CHAPTER FOUR

Factional Violence in Anantapur: Two Case Studies

Having outlined the structural features of a 'faction' within the

regional political society of Rayalaseema and the historical manifestations of violence

iri factional conflicts in earlier chapters, we now tum to the field of narratives that

account for the socio-political setting defined by hierarchy, domination and contest.

We have seen that within this region of Andhra Pradesh, a faction is a way of

aligning among political leaders at different levels of the political structure, which is

essentially based on a patronage network, with both district and state leaders as well

as local leaders vying for the control and manipul~tion of political and economic

resources. 1 It has also been argued that transformations in the traditional factions has

rendered politics in the region with a distinct character, with political parties using ·

these factions to further their political goals in the district and the state. One of the

means in factional form of politics is violence, which is practiced in different forms

for achieving different ends. Whether it is a village faction or a mandai or a district

level faction, violence has often been a means of articulating a conflict. However, the

intensity of violence may be different depending on the locale and the nature of the

conflict.

1
Although this study is of a particular aspect of politics in the region, namely violent factionalism, it
does not assume that other modes of doing politics are non-existent. By which we mean that there are
numerous instances where leaders may not practise factional politics in order to achieve political ends.
Unlike many studies that characterize a total political system as based on the logic of patronage, this
study not only does not establish such a relationship but considers such a characterization as vacuous,
leading to an ossification of political analysis. It is, however, not in the scope of this study to look at
the relationship that factional politics might have with other modes of practicing politics in the region.

182
 This chapter, comprising of divergent narratives2 of a single

factional conflict seeks to substantiate the various ways in which a factional conflict

originates, weaves other conflicts around it, becomes overtly political, and how at

various points in time, violence erupts among the conflicting groups and for what

reasons. These narratives have constantly reminded the researcher that in

narrativizing the experience of violence, truth quickly falls by the wayside. This has

also meant that the meaning of violence for the participants is essentially contested,

which in turn has made any objective understanding of the phenomena difficult.

Thus, "vested interests, personal history, ideological loyalties, propaganda, and a

dearth of firsthand information ensure that many 'definitions' of violence are

powerful fictions and negotiated half-truths" (Nordstrom & Robben, 1995, p.5). True

motives have been often camouflaged by the conflicting groups just as the suffering

been exaggerated in tales of victimization. As has been argued earlier, victims and

perpetrators are difficult to identify and are always a dynamic category in factional

conflicts inasmuch as new confrontations have seen the tables being turned on old

aggressors, and victims have turned into perpetrators over time and vice versa.

Moreover, the meanings of violence in these narratives keep shifting with the context

and the participants in violence. While conflicts at the village level, needless to say,

are based on reasons confined to the village society in general, conflicts at the mandai

and the district level inevitably have a larger canvas with more at stake than a village

2
M.N. Srinivas has issued a caveat that a considerable part of the evidence that is available to the
fieldworker is "hearsay, and it frequently consists of interpretations and evaluations of one person's
words, actions, motives and personality, by another" (Srinivas, 1996, p.l 02). This would seem to be
particularly true in those cases where the researcher wants to elicit information regarding family or
village disputes, and violence resulting from these, where the protagonists would want to shield
evidence.

183
conflict. However, village conflicts are influenced by conflicts at the mandai and the

district levels and conflicts in the latter have repercussions in the former.

These narratives of violence also bear out the fact that each party in

the conflict has their own motives and agendas, dictated largely by its perception of

the context and nature of the conflict. While material gain in terms of financial and

other economic benefits is a primary incentive in any conflict and its accompanying

violence, the manipulation of symbolic goods seems to be a more esoteric and distant

goal. Exactly when motives for economic gain shifts to that of a symbolic nature is a

vexing aspect of most of these narratives of violence as the meaning attributed to a

motive may be both concrete and ephemeral. The aim here is therefore to examine the

processes, which historically constituted a.social universe that articulated aspirations,

emotions, and experiences of the participants

The fragmentation of narratives as an important representational

strategy is borne out by the fact that these are easy to manipulate and since the

researcher has not observed most of the events of violence directly, most of the

information gathered from the narratives is after the fact. This necessitates that the

narratives of violence are interpreted in the backdrop of the material and diachronic

properties of conflicts, rather than privilege 'experience' as the most authentic form

of knowledge. This has meant that the narratives of violence have been viewed more

as one link in a long process of events within a particular material and historical

structure, which is nonetheless improvised and structured depending on the

participants' involvement in it. Thus, narratives essentially contextualized and

partially constituted relations of contest and dominance within a material and

historical structure and they were crucial in persons' experiences of different

184
 dimensions of power, history and social identity. 3 There is also a commingling of

official discourse and people's experiential memory, which structures and provides

direction to most of these narratives. Curiously, a lack of official historical

knowledge about the exact time of occurrence of events and other details related to

time has been witnessed among those informants who are not in the social

mainstream but have a "different kind of knowledge which affords us a much more

immediate sense of the past" (Visvanathan, 1993, p.33). This is in stark contrast to

those narratives where the interlocutor is aware of the sequence of events which when

corroborated with official statistics, are most often found to be true. But then,

"historical consciousness is not merely expressive of chronology but of the relations

that emerge out of these varying and substantial contributions" (ibid, p.34).

Women's voices remain conspicuously absent in these narratives as

they seldom participated in. what is seen as a male domain. The workings of

narratives of violence and power are specifically seen as a male preserve, although

women's role in these conflicts as mothers, daughters and wives of victims and in

occasional cases as victims themselves can hardly be discounted. However, whenever

women were present during the course of the interviews (most often in the case of

women belonging to subaltern classes), their enthusiasm was palpable and their tales

of sorrow and victimhood were pronounced. In cases where the women belonged to

the dominant caste Reddy or Kamma community, the response was guarded and
3
Antonius C.G.M. Robben has argued "seduction is a dimension of fieldwork that is especially
prominent in research on violent political conflict because the interlocutors have great personal and
political stakes in making the ethnographer adopt their interpretations" (Robben in Nordstrom &
Robben, 1995, p.84). This is more so because in studies of violent conflicts the researcher cannot
resort to participant observation in its traditional sense but is restricted to account interviews. Our case
:was no different from this predicament although the statements of members of opposing factions were
always crosschecked with official statistics, newspaper reports and assessments of neutral observers.
However, it was often difficult not to be drawn into the "native's point of view", either for the sake of
empathy or to strike a good rapport with the interlocutor.

IRS
 persuasion was the only way of eliciting information. It was only after persistent

requests that I could elicit information from the widow of a Reddy faction leader who

initially denied knowing anything related to her husband's affairs in factions and

political matters. But, while I was interviewing informants belonging to the Boya

caste in another village, the daughter of one of the informants was not only

forthcoming with her opinions but also disputed some of the comments made by her

father. However, the differences in the way in which· women from different

communities interacted during interviews may not only be a function of their absence

from factional conflicts and violence but also their perception of the consequences of

their action in a specific context. 4

In what follows, I shall be focusing on two clusters of villages in

two mandals of Anantapur district and the narratives of various participants in the

conflicts in these places. In one of these two mandals, the main village has a history

of factional rivalry within a prominent Reddy family for generations; the other

mandai has been the locale of intense violence, and is an ideal case for studying the

interlinkages of village factions to state level political contestations. These clusters of

villages are linked either by the influence of a single political leader, or are the spaces

where factional rivalries between two prominent district and regional level leaders are

played out. In narrativizing the accounts of the participants in the conflict, my

endeavour is to understand, through these accounts, the underlying complexities of

4
Jacob Black-Michaud has argued in the context of feuding societies "although women stand, as it
were, outside the system of reciprocal prestations in violence which is feud, they are nonetheless
thought of as one of the main factors contributing to the continuation of hostilities between groups".
This is done by improvising "funerary dirges the principal object of which is to incite the dependants
and close kin of the victim to wash the stain of blood from their house by spilling the blood of the
killer or his near agnates" (Black-Michaud, 1975, p.219 & p.78). While these motifs are prevalent in
the case of factional conflicts in Rayalaseema, they are limited to those feud-like family conflicts as
the one discussed in the Bukkapatnam mandai of Anantapur district and does not characterize factional
conflicts generally.

