I always wonder about Madurantaka Uththama Chozhan. As Gokul says in his Facts n Fiction, we should always distinguish between the real one and Senthan Amuthan.
The historical Madurantakan was after power. He might have been miffed at Sundara Chozhan's proclamation of AK as crown prince. Then he should have played a few games along with his mother to gain the throne. These people seemed to have a pulled a lot of strings and carried out lots of plots to get the throne.
Ravidasan & co seemed to have been important people in their gameplan. Killing AK might not have been the intention of mother and son. But, in their quest to the throne, they seemed to have helped Ravidasan do it.
I shudder when I think of all this. All is fair in love and war, I guess.
On the other hand, there is the second of facet of Uththama Chozhan as the king. No major wars in the country, lots of grants to temples. Being the son of Gandaradithar and Sembiyanmadevi he also should have been a great siva baktha.
So many temples were made into katralis. The famous one among those is Thirumazhapadi the center of attraction of our group right now!
As friends have pointed out, Thirumazhapadi is associated with legends like Nandidevar's kalyanam. Think of having the eesan and amman receive you at the town's entrance!
But, whenever I think of Thirumazhapadi, it is Senthan Amuthan who comes to my mind. Sundara Nayanar's verse "manne maamaniye, mazhapadiyul maanikkame" rings in my ears.
I would love to believe that Senthan Amuthan sat in the hallowed throne of the Chozhas with Poongkuzhali by his side. Don't a flower- gathering boy and a boat-rowing girl make an offbeat royal couple?
The soft, pious, boy-next-door Senthan Amuthan and the untamed, boisterous, nomadic Poongkuzhali as king and queen. What do you people think?
In Ponniyin Selvan it is not mentioned how Ravidasan and Pramechvaran were punished by Raja Raja cholan. In NadiPurathu Nayagi (Writer Vikraman) and Udayar (Balakumaran), states that they sent out of the country. How Raja Rajan left them like that. Is there any reason.
It is certainly interesting to speculate on the characteristics of S.M.D and U.C, but for the lack of evidence, I prefer the policy of holding all people (historical or contemporary) as innocent till proven guilty.
Regarding the succession, it should be borne in mind that evidences suggest that in Tamizh nadu, the public through means of the sabhas and the guilds had a huge say in the happenings of the kigdom, not to mention the various chieftains.
Just to picturise the situation at the time of AK's death. The choice was between Uthamma who certainly had geneological rights to the throne, who was known to the administrators(not Sendan amudan version) and was at least considered amiable and noble if not capable and Arulmozhi who was an unknown to the public and officialdom - accepting he spent much of the period away from the limelight at Thanjai, or in the shadow of AK.
It would not be unbelievable for the parties to go for the safer choice of having Uthamma as the heir.
As to Ravidasan, let us examine the motives of killing AK. I do not beileve that the Cheras suffered much from Chozha before RRC, though there should have been expeditions in the times of ParantakaI, II and AK, they still were doing OK. That leaves Pandyas who did have a bad time due to AK and if VeeraPandiya really was killed in an Un- chivalrous manner by AK, that gives enough motive for revenge to his associates/Abathudavis.
But once exiled by RRC, which irrective of Bramhathi etc., I still believe RRC did so only b'coz of lack of conclusive evidence, he just gave them a long enough rope for them to hang themselves by exiling them. The plotters had no place to go in Pandya country and givent he legendary Pandya-Chera nexus, the best place was of course kerala.
So I believe irrespective of interests of Uthama, things would have happened this way. Also, it is difficult to believe that such regicide by royal relatives would happen with chozhas unlike Pandyas, infact in Chozha history (ignoring Sangam period) AK's death was a one off case.
And I do underrate the effiacy of chozha justice either that they would accept Uthamma as the king even after possible involvement in AKs death.
For RRC it was not only a praiseworthy move, but also a practival and prudent thing not to contest the thrown at that juncture (Something similar to Sonia Gandhi today)
As to why Uthamma was not succeeded by his son, Uthamma reign was sigularly noticable for the lack of any events in it, I do not think the powers behind wanted another reign of the same sort, so the option switched to RRC, who by then had garnered all feats needed.