|
Chokkanatha,
1662-82
His troubles with
his neighbours
He
was succeeded by his son Chokkanatha (1662-82), a promising
boy of sixteen. This young ruler began his reign with a second
ill-considered attempt to drive out the Musalman troops, despatching
a large army against the Gingee fortress. His general, however,
sold himself to the enemy and wasted time and money in a long
and unprofitable campaign which was little but pretence. Chokkanatha
was also harassed by a domestic conspriacy (in which the same
unfaithful general took a prominent part) and though he detected
and qushed this, the general went over openly to the Muhammadans
and induced them to join in an assault upon Trichinopoly in
which they had the countenance (if not the practical assistance)
of the Nayakkan of Tanjore. The officers whom Chokkanatha
entrusted with the duty of repelling the attack were again
disloyal, and it was not until he himself at length took command
of the army that the invaders were driven back to Tanjore
and eventually to Gingee.
So
far things had not gone so badly, but in the next or the following
year (1663 or 1664) Chokkanatha paid a heavy price for his
temporary success. The Muhammadans burst into the Trichinopoly
and Madura districts and devastarted the country with almost
incredible cruelty. They again besieged Trichinoploy, and
this time Chokkanatha had to buy them off with a large sum.
He consoled himsen by punishing the Nayakkan of Tanjore for
assisting them, and he attempted similar reprisals on the
setupati of Ramnad, who had failed to help him in repelling
them. This latter enterprise was unsuccessful, for though
Chokkanatha succeeded in taking several forts in the Marava
country, he was baffled by the guerilla tactics of his adversary,
and had to retire without obtaining that chief’s submission.
The Campaign marks a new in the relations of Ramnad and Madura;
from thence forthe Setupati aspired to an Independent kingdom.
His
conquest and loss of Tanjore
Chokkantha’s
next war was with Tanjore, and it resulted in the capture
of that ancient cith and the extinction of its Nayakkan dynasty.
Unluckily the Jesuit letters of the years 1666 to 1673 have
been lost and the only authority upon these exciting events
is a vernacular manuscript. This has been abstracted at length
by Mr.Nelson, but space forbids more than the merest summary
of its contents.
The casus belli, says
this authority, was the refusal of the Tanjore Nayakkan to
give his beautiful and gifted daughter in marriage to Chokkanatha.
The latter determibed to fetch the maiden by force back into
their capital, and successfully stormed that place. But they
did not get the princess; her father placed her and all the
other ladies of the palace in one room, blew this up with
gunpowder and then, with his son and his body-guard, charged
furiously into the thickest of the enemy, was captured after
a desperate resistance, and was beheaded.
Chokkanatha placed his
foster-brother Alagiri in charge of the Government of Tanjore,
but within a year the latter threw off his allegiance, and
Chokkanatha was now so given up to self-indulgence and so
ill-served by his disloyal officers that, after an outburst
of indignation which ended in nothing, he was forced to acquiesce
in the independence of Tanjore.
Alagiri, however, was
not long permitted to enjoy his illgotten kingdom. A son or
grandson of the last Tanjore Nayakkan had escaped to the Musalman
court of Bijapur and had induced that power to help to place
him on the throne of his fathers. In 1674 the sultan of Bijapur
sent a force commanded by the Maratha general Venkaji (alias
Ekohji) to turn out the Madura usurper and reinstate the scion
of the old line. Venkaji ventured little until the occurrence
of the rupture between Chokkanatha and Alagiri; but he then
defeated the latter with ease, and occupied Tanjore. He did
not, however, place his protege on the throne, thought he
treated him kindly enough, but seized the kingdom for himself.
So the outcome of Chokkanatha’s feebleness was that a
Maratha, instead of Nayakkan, sat upon the throne of Tanjore.
Venkaji
shortly afterwards became embroiled with his famous half-brother
Sivaji, and Chokkanatha attempted to take advantage of the
circumstance to regain his hold on Tanjore. But he was dilatory
in the field and in his negotiations, and Venkaji succeeded
in buying off the hostility of Santoji (the son of Sivaji,
whom the latter had despatched against him) before Chokkanatha
could effect anything. This was in 1677-78.
Attacked
by Mysore and the Marathas
Soon afterwards,
Chokkanatha was forced to turn from aggression to the defence
of his own kingdom. The famous Chikka Deva Raya, king of Mysore
from 1672 to 1704, had for some time been massing troops on
his frontier, and now burst upon Coimbatore and spread havoc
far and wide. Chokkantha did little to repel him, the country
was moreover visited with famine and pestilence, and in despair
the ministers of the State deposed their incompetent ruler
in favour of his brother.