186
 the material and historical structure, as well as what violence means as action and

experience to the various participants in the conflict. More importantly, these

narratives tell us how and when conflicts take the form of factions and what it means

to do politics in a factional form.

Here, the narratives were informed especially by the agency of the

researcher insofar as questions were posed to informants on the basis of a prior

selection of categories, which then determined the course of the conversation. Thus,

the narratives express the play between the researcher who poses 'the questions and

the informants but in a significant way, categories brought in by the informants into

the discussion influence the final story. The category of remembrance in these

narratives is always a problematic one as present events often colour remembrances

of the past and silences tell more than they conceal. 5 M.N. Srinivas has noted, "when

a dispute occurs, people's memories are stimulated and precedents are quoted.

Something like case law exists, though it is not systematized" (Srinivas, 1996, p.71).

Moreover, different participants have brought in variations in the narratives out of

which a coherent and plausible account has often emerged, pointing to the veracity of

an event that was nonetheless differently accounted for and differently interpreted by

the participants. These narratives then show the ways in which particular factional

and political allegiances, village politics and its relation to mandai and district

politics, have coloured the subjective perceptions and narrative intentions of the

informant. Besides the general history of an event alluded to in the narratives, most

5
During one of my visits to a particular village, I was perplexed by one man's behaviour. While being
most hospitable, he refused to yield to my persistent requests to talk to me. My endeavour to find the
reasons for such reticence also met with similar silences until I gave up the matter and proceeded to
interview another person. Although his son accompanied me for the rest of my stay in the village, he
refused to divulge why his father was not willing to talk.

187
 informants also brought in significant personal details, which flowed from their direct

participation in an event or as an indirect witness or confidant of a primary

participant, namely a leader. Narration tended to be emotionally charged when

biographical details were brought into the discussion of an event, which was common

knowledge among all the participants. Thus, each narration of a single event, e.g. a

killing or riot was put forth anew to the researcher when tempered by subjective

impressions of the participant's specific role in the event.

Case One: Factions In Yellanur Mandai

Tadpatri mandai of Anantapur is one of the three places in the

district, which has had factions for a long time. 6 Tadpatri town and its adjacent

mandai of Yellanur and its constituent villages, such as Vennapusapalli, Kallur,

Mallagundla and Thimmampalli, have either had village factions for a long time or

factions have arisen in recent times in connection with rivalries in the other villages

which comprise Yellanur mandai. This mandai is a part of Dharrnavaram Assembly

constituency. However, village factions in Yellanur mandai are linked to the mandai

level factions in Tadpatri and factions between MLAs belonging to Tadpatri

Assembly constituency and Dharmavaram Assembly constituency. At the mandai

level in Tadpatri, factional tussles between the brother of a Reddy MLA who is the

ex-Municipal Chairman of Tadpatri, Samarasirnha Reddy and ex- MPP president of

Yellanur mandai, Mahesh Reddy have seen the village factions getting divided into

two camps. 7 The former has "domination" over Vennapusapalli, Kallur, and

6
The other two places are Dhannavaram and Mudigubba.
7
M.N. Srinivas has rightly pointed out that all the material collected by a sociologist who studies an
Indian village "might be plain defamatory", which necessitates that pseudonyms be used when
reporting field data (Srinivas, 1996, p.l 03). This assumes greater significance in studies of violence as

188
~
r~~~=-=-:=====================-~~-=-=-=---========-==
ANt·NTAPUH DISTR1CT MAP SHOWJNG :h1ANDAL
BOUND IRES V:AHDALS

L AN.l\.N TP l':.UR 33. RAYADURG

2. RAPTADU 34. D.HIREHAL
3 . GARL.ADINN E 35. GUM!'A.AGHATTA
'} ,-
4. ATI-1AKUR ..o. KANEKAL
5. KUDAIR 37. BOMMANAHAL
6. S I NGA..hlAMALA 38. PENUKONDA
7. B . K. SP.MUDRAH 39. SOMANDEPALLI
8. NARPAL.A 40. ROD DAM
9. TADIPATRI 41. PUTTAPA.RTHI
KOTHACHER lJVU
~
10. YADIKI
11. PEDDAPAPPUR BUKKAPATNA.I'vl
-J..,.. PUTLUR
...., 44 . MADAKASIRA
AI'1ARA PUR.Ar-1
~· YELL.CV\I.JH.
GUNTUK.AL
45 .
46. GUDIBANDA
111 .
15. GOOTY 47 . ROLLA
16. PAJV1IDI 48. AGALI
17. PEDDAVADUGURV 49 . HINDUPlJR
18. URAVAKONDA 50 . PARIGI
19. VAJRAKARUR 51. LEPAKSHI
20 . VIDAPANAKAL 52 . CHILAMATHUR
21. 0Hl\Rtv1fi.Vi\I<AM S3. GO RANT LA
22. TADitv'u\RRI 54. KADIRI
23. BBATHALAPALLI 55. MUDUGUBBA
24. CHENNAKO'fHAPALLI 56. NALLAMADA
25. KANAG.lilll\PALLI 57. N.P.KUNTA
26. RAI•'IAGIRI 58. TALUPULA
27 . KALYhliDURG 59. NALLACHER mlU
28 . BELUGUPPA 60. OBULADEVACHERUVU
29. KAMBADUR 6 1. TANAKAL
30. KUNDURIP 6 2. AMADAGUR
) 1 . BRN1AHA SA.I'.TUD R.Z\M 63. GA..!WLAPENTA
\ :.:. SETTVR

= = = = ·· -·o-= ---
-- -- - - - - - -==~
 Mallagundla villages while the latter is dominant in Thimmampalli, Goddumarri,

Chinthakayamanda, and also in Mallagundla, Kallur, and Vennapusapalli. 8 The

former has the patronage of his brother who is an MLA from Tadpatri while the latter

has the patronage of a state Congress (I) leader and factionist from Cuddapah district.

Each of these leaders supports a particular faction leader from the villages and

hamlets in Yellanur mandai. The former gives political support to Venkat Reddy of

Vennapusapalli, Ram Reddy of Kallur, and Prakash Reddy of Mallagundla, while his

rival in the constituency Mahesh Reddy has been active in restricting the former's

influence in this mandai.

The recent mandai level factional rivalries in Tadpatri between the

two Reddys could be traced to village rivalries between their fathers. Mahesh Reddy

belongs to the village Thimmampalli, where his father Kasu Reddy was the Samithi

President of Tadpatri panchayat in the 1970s. The latter was a close associate of

Challa Subbarayudu, whose political allegiance was with the Praja Party. In the 1952

general elections in the then Andhra state, Challa Subbarayudu contested against the

Congress candidate and father of Samarasimha Reddy, Nagendra Reddy, a Kapu

from Jutur village. Kasu Reddy supported the Praja Party candidate against the

Congress candidate, and the former won. These started the political rivalries between

the two Reddy families and acts of violence against each other became common, and

some violence continued until 1955. However, Kasu Reddy had rivalries in the

r village with another Reddy family, which "carried (sic) nearly 5-6 years with number

of murders and various offences". This faction continued under the leadership of his

it involves events which if not carefully represented might jeopardize the interests ofthe informant and
the researcher alike.
8
Data cited in Circle Crime Note Book, Tadpatri Circle in the Dharmavaram sub-division.

189
 son Mahesh Reddy after Kasu Reddy's death. Thus, Mahesh's initiation into factional

politics is accidental. He justifies his involvement thus:

... My father expired and I am forced to stay in the village and

take care of my agriculture. So, in that. .. I mean connection, I am forced to lead this
faction (vargam) also.

