Indian Antiquary Vol 46

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

Page 228

216
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
SEPTIBER, 1917
was sufficiently clear, for the younger brother had before succeeded to the throne on the demise of the elder brother without offspring. The case of the illustrious Tirumalai Naicker himself was an adequate precedent. Hence much blame seems to have rested with the dowager queen Mînakshi Amma!, who probab'y was urged on by her brother Venkata Perumal Naicker ; being also herself perhaps ambitious of initating the conduct and participating in the fame of Mangammal though under clearly different circumstances." Tho. interference of the Musalmans and the extinction of the dynasty which followed were thus, in the opinion of Mr. Taylor, the outcome of Mînakshi's ambition. The late Mr. Nelson, on the other hand, was a warm supporter of Minâkshi's rights. In his view, she was the rightful heir to the throne of her husband, while Bangaru was an ambitious and intriguing rebel, whose disaffection was the cause of the Muhammadan interference and the ruin of the kingdom. Mr. Nelsons bases his views on three grounds---first that the junior branch of the royal family had no right to the throne in as much as Kumâra Muttu had given up his rights after Tirumala Naik ; secondly, that the position of Chinna Durai, or
second in power, was not constitutionally a claim to the crown, as the previous history of - the dynasty shewed, provided there was a claimant whose claims received a wide and can. did recognition ; thirdly, that the claims of Vijaya Kumara were indisputable, and his adopticn was accepted by all except Bangaru's party. Mr. Nelson contends that the wide acceptance of Vijaya Kumâra's position is unmistakably proved by the agreement of "the other MSS.", by the award of a larger pension to the boy than to the father when they were in the Nawab's Court, and by a unanimity among all writers in speaking of the son's greater position. These arguments, however, cannot go unchallenged. In the first place, Mr. Nelson is wrong in his statement that Kuraåra Muttu had, by his voluntary resignation of the crown, for ever sacrificed the prospects of his descendants. On the other hand, as we have already seen, he had the caution to see his son appointed as second in power beforo his retirement, and this caution he exercised, we may well believe, as a safeguard of future hopes and expectations of the transfer of the crown to his branch in case the elder line became extinct. Secondly, Nelson is right in saying that the mere enjoyment of power as Chinna Durai did not give a claim to throne; but it did constitute a claim, as Taylor has pointed out, when the reigning king died without issue. Thirdly, Nelson is quite incorrect when he speaks of the unaniinity of the chronicles and of public opinion in speaking of Vijaya Kumâra as the crowned king. On the other hand, one of the MSS. distinctly says that he was not crowned; that the majority of the people were on the side of Bangaru Tirumala, and that the actual government of the kingdom was in the hands of the latter. Lastly, Mr. Nelson ignores some MSS. when he says that the boy received a higher pension than the father in the Nawab's Court; the Telugu chronicle gives exactly the opposite version. Nevertheless, though every ground assumed by Mr. Nelson is against fact, yet it cannot be distinctly stated that the people were wanting in their allegiance to Mînakshi.
Bangåru s Success. However it might be, whether Minakshi was the regent of a crowned king or whether Baigâru Tirumala was the king, the result was the same. The State was distracted by party quarrels and hastened in consequence towards ruin. The palace and the treasure 1
80 Madura Manunl. Wilson also is in favour of Minakshi. See J.R. 4. S. III. 81 Appendix I., Sect. 1. (Carna. Govre.)