Madras Iiandlords. ' Folygars.' — The Zamfnd&rf estates of
Madras are properly of the class now under consideration ; the
holders are mostly local chiefs, who were tributaries rather than
Revenue-farmers to the Mughal Government; at any rate the
largest estates were so. But there are some estates (polltam) of
chiefs caSHe&p&legdra or ' polygar/ which more especially repre-
sent territorial chiefships, and admirably illustrate the way in
which landlord estates arise out of the disruption of a kingdom.
The Vijayanagar dynasty of Southern India which rose on the



Iia LAND TENURES. [Part II.
ruins of the earlier Chold, Chera and P&ndya kingdoms, flourished
for some centuries, and reached a high degree of power and
civilization. But it ultimately succumbed 1 in 1565 a.d., leaving
a number of its 'barons' (called ndyaka) who still retained
a local rule in their several estates. But their descendants,
lacking the control of a powerful head, soon fell into lawless
ways, becoming more like freebooters and marauders than
hereditary rulers. There were, indeed, several varieties of
' P°tyg ar f l some of them were of less dignified origin, having
begun as land officers with certain revenue functions, and
partly having police duty; they too, finding themselves un-
checked, threw off all restraint, and mercilessly rack-rented their
lands. Notwithstanding the doubtful claim and position of many
such chieftains, they would (as a class) probably have given rise
to a not inconsiderable number of landlord estates, under the
policy of a permanent Settlement, had not the majority of them
become so accustomed to lawless independence that they could
not settle down under a new order of things. In most cases
they went into armed resistance and open rebellion, whereon
they had to be subdued by military force and mostly disappeared.