The mandai level tussles began with Mahesh Reddy contesting for

Yellanur MPP president in 1985 and his subsequent contestation as an MLA, first as

an Independent candidate, and later as a Congress (I) candidate from Dharmavaram

Assembly constituency. The incumbent Reddy MLA from Tadpatri, and his brother,

Samarasimha Reddy are his rivals in Tadpatri, as each of them has the patronage of

different regional and state level leaders. In fact, the pattern of factional violence in

Tadpatri is related to factional violence in Cuddapah and Kumool districts, as these

are adjacent districts to Tadpatri. Most of the "factionists" from Cuddapah and

Kumool often take shelter in this town. Faction rivalries in Kolimigundla in

Cuddapah and Koilkuntla in Kumool have seen murders taking place in Tadpatri

town where the rivals from these factions have attacked each other after tracing them
9
to Tadpatri.

The rise of Mahesh Reddy in Tadpatri has another dimension,

which encompasses not only previous rivalries but also the competing ambitions of

two regional level leaders from the neighbouring Cuddapah and Kumool districts.

The rise in influence of the present MLA from Tadpatri was a threat to the

prominence of the Congress (I) leader from Cuddapah who had nurtured a dream of

holding the office of the Chief Minister ever since his inception into politics. The

former's proximity to the then Chief Minister and Congress (I) leader from Kumool
9
Data cited in Circle Crime Note Book, Tadpatri Circle in the Dharmavaram sub-division

190
posed a threat to the latter's chances of getting closer to his goal. The breach between

the Tadpatri MLA and his rival in the region, a prominent leader from the Congress

(I) started with the former's influence in the liquor trade in Tadpatri and its

surrounding areas of Yellanur mandai. They snapped ties completely in September

1992.

The Reddy MLA from Tadpatri and his regional political rival were

close associates until the 1989 Assembly elections, which saw the coming back of the

Congress (I) government in the state after the rise of TDP in 1983. Differences had

emerged between them on the issue of the election of candidate for the Chief

Minister's post. They disagreed on the candidature of one particular Reddy leader for

the post of Chief Minister, and while the former supported the Reddy leader's

candidature, the latter did not. The Reddy MLA was rewarded with a cabinet berth in

1989 state legislative assembly with most of the MLAs from Anantapur supporting

him. Subsequently, the dissident activities of the Congress leader from Cuddapah

who was the rival of the Reddy leader from Tadpatri led to the change in Chief

Ministership. However, even after this, the Congress leader from Cuddapah failed to

secure a cabinet berth while his rival again managed to do so with the support of 7

MLAs and 2 MPs from Anantapur district. This led to clashes between the two

groups in the Tadpatri area of Anantapur district. It was then that the leader from

Cuddapah patronized Mahesh Reddy and was instrumental in his contestation and

election as MLA from Dharmavaram to counter his rival both in Tadpatri and in the

district. The present tussle in the district is between the Reddy MLA and his brother,

and Mahesh Reddy. This was a result of the political ambitions of district level

191
 leaders in the region, with factional tussles in several villages of Yellanur mandai

getting drawn into the mandallevel tussles in Tadpatri.

Village factions in Vennapusapalli in Yellanur mandai have had a

close link with faction in Tadpatri. Vennapusapalli is located in the interior from the

mandai headquarter of Yellanur village. It is a small village of about 412 houses with

a population of 1878. Most of the village population is from the Reddy or Kapu caste,

while the rest are Boyas. The present faction started in the village in the year 1992.

Before that, there were groups in the village, and in the year 1928, long standing

enmity between one Somu Gurappa and Pakkeer Reddy had been especially violent.

However, the faction that started in 1992 has nothing to do with the earlier disputes as

these groups either. compromised among themselves or ceased to be important in

district politics.

Nageshwar Reddy and Chandrakant Reddy are the two village

level leaders in Vennapusapalli who have disputes against each other. Before the

·rivalries started between them, this village was free of political rivalries. Nageshwar

Reddy recollects the situation before the rivalries started thus:

Speaking in political tenns, there was never a dispute

(tagada) in the village. Our village was an ideal village. It used to be as soft as its
name suggests (Vennapusa means 'fresh butter'). In all elections, there was an
attempt at consensus politics. We tried to resolve political issues unitedly. In
elections, either we elected people unanimously or we compromised on the basis of
some fonnula whereby each party .gets some position in the local bodies.

The present dispute started over money matters. Nageshwar

Reddy's brother-in-law, Pulla Reddy had given a loan of one lakh rupees to one Somi

Reddy of the same village, and was putting pressure on the latter to return the money.

Somi Reddy had approached the police to complain against Pulla Reddy's behaviour

192
 and even feared for his life and property. When the police summoned Nageshwar

Reddy's party to discuss the matter with Somi Reddy, the latter did not tum up at the

police station. This aggravated the dispute and there were clashes between the two

parties. In this dispute, Chandrakant Reddy supported Somi Reddy. This is how the

dispute started initially in the village between the two groups. Nageshwar Reddy

narrates:

From here on the disputes were interlinked. And this

gradually intensified. And finally, it came to the attempt on the life of Pulla Reddy,
who was a prominent man in my group (gumpu). He was the Sarpanch of this village
before either Chandrakant Reddy or me ever became Sarpanches on rotation basis.
He was elected unanimously.

Pulla Reddy was important for Nageshwar Reddy's group (gumpu),

as he had associations with the Reddy MLA from Tadpatri and was always in the

Congress party. While Nageshwar Reddy himself was in the TOP since its inception,

Pulla Reddy's association with an important Congress (I) MLA, the Reddy leader

from Tadpatri, was seen as an important political link for the group. Chandrakant

Reddy's group saw this association of Pulla Reddy with the Reddy leader from

Tadpatri as a threat to their political fortunes in the village and the mandai. So they

planned to eliminate Pulla Reddy, which meant losing a vital link for Nageshwar

Reddy's group to a powerful political leader of the district. In this dispute, Mahesh

Reddy, the protege of the Reddy leader from Cuddapah, started supporting

Chandrakant Reddy's group in opposition to the Reddy MLA from Tadpatri, his rival

in the mandai. Nageshwar Reddy was at that time still with the TOP and had not

started "going to the Reddy MLA from Tadpatri". They were the supporters of TOP .

MLA from Oharmavaram Assembly constituency, Somesh Reddy. However, Somesh

Reddy was different from the Reddy MLA from Tadpatri:

193
 Somesh Reddy is not the kind of person who would help in
matters of factional violence. Politically, he could work; as a TOP leader, he could
get help from the government ... On the other hand, political patronage in the matters
of factional rivalry (varga kakshalu) can be expected from the Reddy MLA. Since
Pulla Reddy could provide that access, he was targeted and eliminated.

Although Pulla Reddy and Nageshwar Reddy belonged to different

political parties, Nageshwar Reddy's group was never antagonistic to the Reddy

MLA with whom Pulla Reddy shared relations of trust and loyalty. After the murder

of Pulla Reddy, however, Nageshwar Reddy approached the Reddy MLA directly:

We had some personal relationship, but we never went to

him for political reasons ... Weworked for Somesh Reddy until the time we were in
TDP. But he did not help us politically. So we affiliated with the Reddy MLA from
Tadpatri. ·

Thus, factional and political alignments originate in different

circumstances and have different trajectories, as this narrative unravels. Factional

associations develop around a leader and are based on ties of patronage rather than on

political affiliation. Nageshwar Reddy's allegiance to the Reddy MLA from Tadpatri

was based on the latter's extension of help in matters of factional rivalries in the

village and this in turn led to the former joining the party of the latter. In return,

Nageshwar Reddy's group extended more local support to the leader. Which of the

two allegiances-- factional or political- gets prominence depends on several

factors; the most significant is the assessment of mutual advantages that accrue from

being in a patronage relationship.

