________________
JUNE, 1915 ]
THE HISTORY OF THE NAIK KINGDOM OF MADURA
117
with the people who lived in their estates, did not differ in any respect from the Karta himself. They were called by their people Raja. Their residence was styled palace. Their court was also dignified by the name of kolu. They could, like the Karta at Madura convene a kolu on ceremonial occasions, and receive small gifts from the people. They lived, as a rule, in fortified villages. They had the dignities and paraphernalia of royalty. In short, in their estates they were all in all. It seems they had even the power of life-and-death. The chief judge, the supreme revenue manager, the commander, and the administrator of the Palayam, the Polygar was truly a miniature king. As the policeman of the neighbouring royal territory he had an even greater influence. In relation to the Karta at Madura, he was a tributary chief. It seems he paid one-third of his revenue as tribute, besides contributing a quota of troops in accordance with his dignity and rank among the Polygars. For, different Polygars had different areas of land and so different degrees of power. Some could construct, as I have already pointed out, stone forts, while others could not. Some had more imposing paraphernalia. Some might be placed above their brother chiefs in recognition of their service to the State. The chief of Kaanivadi, for example, 5+ was the head of the 18 Polygars of Dindigul Simai; and as such he had the right of leading the van in the royal army. Real service was sometimes rewarded with the honour of being the bodyguard of the Karta. Manuscripts say that the Polygars had their own officers for the internal administration of their estates. They seem to have had a Sarvidhikari or Diwin; a Kârwar; etc. to help them in the collection of revenue, the maintenance of the police, and so on. In their estates also, as in royal territory, the village was self-sufficient and independent.
From all this it is evident that the Naik kingdom was divided into Simais, petty kingdoms and Palayam, Nalus, Magnas (a collection of a few villages) and villages. There was thus a certain plan or organization of the administrative system. But there was a fatal weakness in it. There was a lamentable lack of efficiency. As Wilks points out, the central authority was weak and provincial chieftains always tended to become independent kings. The strength of imperial unity (Madura, in fact, seemed to be an Empire rather than a kingdom,) depending more on the character of the monarch or Karta than on the system of government. If he was a strong man the vassals were willing, for their own sakes, to pay allegiance; if not, they flouted the royal viceroy or representative, withheld tribute, oppressed their subjects with impunity, and warred with their neighbours without check. And yet the central government was far more attracted by the barren laurels of foreign wars than by the safer and even more indispensable work of internal organization. Foolish and presumptuous, the Kartas cared more for a showy and enterprising armed engagement with a foreign power than for a strong, sound constitution based on popular welfare and imperial responsibility. Even Vijayanagar suffered under this defect. “The external appearance," says Wilks,“ of the general government was brilliant and imposing; its internal organization feeble and irregular; foreign conquest was a more fashionable theme than domestic finance at the court of Vijayanagar."55 The Naik kingdom suffered from the same cause of weakness. Again and again the State was engaged in wars with Mysore, with Tanjore, with the Muhammadans and so on. The MS, histories are full of these wars, as we have already seen ; but they are completely silent in
54 See the Genealogical Account of the Kanniva di Chiefe.
55 Wilks, Vol. I, p. 13.
