________________
SEPTEMBER, 1917)
THE HISTORY OF THE NAIK KINGDOM OF MADURA
215
throne, but resigned it in return for the governorship of Sivakasi and its dependent possessions. In spite of his resignation of the claims to the throne, Kumâra Muttu had seen, just before his retirement, his son Kumâra Rangappa Naik installed as the second in power to Muttu Alakâdri. Rangappa held this position evidently throughout the reign of Muttu Virappa, and when the latter was succeeded by his son Chokkanátha Naik, the son of the former, Kumara Tirumalai Naik, succeeded as his second in power. Similarly, when the son and successor of Chokkanatha, Raiga Krishwa Muttu Virappa, was governing the realm, the son of Tirumalai Naik, Bangåru Tirumalai Nâik by name, inherited the position and dignity of the second in power. It was on the son of this Bangaru Tirumala that Minakshi fixed her choice.
Bangaru Tirumala's Opposition. We now come to the consideration of an important constitutional question on the solution of which the whole character of the future Naik history must be pronounced to depend. Did Minâkshi adopt Vijaya Kumâra or did she not? On the answer to this question lies the justification or condemnation of her conduct in the events which followed. Accor. ing to one i chronicle which, though unreliable as a rule in its chronology, is in this afrair, direct and pronounced, she did not, as she had no right. It says that the real claimant, and therefore the legitimate successor after Vijaya Raiga, was his second in power, Bangaru Tirumala Naik. Bangåru, as we have already seen, had been the second in power to Ranga Krishna Muttu Virappa and, we may presume, to Vijaya Raiga Chokkanatha also. He had in other words exercised power for nearly half a century. During the latter period of his yervice, we can be sure, he had entertained the idea of succeeding Vijaya Ranga to the throne. The seizure of power by Minâkshi must have been a sorious blow to his long cherished ambition, a disappointment of long hopes and anxious expectations. With a natural vehemence he maintained that he was the legitimate successor to the throne, that Minâkshi, being a woman and childless, had no claim whatever. When the latter, therefore, asked him to give his son as her heir, he refused on the ground that he himself was the king, that his son would get it in the natural course of events. With this ho assumed the functions of royalty, and putting up in a new palace, gained the support of a large number of courtiers: The kingdom was actually under the Government of Bangåru Tirumala, but the treasury, the palace, and the royal jewels were under Minâkshi and he. brothers.
The Discussion of the Respective Claims. The other version, that of the Telugu chronicle, History of the Carnatic Lords, an authority generally reliable but in this respect very short, confused, inconsistent, and obscure, says “that after the decease of Raja Vijaya Raiga, Baigaru Tirumala was the suitable person to succeed to the crown, but that his son Vijaya Kumâra Muttu Tirumalai Naikar was adopted and installed by being anointerl vihen four years old by Minakshi Immal, the crowned queen of Vijaya Raiga Chokkanatha." According to this, then, Vijaya Kumara wos the crowned king and Mînakshi was his guardian and regent. Kali Kavi Rāyan's account as well as Pān lya Raja Purana Charitrais does not mention Baigâru Tirumala at all.
While the indigenous histories are thus divergent in their views, the modern historians are not less so. Mr. TaylorTo believes that, after the death of Vijaya Raiga, "the succession
77 Hist. of the Carna. Cours. 78 See appendix I. for details of the various ss. 190, H MSS.