Nageshwar Reddy has influence in the neighbouring villages of the

mandai, such as Kallur, Achyutapuram, and Mallagundla. He often settles disputes in

these villages. In Kallur village, a dispute arose within the group affiliated to Mahesh

Reddy, who leads a rival faction in Tadpatri against Nageshwar Reddy's patron, the

194
 Reddy MLA from Tadpatri. One of the disputing parties approached Nageshwar

Reddy. In order to secure the support of a mandai level leader, Nageshwar Reddy

arranged for a dinner in which Samarasimha Reddy, the brother oftadpatri MLA, was

invited so that his patronage could be displayed to the opposite party. However, two

days before the dinner party, there was an attack in Kallur by the people of

Thimmampalli village, the native village of Mahesh Reddy. Nageshwar Reddy

recalls:

They came in tractors and burnt down the houses in

Kallur and cut the hand of Rama Reddy's father. The latter came over to
Vennapusapalli, as they have no shelter in Kallur. We retaliated on the same night.
We went there at night and cut their trees and burnt down their tractor. We did it in
anger and out of grief. In retaliation, they attacked our relatives in Achyutapuram
village. This happened during the day. A mob came and wanted the tractor of our
relatives, with the intention of burning it. They knew who those people were and
declined to give the tractor. They had come prepared and fired a bullet; one of our
relatives, a young man, had a bullet injury in his thigh. By that time, our relatives
organized themselves. They took up sticks and surrounded the attackers who were
beaten up.

Thus, dispute in Kallur village became a part of the dispute in

Vennapusapalli and therefore with the mandai level conflict at Tadpatri. In fact, it

was a part of the tussle at the regional level between the Reddy MLA from Tadpatri

and the Reddy leader from Cuddapah. Likewise, other villages having links with

Vennapusapalli, as in the case of Achyutapuram cited above, were also drawn into

the main faction between the Reddy MLA and Mahesh Reddy.

Village factions, then, often started out of disputes in which the

disputing parties approached two opposing leaders for the settlement of their disputes,

which not only began the faction in the village but also made it a part of the wider

context of tussles at the mandai or the district level. The dispute in Kallur was an

instance of factions being created out of the rivalries (godavalu) for which district

195
r

and regional level leaders played the role of arbiters for the disputing parties. A

particular leader's support is seen as vital in such disputes:

... Their situation is such that they have to enter it as, there is
no way they could remain in the village without some political support.

Affiliation to a leader is referred to by the phrase "going to" a

leader, which means more than political support; it means allegiance, seeking advice

and support in all matters, providing help whenever it is called for and a host of other

obligations which goes beyond mere political allegiance. This is essentially different

from political support in that the relationship between leaders and followers is one of

affiliation to a group and subordination to the leader in terms of loyalty and trust.

Over time and during the contests for local body and co-operative

society elections, violence and tussles intensified. During 1995-96, there were co-

operative society elections in Anantapur district. Violence flared up in the run-up to

the elections:

Once again, there was an attempt at attacking our village. In

July 1995, people from Kallur and Thimmampalli attacked the village in the pretext
of canvassing for their candidate for the forthcoming co-operative society elections.
They came in 4/5 jeeps. The very act of coming in 4/5 jeeps in a village, which is
already divided, is itself an act of provocation. They threw bombs and fired; so did
we. People from Thimmampalli were killed. The firing happened directly. Since we
are local people, we knew the terrain and knew the hiding places. They fled from the
village after that; fights (galata) took place outside the village also. 1995 went off
like that.

Sometimes, relative peace and calm followed these violent events.

The following year, i.e. 1996 went off peacefully with no major violence between the

factions at Vennapusapalli. However, just about the time violence seemed to have

subsided, another incident took place. Nageshwar Reddy recounts:

196
 On January 7 1997, we were to return from a court hearing at
Gooty. There were 17 of us. All of us went for previous hearing, thus they knew that
all of us had to turn up for this hearing as well. So they set up a landmine on the road
between Rayalacheruvu and Vemulapadu. On that day, I had to get down at Tadpatri,
as I had to submit a petition to the court. Some 8 people went back to Vennapusapalli
and that included my son. As they reached the spot, they found a ditch in front of the
bridge. It was dug to slow down the jeep. As soon as the jeep was slowed, the land
mine was triggered. However, the mine missed the target. But the debris of the
bridge had fallen on the vehicle. All 8 people escaped unhurt from the blast and
started to run to escape the attackers. They were pursued and 3 of them were killed
and 5 managed to escape. We retaliated immediately and killed one of their men on
the same day in the village.
We did not even go to see the men who were killed from our
group. There are parents and sons of the killed; they react emotionally. There is not
much sense in going to see the dead, as they are not going to come back. Instead, the
first act is to retaliate on those who killed our men.

As Nageshwar Reddy's faction had a stronger following in

Vennapusapalli than his opponent Chandrakant Reddy, the former did not let his

opponents enter the village after this incident. The main cause for discord on the part

of Nageshwar Reddy was the weapon used in attacking his group. When police

visited the village to pacify him, he told them:

... There is no way we are going to allow them to join the

village. What are you doing? They did so many things and such heinous acts. After
all this, they surrendered in court. You never caught them and arrested them. You
never controlled them. Blasting a landmine is not a small issue. Ordinarily, people
who blast mines are in forests. They are called naxalites. These people too planted
mines like them. So we are not going to let them in. Let them stay in forests.

Vennapusapalli village has a predominantly Reddy population. Of

this, 40 households owe allegiance to Nageshwar Reddy's faction while 15 are with

Chandrakant Reddy. Others in the village are not with either faction but they give

support to one faction or the other at election time. Nageshwar Reddy could have his

way after the violence between him and Chandrakant Reddy as he had by then got the

support (asara) of the Reddy MLA. As his opponents stayed away from the village,

no more violence erupted between the two factions.

197
 Nageshwar Reddy's influence works in several of surrounding

villages in Yellanur mandai. In the headquarters village of Yellanur, a faction started

in the year 1994 over a dispute relating to 'rasta' (approach) in the fields between two

Boyas, Jangampalli Obulesu and Chapala Veeraiah. This village is inhabited by

predominantly Boya caste people and two village level leaders of the same caste,

Dasari Balaiah and Dodlo Sivaiah supported the two groups respectively. Veeraiah is

the brother-in-law of Dasari Balaiah. From 1995, Nageshwar Reddy ·of

Vennapusapalli and Mahesh Reddy of Thimmampalli supported Balaiah and Sivaiah

respectively. In the year 1998, the faction between Balaiah and Sivaiah peaked in the

run-up to the Assembly elections in 1999.

In the same year, i.e. 1998, Sivaiah's faction of Yellanur attacked

Nageshwar Reddy's faction:

In 1998, there was a conflict between Yellanur's Sivaiah and

us. We were coming from Tadpatri when Sivaiah's people threw bombs on us by
waylaying us. We came back to Vennapusapalli, took our people and went for
counter-attack. In this violence, one of their men and one of our men died. On our
side, the dead person was not from Vennapusapalli but from Achyutapuram. On their
side too, it was not a major person from the group who died but a person who came
for supporting them in the clash.

Thus, violence related to factional conflicts encompass several

villages in a mandai and often any one conflict has repercussions on other villages

depending on the leader of the faction and his influence in the neighbouring villages.

In the case of the Vennapusapalli faction, factions in Achyutapuram, Kallur and

Mallagundla were influenced and in tum influenced the main faction in

Vennapusapalli, as conflicts within any of these villages were subsumed under a main

conflict between two influential leaders.

198
 Vennapusapalli factional conflict was dependent on the outcome of

the mandai and constituency level political tussle between two Reddy leaders whose

conflict was in turn dependent on that between two Reddy leaders from Cuddapah

and Kumool respectively, at the state level. Thus, at the time of the Assembly

elections in 1999, the present Reddy MLA and his opponent in Tadpatri Mandai,

Mahesh Reddy, compromised among themselves due to political compulsions as it

was felt by both the groups that an amiable atmosphere was needed during election

year. This facilitated a compromise on the part of the Vennapusapalli factions of

Nageshwar Reddy and Chandrakant Reddy in 1999.

While Nageshwar Reddy had earlier joined the Congress (I) during

his association with the Reddy MLA, who is a Congress (I) leader in the district, his

faction had worked for TOP candidate in the 1994 Assembly elections when Mahesh

Reddy had contested as an independent candidate from Dharmavaram Assembly

constituency. Why Nageshwar Reddy's faction took such a decision is explained by

Nageshwar Reddy's wife, herself a Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency member:

We were in Congress (I) then but Mahesh was poised to win

the election if we supported him and, as he cannot win because he is a weak
candidate compared to the TOP candidate, and our political future is in peril if
Mahesh wins, we decided to support TOP.