The Change was not for
the better, and the parlous state of Madura and its territories
in 1678 may be gathered from the following passage in a letter
written by one of the Jesuit missionaries in that year:-
‘The capital, formerly
so flourishing, is no longer recognizable, Its palaces, once
so gorgeous and majestic, are deserted and falling to ruin.
Madura resembles less a town than a brigand’s haunt.
The new Nayakkan is essentially a do-nothing king. He sleeps
all nights, he sleeps all days; and his neighbours, who do
not sleep, snatch from him each moment some fragement of his
territories. Nations who would profit from a change of rulers
do not trouble to repel invaders and everything foretells
that this kingdom, so powerful twenty years back, will soon
be the prey of its enemies, or rather the victim of the insane
policy of its own government.’
Chokkantha
was replaced on his tottering throne about 1678 by a Muhammadan
adventurer who during the next two years usurped the whole
of his authority (and even the ladies of his and fallen brother’s
harems) and at last was slain by Chokkanatha himself and a
few of his friends. But the Nayakkan’s position was still
far from enviable. In 1682 his capital was besieged by Mysore;
was shadowed by forces belonging to the marathas, who, while
pretending to be on his side, were only waiting for a chance
to seize his territory for themselves; and was threatened
by a body of Maravans who norminally and hurried to his assistance,
but in reality had only come to share in the booty which the
sack of Trichinopoly was expected to yield.
The
latter seize his country
While Chokkanatha
thus sat helpless behind his defences, matters were taken
out of his hands by the more virile actors upon this curious
scene. The Marathas, who were now established in Gingee as
well as Tanjore, inflicted a crushing defeat on the Mysore
troops and drove them out of almost every corner of the Madura
and Trichinopoly districts, Madura itself they were unable
to capture, for the Maravans, regarding the men of Mysore
as on the whole more eligible neighbours than the Marathas,
helped the former to hold that fortress. The latter had pretended
to be, and laid siege to Trichinopoly itself. In despair at
their treachery, Chokkantha died of a broken heart in 1682.
Ranga Krishna Muttu Virappa,
1682-89
His successor
was his son Ranga Krishna Muttu Virappa, a boy of fifteen
who ruled for seven years. Little enough of his territories
remained to him to rule. The greater part of them was held
by Mysore, some by the maravans, some by the Marathas of Gingee
and some by the Marathas of Tanjore. The country was a prey
to complete anarchy and universal pillage, foreign enemies
occupying all the forts and robberchiefs being masters of
the rural areas and carrying on their brigandage with impunity.
Matters
improve
Matters,
however, slowly improved. Mysore was soon distracted by a
war with the Marathas of Gingee, and both the setupatis of
Ramnad and the Marathas of Tanjore were occupied by domestic
out breaks in their own countries. A new disturbing in south
Indian politics had also appeared on the scene in the person
of the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, who in 1686-87 conquered
the kingdoms of Madura’s old enemies, Golconda and Bijapur,
and was for many years engaged in a war with its foes the
Marathas which was most exhausting to both praties. Moreover
the young nayakkan of Madura, though imbued with a boyish
love of fun and adventure which endeared him to his countriers,
had also a stock of sound ability and spirit which moved the
admiration of his ministers, and he took advantage of his
improving prospects. He recovered his capital about 1685,
and though he failed in an attempt to reduce the Setupati
in 1686, he gradually reconquered large parts of the ancient
kingdom of his forefathers and succeeded in restoring the
power of the Nayakkans of Madura to a position which, though
not to be compared with that held by it at the beginning of
his father’s reign, was still far above that which it
occupied at the end of that period. He unfortunately died
of small-pox in 1689 at the early age of 22. The story goes
that his young window Muttammal (the only woman, strange to
say, whom he hd married), was inconsolable at his loss and,
though she was far advanced in pregnancy, insisted upon committing
sati on his funeral pyre. Her husband’s mother, Mangammal,
with great difficulty persuaded her to wait until her child
should have been born, solemnly swearing that she should then
have her way. When at length the child (a son) arrived, she
was put off day after day with various excuses until, despairing
of being allowed her desire, she put an end to her life.
Mangammal,
1689-1704
Mangammal, the mother of the late
Nayakkan, acted for the next fifteen years as Queen-Regent
on behalf of his posthumous son.
