâravarman Kuleiêkhara II, (1314-21) Mâravarman Parâkrama Pâi dya (1334-52) and Jatavarman Parákrama Paidya, have left evidences of their nominal, though not actual sway, and how83 according to Mr. Krishna
82 Antiquities, Vol. II. 218-20. 830. H. MSS, II, 88.40. H. MSS. II, p. 88 8 See Ante, section 2.