This also shows that political loyalty and factional loyalty are

differentiated within the same political set-up and often the interests of a faction are

foregrounded in taking overtly political decisions.

The compromise in the Vennapusapalli faction conflict was effected

by a person by the name Pakkeera Reddy from Sangapatnam in Gundlasingavaram

mandai of Kurnool district who had association with both Mahesh Reddy and his

199
 rival in the mandai. He is a faction leader and someone who had known about the

conflict in Vennapusapalli through his acquaintance with the Reddy MLA from

Tadpatri. However, he had association with Mahesh Reddy also. Nageshwar Reddy

explains:

He goes to both of them. He interfered and said, " How long

are you going to get mired in these conflicts? Your children's education is getting
affected. You did so much of damage to yourself, do not get it carried on to your
children ... so, adjust and compromise (sardubaatu)".
He had acquaintance with our conflict and us as he used to go
to the Tadpatri MLA; that is why they put them on the job of compromising us.

The process of compromise was premised on both the factions

coming to terms with the need for a compromise. In the case of a compromise, the

need for a compromise is mutual, otherwise the compromise if often short lived and

fragile. 10 In the case of Vennapusapalli, the opponents of Nageshwar Reddy, who

were ousted from th~ village after the landmine blast in 1997, were still out of the

village in 1999. This meant huge economic losses for them and abandonment of

family household. This prompted them to seek a compromise so that they can return

to the village and tend to the agricultural work and look after their families. When

Pakkeera Reddy approached them, they readily agreed. Moreover, another reason for

compromise was the immense number of criminal cases pending against both the

10
Georg Simmel has distinguished between compromise and conciliation in the ending of a conflict.
Where the prize of conflict is material in nature it can usually be divided, so that compromise is a
feasible outcome. Compromise is also possible where the prize can be represented by a substitute
value. But when the prize itself is regarded as unique and intrinsically superior to any other prize or
substitute value, no such compromise solution is possible. In contrast to the objective character of
ending conflict through compromise, conciliation is distinguished as a purely subjective method and its
psychological and sociological character seems most closely akin to that of forgiving. Conciliability
often emerges in its full, specific nature precisely after complete devotion to a fight (Simmel, 1964,
p.l14-ll7). Between these two objective and subjective poles there lies "the whole variety of degrees
to which irreconcilability places peace under the shadow of conflict" (ibid, p.l23).

200
factions, which meant sure conviction, which both the factions wanted to avoid at all

costs:

Murder cases were there on both the sides. There were 4 to 5

cases of murder on us; they had 3 cases. If the witnesses were given according to
expectations, the situation was such that both of us would have been convicted. There
was nothing we could have done to escape the convictions. All the members in both
the groups were vulnerable to conviction. Due to this realization in the members of
both the groups, compromise was seen as the only way out. The truth is both of us
wanted it deep inside us. It was nagging at our hearts, the prospect of convictions.
When we found a man who was willing to mediate, we decided to use it.

As a part of the compromise in the main faction in Vennapusapalli,

all the other factions related with this main faction also compromised. Thus,

compromise was effected in Thimmampalli, Kallur, Mallagundla and Achyutapuram

after the two parties in Vennapusapalli compromised and started living in peace.

Subsequent to the compromise, the situation in the village is peaceful with both

factions working unitedly:

There are no problems, either at village level or at political

level. We have compromised among ourselves for the local political positions at the
village and the mandai level. Today my wife is ZPTC member, and Mahesh Reddy's
younger brother is Mandai president. We Worked for the elections in a united fashion.
All of us are in Congress (1). Today, there are no differences between Mahesh Reddy
and his rival any more. Since in our village both the groups are. in Congress {1), we
work for the party and there are no problems. There are no political disputes now.
We compromised on village centric issues also, so there are no more problems.

The case of the Vennapusapalli faction, then, shows how the

mandai and district level leaders influence village factions in terms of creating and

terminating the conflict as and when the situation demands. The dispute between two

leaders having political ambitions as that between Mahesh Reddy and his rival for

supremacy (adhipatyam) in the district led to their utilizing the already existing

conflicts at the village level for garnering support in return for their support as a

201
political leader (rajakiya nayakudu), which is seen as vital for any faction wishing to

have dominance in village affairs.

In a factional conflict, what is of utmost significance is the notion

of belonging to one group or the other, even if it means physical annihilation and

consequent suffering for one's family. Once a conflict starts and members form into a

faction, the followers are bound to the leader for various reasqns- economic or

otherwise- and it is upon the leader to bail out his follower (anucharudu) in difficult

times. A leader's inability to help his followers is not appreciated:

In the 1997 landmine blast incident, there were cases on 12 of

our men. We did not get bail for 16 months. The opponents got bail in 9 months in
spite of setting up that landmine. Our people wrote a letter to me. After their
experience in jail, they lost their morale and wrote "You left us in lurch like this. You
are not trying hard toget us out. We would be spending our time here until the
convictions happen and then we would be sent to jail from here itself. You do not
care for us". This is how our people suffered and broke under pressure.

However, once a faction is formed around a person having social

and economic importance in the village, allegiance to the faction leader is not hard to

come by, although the reasons for the faction to be formed could be accidental, to

begin with. The faction that started between Nageshwar Reddy and Chandrakant

Reddy in Vennapusapalli was not because of any enmity between the two leaders:

Actually, I do not need to get down to faction. I did not get

into it because my family does not have enough to eat. In the violence that happened
during 1992, my eldest son was put as an accused along with me. He was studying
B.Sc in Anantapur then. Police however came down and picked up my youngest son
who had come for vacation from a convent in Bukkapatnam. It took three days for us
to get our son released. It was then that we thought that it would not be possible to
stay in the village without a leader's support. What is our position if we cannot get
our innocent son released from police custody for full three days? Then we decided
that we should have patronage (prapakam) of a big leader like the Reddy MLA from
Tadpatri and pleaded him to take us under his wings.

202
 However, once someone is a part of a faction, it is very difficult not

to follow its logic. Thus, in a factional conflict, the primary mode of politics is based

on the patron-client tie, which encompasses every member of a faction. While the

leader could legitimately demand allegiance from his followers, the followers could

desert the leader if he is not protected. Allegiances to one's group members become

primary when one belongs to a faction. While Nageshwar Reddy laments the violence

experienced by his group, ,he is at the same time wary of his loyalty to his leader:

When we think of the past, we feel, how did we do such

atrocious acts? Why did we do them? I might have felt like the way I do now all
along. But I had no chance of changing myself in those times. Once you are into it,
your opponent might commit a mistake or you might commit one. If one person in
our group is harmed, we need to intervene for right or wrong. One has to intervene
on behalf of one's group; that is it. Once you get into it, there is no possibility of
thinking about right or wrong, just or unjust.

In this sense, the termination of any factional conflict can rarely be

taken as final. The formation of factions is a particular form that conflicts may take,

whether socially or politically. As a mode of conflicting, factional conflicts are a part

of the cultural and historical idiom of the region, and are more a structural feature of

the society in general and hence a practice.

However, this historical practice has transformed with the

introduction of political parties, universal adult franchise, and institutional changes

over the years, which has introduced new dimensions into the way this practice has

informed social relations. The nature of factional conflicts has undoubtedly changed,

but the tendency to practise the factional mode of conflicts has been preserved as a

function of the social and political structure of the region. The following case of

faction in Pamudurthy is a further illustration of this general point.

203
 Case Two: Factions In Bukkapatnam Mandai

The significance of this mandai m terms of district politics is

marginal. But it is significant for our purposes in order to understand the

transformations in a family conflict, which often take overtly political colour. Further,

factions in this mandai, comprising the main village Pamudurthy and its neighbouring

villages of Siddaramapuram, Kothakota and Yerlampalli, are also significant in order

to understand the rise of the backward

. castes in state politics after the emergence. of

the Telugu Desam Party in 1983, and its consequences for the traditional form of

factional mobilizations at village level for the purposes of formal politics.