Her
charities
She was
a popular administrator and is still widely remembered by
Hindus as a maker of roads and avenues, and a builder of temples,
tanks and choultries. Popular belief unhesitatingly ascribes
to her every fine old avenue in Madura and Tinnevelly. Native
writers assign a curious reason for her passion for charitable
acts. One day, they say, she inadvertently put betel into
her month with her left (instead of her right) hand, and was
warned by the Brahmans that this offence against manners must
be expiated by expenditure of this kind, Mr.Taylor has suggested
that this stroy hides her repentance for some amorous escapade.
She
was an able woman as well as a charitable, and under her firm
guidance Madura apparently all but regained the proud position
it had held in the days of Tirumala Nayakkan. Unluckily, the
Jesuit letters from 1687 to 1699, both inclusive, have again
been lost and the events of her regency cannot be given with
any fullness.
Her
wars
She was less
frequently in war than her predecessors, but she did not escape
the usual conflicts with her neighbours. In her reign the
kingdom of Madura first came into direct touch with the Mughal
empire of Delhi, since Zulfikar Khan, the general who was
sent by Aurangzeb to attack the Maratha stronghold of Gingee,
exacted tribute both from Trichinopoly and Tanjore in 1693,
though he did not succeed in taking Gingee till five years
later. Trichinopoly was besieged (according to Wilks) by Mysore
in 1695, but relieved owing to pressure on the invader’s
country from the north.
In 1698 Mangammal had
to subdue a rebellion in Travancore. The ruler of that country
had of recent years been very remiss in sending his tribute
to Madura, and it had been necessary on several occasions
to send an army to collect the arrears. In 1697, a force despatched
for this purpose was taken off its guard and almost cut to
pieces. A punitive expedition was organized in the following
year, and after hard fighting Travancore was subdued and an
immense booty was brought home. Part of this consisted of
Many cannon, and these were mounted, says one of the vernacular
manuscripts, on the ramparts of Trichinopoly and Madura. Mr.Nelson
made many enquiries about these latter, but failed to unearth
any tradition regarding their ultimate fate.
In
1700 a desultory war, the origin and course of which are alike
obsure, was carried on between Madura and the Marathas of
Tanjore. In the following year the latter were crushingly
defeated near their capital, and were glad enough to buy off
the invading army with an enormous bribe.
Her tragic death
In 1704-05
Mangammal’s grandson came of age. Tradition says that
she refused to make way for him and that she was supported
in her intention to make way for him and that she was supported
in her intention by her chief minister, a man with whom she
was on terms of undue intimacy. A strong party formed against
her, seized her and confined her in the building in Madura
which is still called ‘Managammal’s palace,’
was once the District Jail and is now occupied by the taluk
cut cherry and other public offices. There, goes the stroy,
she was slowly starved to death, her sufferings being aggravated,
with horrible cruelty, by the periodical placing of food outside
her prison bars in such a position that she could see and
smell, but not reach, it. Some slight confirmation of the
tradition is derived from the facts that in the little chapel
built by Mangammal on the west side of ‘the golden lily
tank’ in the Madura temple is a statute of a young man
who is declared to be her minister and paramour, and that
in a picture on the ceiling of the queen, who (be it noted)
is dressed, not as an orthodox Hindu window should be, but
in jewels and finery appropriate only to a married woman.
Vijaya Ranga Chokkanatha,
1704-31
Her grandson
Vijaya Ranga Chokkanatha (1704-31) enjoyed a long but apparently
dull reign of 26 years. It is unfortunate that the Jesuit
letters which so greatly illumine previous periods of Madura
history now cease altogether, and from this time forth we
are driven to rely almost entirely upon native manuscripts
and the secondary evidence afforded by english historians.
And, curiously enough, the nearer we approach the period of
the beginning of British ascendancy in the south, the more
meagre and unsatisfactory does our information becomes.
His
feeble rule
Judging from,
such material as is available, it seems that the new ruler
of Madura was vain and weak-minded, and unfit to govern either
himself or others. His reign was distinguished by the ill-regulated
and extraordinary Munificence of his gifts to Brahmans and
religions institutions. Every other year he used, it is said,
to travel to one or other of the famous shrines within his
territories, and on these occasions he lavished gifts on all
who could gain access to him. The injustice of his rule caused
a serious riot in Madura, the mutiny of the whole of his troops,
and incessant internal commotions. It must have been owing
solely to their own embarrassments that his neighbours did
not attempt to despoil his kingdom.
Minakshi,
1731-36
The only warfare
in which he seems to have been engaged was connected with
the succession to the throne of Ramnad in 1725. Of the two
claimants to that position, one was supported by Tanjore and
the other by Madura and the Tondaman of pudukkottai. The Tanjore
troops won a decisive victory and placed their protege on
the throne. A year or two later, however, the Tanjore king
himself deposed this very protege, and divided the Ramnad
kingdom into the two separate divisions of Ramnad and Sivaganga,
which hence forth remained independent Marava powers.