Pamudurthy is the real epicenter of this mandai though

Bukkapatnam is the mandai headquarters. Bukkapatnam mandai is part of Gorentla

Assembly constituency, which in turn is a part of Hindupur Parliamentary

constituency. The significance of Pamudurthy is derived from the fact that it is the

native village of a very important Reddy family, which dominated the political scene

of Gorentla and Hindupur for a long time, though its grip over them has been on the

wane for a while. 11

In Pamudurthy, all Reddy families trace their origin to a Mogali

Venkata Reddy who is said to have come and settled in the area in mid-seventeenth

century from Gooty fort. Today the village has an overwhelming population of

backward castes. Balijas followed by Gandlas are the numerically predominant

11
One or other. member of Pamudurthy Reddy family represented Gorentla Assembly constituency
uninterrupted until 1978. Their hold slipped away for the first time in 1983 with the victory of a TOP
candidate belonging to the backward caste of Boyas. They managed to wrest the constituency back in
1989, but in 1994 TOP once again put up a BC candidate and won. Thereafter Congress even refused
to give ticket to any member of the Pamudurthy Reddy family. Hence no one from the family
contested the election in 1994. However, Pamudurthy Pavitra Reddy, the only member of the family,
who is active in politics now, contested as an independent upon being denied a ticket in 1999 but lost
the election with a huge 28% margin. Congress too has put up a BC candidate since 1994 .

204
 communities in the village. Domination of the Reddy family in the village is partly a

matter of traditional authority and partly a consequence of monopolization of

resources in the form of landed property. Extant members of the family trace their

genealogy to Pamudurthy Pedda Bayapa Reddy who was the patriarch of the Reddy

clan in the early part of the 19th century. He was active· in politics and was President

of Anantapuram District Board in 1933. He was an active member of the Justice

party. He expired in the late 1940s.

However, as we have argued in the beginning, the political

trajectories of the landed interests in the Madras Presidency typically showed that

once the Justice Party's political fortunes were in decline, a substantial number of

them joined the Congress party. P_edda Bayapa Reddy's children too joined the Indian

National Congress around the time of Independence. Pedda Bayapa Reddy married

' twice and it was the children of his second wife who inherited both his political

legacy as well as his property. 12 He had four sons from his second wife -

SuryaNarayana Reddy, Aayappa Reddy, Bhaskar Reddy and Pavitra Reddy. The first

two sons came to control the family property after their father's death. The eldest son

12
Pedda Bayapa Reddy's first wife begot him a son and his second wife four sons and three daughters.
The son from the first wife, Venkat Reddy was sent away to England to study law. His foster brothers
refused to give him a share in the property after their father's death in the 1940s. He was given 18,000
rupees and he was forced to accept that money, as there was pressure on him not to pursue the property
dispute at a time when one of his younger brothers was in jail under a case referred to as 'charge
officer case'.
An informant recalls: "Venkat Reddy's foster younger brother, SuryaNarayana Reddy, was an
employee in a private company. He was falsely implicated in a case where an inspector was murdered
by the followers of the Pamudurthy Reddis in Siddaramapuram, who had come to look into
malpractices related to rations for a gruel centre started by the government during drought. As the
killers were the followers of SuryaNarayana Reddy, he wrote a letter to the local doctor to give a false
certificate reporting the murder as a suicide. With this letter, he was exposed and was lodged in jail."
Venkat Reddy has four sons and four daughters, who are still bearing grudges for the injustice
done to their father by his foster siblings. The older property dispute has today found more than one
channel of continuing the conflict, with Venkat Reddy's progeny taking issue with their uncle, P.
Pavitra Reddy. We shall have occasion to return to this aspect of the conflict later.

205
 SuryaNarayana Reddy contested elections for the Assembly in the undivided Madras

Presidency as Kisan Mazdoor Praja party's candidate from Penukonda Assembly

constituency and stood third after CPI and INC's candidates. The winning candidate

of the CPI Lakshmi Narayana Reddy is said to have had an old family rivalry with

Pamudurthy Reddies. 13

SuryaNarayana Reddy relinquished politics after this defeat and his

younger brother Aayappa Reddy took over. He contested on Congress ticket from

Nallamada constituency against Lakshmi Narayana Reddy of CPI and won the

elections. He was an MLA from 1955-62 and got reelected in 1962. He left Gorentla

Assembly constituency in 1967 for the wife of his younger brother Padma Bhasker

Reddy who won on a Congress ticket and became a ~inistet in Brahmananda

Reddy's cabinet. He became a member of parliament from Hindupur parliamentary

constituency in 1971 and stayed in parliament for three terms by winning in 1977 and

1980 as well.

Towards the end of 1970s a family dispute was brewing among the

Pamudurthy Reddies. Aayappa Reddy who was active and successful in politics

besides managing all the landed property of the family in the village was without

child. He was expected to adopt the eldest son of his elder brother SuryaNarayana

Reddy. He instead adopted his wife's sister's daughter. SuryaNarayana Reddy and

13
LaxmiNarayana Reddy's father Narasa Reddy and Pedda Bayapa Reddy had an earlier rivalry.
Narasa Reddy was the village 'munsif ofBukkapatnam and Vengalam Cheruvu. He excommunicated
one Subba Reddy, a follower of Pedda Bayapa Reddy from Vengalam Cheruvu village. Subba Reddy
approached Pedda Bayapa Reddy to get his grievance redressed. The patron tried to intervene but
Narasa Reddy did not comply with the 'orders' given by Pedda Bayapa Reddy and let Subba Reddy
enter the village. Thereupon, Narasa Reddy was attacked and his thumb was cut as he had the
reputation of being a good writer. This original rivalry between Narasa Reddy's son and Pedda Bayapa
Reddy's son continued in the form of political rivalry in the 1950s. Further, this kind of opposition
between the domineering Pamudurthy Reddies and either a docile relationship of allegiance or hostile
relationship of antagonism between Reddi families in surrounding villages appear to be a paradigmatic
case, as we shall see later.

206
Pavitra Reddy took exception to this move, as they thought that someone outside their

own 'blood' would be inheriting their property as well as political legacy. Further, as

one of the protagonists put it, "Aayappa Reddy was seen as working for the whole

family before the child was adopted; after the adoption, he came to be seen as taking

care of his own interests alone". At that time, Pavitra Reddy was staying in

Hyderabad practicing law. He also nurtured political ambitions and wanted to contest

from the Gorentla Assembly constituency in 1967. He was denied the ticket and

instead his sister-in-law Padma Bhasker Reddy contested and won. He was urged to

come back from Hyderabad by his eldest brotlier and he returned to Pamudurthy in

1969. Pavitra Reddy himself recalls his return to the village thus:

A family discord was what prompted my return to Pamudurthy.

We had some differences. My brother Aayappa Reddy was managing my properties
as well. But, he refused to look after them any more one day. I had to return.

From then on, he relentlessly "ran a faction" opposed to his brother

to establish himself politically. Pavitra Reddy's political career amply demonstrates

that his politics is determined and carried out by means of maintaining and

perpetuating factions in his own village of Pamudurthy and surrounding villages

where the influence of his family extends, first in opposition to his brother and then in

opposition to various factions owing allegiance to TDP.

When Pavitra Reddy returned to Pamudurthy, Aayappa Reddy's

control over the village and surrounding areas was near total and uncontested. The

latter's position of power had a number of bases. The most important was the

traditional allegiances that were given to the family of Reddies of the village

(reddarikam). Aayappa Reddy was seen as a repository of it as he was the public face

of the family and was active in politics. With this came the powers of arbitration in

207
 cases of disputes in Pamudurthy and its surrounding villages. This however did not

mean that the Pamudurthy Reddies settled all disputes. 14 It meant that they could

delegate authority to a follower in a particular village or send an emissary to a village

to settle a particular dispute. A long time follower of the Reddies recalls, "I used to

do all the work that was assigned to me. Be it overseeing farm work or going to some

villages to do arbitration (panchayati). They do not come out of house. They need

people like us to go as their agents to carry out the work on their behalf."

Further, this dominance was actively used for the economic benefits

of the family. One of the dissidents in the village from a backward caste recalls that,

until the early 1970s, there was no notion of wages as far as agricultural work on

Reddi's land was con9emed. Normally a word used to be sent around that Reddi

needs workers and his followers in the lower castes came with their own implements

to work their land. Referred to as pa/agadu or jeetagadu, these people are bound to

the family by the very fact of being in employment of Reddy. Being in that position

gave them some immunities and advantages. For instance, they often indulged in

stealing poultry, and in the event of protest from the owners, their status as Reddi's

palagadu was enough to settle the argument. Symbolically this domination found

expression in the form of address to their patrons. The usual way to address the

patron was to suffix the name of the patron with nayana (father). As one of the

14
Carolyn M. Elliott has reported that, "in problems for arbitration, for example, resolution depends on
the arbitrator's persuasiveness and reputation for fairmindedness as well as on his ability to apply
sanctions to enforce his decision. Once accepted, the process of arbitration becomes a further
independent source of authority in the village" (Elliott, 1971, p.I33). While this is largely the case in
almost all villages, we shall also have to take note of how, in this instance for example, relations of
patronage necessitate that other persons are entrusted with deciding disputes on behalf of their patrons-
a significant element in building networks of patronage across villages and districts.

208
informants reported, the members of the Reddy family would frown at any other form

of address.

Finally, in the formal electoral arena, domination (adhipatyam)

meant that there was usually no worthwhile contest for any candidate backed by the

Reddy family. A measure of this domination could be gathered by this observation

from an informant, " in the past, they never came out to ask for votes during

elections. That is happening for only the last few terms. Prior to that they only sent a

word from the house that a particular symbol has to be stamped on and it was duly

carried out. That is the kind of influence (prabalyam) they wielded over some of the

villages around here."

Domination was kept intact by several means. For one, political

mobilization on the basis of allegiance to any political party was effectively restricted

in the village. All other allegiances were subordinated to the allegiance to the Reddy

family. There were some attempts to challenge this domination, which were scuttled

by manipulating the terms of contest themselves. According to an informant, the

authority of Pamudurthy Reddies suffered during the early years of the

institutionalization of Panchayati Raj with the defeat of a candidate supported by

Aayappa Reddy in panchayat elections at the hands of a candidate supported by the

Communists. He narrates:

"At present Pamudurthy panchayat consists of only two villages-

Pamudurthy and Venkatapuram. There was a time when it was much bigger with
nearly 8 hamlets attached to it. During that time one Nallapu Reddy of Gasigavari
Palli, a neighbouring village contested and won the election with the support of
Communists. After that, the Reddies of Pamudurthy thought that having that many
hamlets attached to the panchayat is not conducive for perpetuating their domination
in the village and reduced it to a panchayat of two villages. Since then either a
member of their family or one supported by them became president of the
panchayat."

209
 There was always latent discontent with the kind of domination

practised by Aayappa Reddy in the village. Pavitra Reddy tried to contest it when he

returned to the village and established himself politically against his brother. He won

over the balijas of the village who had had long standing enmity with another

numerically dominant backward caste in the village, the gandlas. One of his

backward caste followers at that time recalls "he said that he is a man of principles,

opposed to the kind of domination practiced by his family over the years; he would

not let any one who drinks alcohol associate with him ... of course once he won the

election in 1972 all that changed." Further, Pavitra Reddy also tried to break the hold

of his brother on the surrounding villages by propping up people opposed to the

latter's supporters. Outlining the genesis of factions in the village, an informant

belonging to Aayappa Reddy's faction recalls:

"Here it was between brothers; against a person who had

already established himself; and the elder brother was not fighting. He was willing to
accommodate his brother~ So there was no basis for a faction politics. The whole
problem is again the younger brother (Pavitra Reddy) because this factional thing is
always on his mind. So he creates factions in every village. In lots of villages in this
area, there is no village head, because whenever there is a village head who has some
influence, he (Pavitra Reddy) will immediately step in, create ... bring up another
useless fellow who supports him; there will be fight (galata) between them and this
fellow will get humiliated and he loses his influence. There is no control in these
villages; in Kothakota, nobody listens to anyone. This is so in several villages around
Pamudurthy. But if you cross Pamudurthy, the culture in the villages about 10
kilometers away from this village is totally different from what it is here ...."

Once he had set up a network of factions in Pamudurthy and its

surrounding villages in this fashion Pavitra Reddy entered the electoral fray. He

contested his first election against Aayappa Reddy in the 1971 parliamentary

elections from Hindupur from Congress (Organization) and came second. He

contested again in the 1972 elections for state assembly as an independent candidate

against his sister- in-law and sitting MLA Padma Bhasker Reddy of INC and won. In

210
 1978 Assembly elections he contested again but on a Janata Party ticket and lost. His

brother Aayappa Reddy won that election. This led to a long exile from power for

him.

According to Pavitra Reddy "he entered politics with the blessings

of late Neelam Sanjiva Reddy". It is no coincidence that his brother Pamudurthy

/

. Aayappa Reddy and Neelam Sanjiva Reddy had long standing political rivalry in

district politics of Anantapur. However after the defeat at the elections. in 1978,

Pavitra Reddy's relation with Sanjiva Reddy started souring: He attributes this to the

typical attitude of political patrons who demand subservience from their followers,

which he was not willing to do. He again tried to get a ticket to contest the elections

from the Congress unsuccessfully in 1983 as well as in 1985. He was denied the

ticket both times because of the influence his brother wields in the organization. He

managed to get a ticket only in 1989 and won. By that time his brother retired from

active politics after finishing his stint as MP in 1984. He expected to get a ministerial

berth but was denied it. Instead it went to Jagdish Reddy, a strongman belonging to

the Congress (I) from Anantapur whose role in district and regional level political

factions was important for the party in the district. According to Pavitra Reddy,

Jagdish Reddy " does not deserve to be made minister overlooking my own claims as

he is much junior to me and I have far superior family background". His opposition to

Jagdish Reddy started right in earnest when he refused to sign a paper expressing

consent for nominating Jagdish Reddy to the cabinet from the district. He relented

only after much persuaSion by other MLAs from the district. However, Pavitra Reddy

led dissident activities in the district Congress during the Congress government's

tenure from 1989-94 against Jagdish Reddy and was an active member of the faction

211
opposed to Jagdish Reddy at the regional level led by a prominent Reddy

Congressman from Cuddapah district.

Pavitra Reddy expected renomination from the Congress in 1994

Assembly elections but was denied it as Jagdish Reddy decided on the ticket

distribution of the Congress party in Anantapur district. Instead, a backward caste

candidate got the Congress ticket. Pavitra Reddy filed his nomination as an

independent candidate. Then in a sensational fashion the official Congress candidate

was kidnapped while he was on his way to file his nomination and released only after

the deadline for filing nominations was over. Election commission took serious note

of this incident and countermanded the election in Gorentla constituency. Pavitra

Reddy admits that the kidnappers were. his followers but denies any .knowledge of

their activities. Further, he claims that he was given Congress ticket finally when

Gorentla went for polls but decided not to contest as his house was blasted by

suspected naxalite splinter group having close ties with another district level faction

leader who extended his support to the TOP candidate.

Ironically, he received the support of the same district level faction

leader from TDP in the 1999 elections when he contested as an independent

candidate. This was because of animosities between the TDP MLA from Gorentla

Assembly constituency, Nimmala Kistappa and the TDP faction leader from

Anantapur. Pavitra Reddy alleges that he was denied Congress ticket in 1999 at the

behest of Jagdish Reddy. He polled more votes than the official Congress (I) nominee

from the backward caste but was no match for the sitting MLA and minister in

Chandrababu' s cabinet, Nimmala Kistappa. He alleges that there was a foul play by

the district bureaucracy and police to ensure the minister's victory. His allegation was

212
buttressed by the fact that "he did not even get majorities in those polling booths

where his son rigged the polls." (sic.) After this election, he was suspended from

Congress, which was revoked in 200 I after he allegedly appeased the Pradesh

Congress Committee president. He aspired for and got a ticket from Gorentla

Assembly .constituency in the just concluded 2004 Assembly polls. He won the

election against Nimmala Kistappa with a narrow margin of less than 100 votes.