Musalman
interference
Vijaya Ranga
Chokkanatha died in 1731, and was succeeded by his window
Minakshi, who acted as Queen-Recent on behalf of a young boy
she had adopted as the heir of her dead husband. She had only
ruled a year or two when an insurrection was raised against
her by Vangaru Tirumala, the father of her adopted son, who
pretended to have claims of his own to the throne of Madura.
At this juncture the representatives of the Mughals appeared
on the scene and took an important part in the Struggle.
It must be remembered
that ever since 1693 Madura had been nominally the feudatory
of the emperor of Delhi, and that since 1698 the Carnatic
north of the Coleroon river had been under direct Muhammadan
rule. The local representative of the Mughal was the Nawab
of Arcot, and an intermediate authority was held by the Nizam
of Haidarabad, who was in theory the subordinate of the emperor,
and the superior of the Nawab.
How regularly the kings
of Tanjore and Madura paid their tribute is not clear, but
in 1734-about the time, in fact, that Minakshi and Vangaru
Tirumala were fighting for the crown-an expedition was sent
by the then Nawab of Arcot to exact tribute and submission
form the kingdoms of the south. The leaders of this were the
Nawab’s son, Safdar Ali Khan, and his nephew and confidential
adviser, the well-known Chanda Sahib.
The invaders took Tanjore
by storm and, leaving the stronghold of Trichinopoly unattempted,
swept across Madura and Tinnevelly andinto Tracancore, carrying
all before them. It was apparently on their return from this
expedition that they took part in the quarrel between Minakshi
and Vangaru Tirumala. The latter approached Safdar Ali Khan
with an offer of three million rupees if he would oust the
queen in favour of himself. Unwilling to attack Trichinopoly,
the Musalman prince contented himself with solemnly declaring
Vangaru Tirumala to be king and taking a bond for the three
millions. He then marched away, leaving Chanda Sahib to enforce
his award as best as he could. The queen, alarmed at the turn
affairs had now taken, her side; and had little difficulty
in persuading that facile politician to accept her bond for
a crore of rupees and to declare her duly entitle to the throne.
Minakshi, says willks, required him to swear on the Koran
that he would adhere faithfully to his engagement, and he
accordingly took an oath on a brick wrapped up in the spledid
covering usually reserved for that holy book. He was admitted
into the Trichinopoly fort and Vangaru Tirumala-apparently
witht he good will of the queen, who, strangely enough, does
not seem to have wished him any harm—went off to Madura,
to rule over that country and Tinnevelly.
Chanda
Sahib accepted an earnest of the payment of the crore of rupees
and departed to Arcot. Two years later (1736) he returned,
was again admitted into the fore and proceeded to make himself
master of the kingdom. Minakshi was soon little but a puppet.
Orme, indeed, suggests that she had fallen in love with Chanda
Sahib and so lct him have his own way unhindered.
End
of Nayakkan dynasty
The latter
eventually marched against Vangaru Tirumala, who was still
ruling in the south, defeated him at Ammaya nayakkanur and
Dindigul, drove him to take refuge in sivaganga, and occupied
the southern provinces of the Madura kingdom. Having now made
himself master of all of the unfortunate Minakshi’s realms
he threw off the mask, ceased to treat her with the consideration
he had hitherto extended to her, locked her up in her palace
and proclaimed himself ruler of her kingdom. The hapless lady
took poison shortly afterwards.
Character
of its rule
With
her reign, came to an end the ancient dynasty of the Nayakkans
of Madura. The unprejudiced evidence of the Jesuit missionaries
already several times referred to enables us to form a more
accurate estimate of their administration than is usually
possible in such cases. Bishop Caldwell,in summing this up,
sardonically remarks that it is unfortunate for their reputation
that so much more is known about them and their proceedings
than about their Chola and pandya predecessors. He concludes
by saying that—
‘Judged not merely by modern
European standards of right and wrong, but even by the standards
furnished by Hindu and Muhammadan books of authority, the
Nayakkans must be decided to have fallen far short of their
duty as rulers. Their reigns record little more than a disgraceful
catalogue of debaucheries, treacheries, plunderings, oppressions,
murders and civil commotions, relieved only by the factitious
splendour of gifts to temples, idols and priestsm by means
of which they apparently succeeded in getting the Brahmans
and poets to speak well of them,and thus in keeping the mass
of the people patient under their misrule.
|