We may note here that Pavitra Reddy's political career is propped

in crucial ways by the allegiances, patronage networks and political calculations at

the district level and beyond. To begin with, N. Sanjiva Reddy supported him in order

to undermine the influence of Aayappa Reddy at the district level. But once he

entered Congress formally after 1978 he found it difficult to find a powerful patron

who could support him against his brother till 1989. By that time the political scene at

the district level was much altered and Aayappa Reddy had retired from active

politics. The new polarity in the district Congress politics was between Jagdish

Reddy, a district boss, and a regional Congress leader, who had aspirations to emerge

as a state level leader. Pavitra Reddy found it conducive to galvanize this polarity to

his advantage by firmly placing himself in the latter's ca.rilp. However, this worked

both to his advantage and his disadvantage, when he won the elections for state

assembly on Congress ticket in 1989 and 2004 but was denied a ticket from Congress

in 1994 and 1999.

On the other hand, this supra-local patronage was not sufficient in

itself for launching or sustaining the political career of Pavitra Reddy. Its trajectory is

also crucially determined by the local level politics (sthanika rajakiyalu). As we

already noted, he started off his political career by setting up a faction opposed to his

213
brother in Pamudurthy and surrounding villages where his domination extends. He

received the support of several groups that were either opposed to Aayappa Reddy's

domination or felt marginalized under him. His most loyal supporters throughout

have been Boyas or Valmikis of Agraharam, a neighbouring hamlet. Several

informants describe the boyas as a 'very militant caste'. They are also described as

Pavitra Reddy's army by Pavitra Reddy himself as well as people opposed to him. He

is said to 'use them to settle his scores'.

The crucial feature of the emergence of Pavitra Reddy's faction in

the village is that although it was occasioned to a degree by discontentment with the

nature of domination exercised by his brother, the fact of domination itst:lf remained

intact. One informant who went along with Pavitra Reddy upon his return to village

observes:

" We supported Pavitra Reddy when he came back to the village

because of our opposition to the high handed ways of Aayappa Reddy. We worked
like his slaves when he came here first. We took care of his agricultural work, did
whatever other tasks he assigned to us. We fought to protect his interests, got
involved in police cases and made the rounds of courts. There were strict norms to be
followed to get associated with him. He used to shun those who drinks alcohol. After
his arrival things did change. Aayappa Reddy himself mended his ways. It also has to
do with growth of advent of.civilization (nagarikata) in the village. But once he got
hold of power Pavitra Reddy became all that he denounced upon his arrival; once he
won as an MLA all the conditions changed."

The decade of the '80s was marred by a series of violent incidents

between the factions led by Aayappa Reddy and Pavitra Reddy. Very few of them got

reported to the police and hence did not find mention in the district crime records. Of

10 such incidents reported between 1984 and 1987 from Pamudurthy and its

surrounding villages, only one mentions either of the chief protagonists as the

accused. Moreover, on no occasion property destruction of the Reddy family itself

214
was reported. These facts often raise doubts, albeit in hindsight, regarding the true

character of the factional conflict between Aayappa Reddy and Pavitra Reddy.

A key informant from the backward castes who is also active in

mobilizing support for sitting MLA Nimmala Kistappa observes:

Though there was a manifest faction between the two brothers,

there was no damage done to either of the families. We can never understand that
technique. Only the people in between had to endure all the suffering. Be it loss of
property or loss of life. Incidents of violence used to start around a year prior to the
election, polarizing the village sharply. In the election, both the candidates would be
from the same family. One of them would certainly win. After the elections, the
factions get controlled a bit. Somehow I get the feeling that they cannot tolerate the
idea of people being together in a harmonious fashion. I have a feeling that they
continued the faction in order to keep the BC, SC and ST population in two camps.

This perception receives some support from the observations made

by the son-in-law of Aayappa Reddy who comments on one of the key and most

violent incidents of the conflict between the brothers-- the killing of Gutti Kistappa

of Agraharam village - a hamlet that falls under Pamudurthy Panchayat and whose

inhabitants are closely linked to the factions in Pamudurthy. Gutti Kistappa was a

balija and a follower of Aayappa Reddy. As we have already noted, the boyas of

Agraharam village are staunch followers of Pavitra Reddy. Kistappa along with some

followers from the untouchable communities of the village had a faction with the

boyas. He was subject to social boycott and a series of physical attacks. On 5th April

1987 he was waylaid and killed while he was on his way to Agraharam from

Pamudurthy. Narrating his death one of the key informant observes:

"In that killing Pavitra Reddy was in serious trouble. They all
(Aayappa Reddy's followers) came here with the man grievously injured and
Aayappa Reddy prevented them from taking Kistappa to hospital as he could give a
dying declaration which could fix him (Pavitra Reddy) up. By that time TDP was in
power and an ASP posted here was keen on arresting him (Pavitra Reddy). For two
or three months he was hiding. Then he came to court and surrendered and applied
for bail."

215
 The killing of Gutti Kistappa was the last major incident of violence

reported in the course of the faction between Pavitra Reddy and Aayappa Reddy.

Aayappa Reddy kept himself away from active politics after that and expired on 21 51

September 1993. While some attribute his decision to retire from active politics to

the death of his key and closest follower, Gutti Kistappa, others argue that that

decision was prompted by a calculation that having a violent faction within the family

in the context of emergence of TDP as a major political force in the region would be

detrimental to the interests of the family as a whole.

After the death of Aayappa Reddy, Pavitra Reddy came to control

the village completely. At the time of his brother's death Pavitra Reddy was sitting
.,
MLA from Goreritla constituency and used that stature to consolidate his grip over

the village. Several informants are of the opinion that the control of Pavitra Reddy on

the village today is premised more on fear than on loyalty unlike the case of Aayappa

Reddy. Elaborating on this state of affairs Aayappa Reddy's son-in- law who runs an

NGO in the village says:

"If you cross Pamudurthy, the culture in the villages about 10

kilometers away from this village is totally different from what it is here .. .I cannot
take up a project in this village. I just do not know how people would react. They
have become slaves. People in this village ... They always think of what this man
(referring to Pavitra Reddy) thinks. Some time back, I offered buffalos to a group of
50 women, with a subsidy from government. The first thing on their mind was what
'this fellow' thinks. They were afraid to take help from me because that would mean
a continuous association with me, which might bring hard times on them as Pavitra
Reddy may not like that. There are so many people who take a roundabout way and
come here avoiding his house, even to meet me. To that extent they are brain-
washed and they are really scared."

Those who are opposed to Pavitra Reddy in the village attribute this

fear among the people as much to his ability to mediate with and manipulate local

216
 administration as to his willingness to perpetuate violence. Sanga Shanker, a dissident

in the village observes:

"It is neither approved of nor possible for any one in the village to
deal with administration directly. Except for a few of us who get our work done on
our own, everyone has to go to Pavitra Reddy pleading him either to speak to a
influential person or to write a letter of recommendation to the concerned officer to
get their work done. It is also true that those officers would not entertain these people
without those recommendations. Pavitra Reddy does all that he can to keep that
distance between the administration and people intact. He uses that distance to
determine the beneficiaries of various government welfare programs. For the
villagers he is the deliverer". 15

Pavitra Reddy was also known to be paying special attention to the

local police administration. As one informant observes, " He does not care for DGP

or Chief Minister but the local sub- inspector is always taken good care of. He is

always kept in good humor. For him he is the VIP. Through him he tries to settle the

scores. The ordinary people are scared of him for that reason." He goes on to say:

"What scares them is his criminal brain. For instance when the
faction with his brother was active, if Pavitra Reddy's followers were involved in
some act of aggression, in order to file a counter case he asked his own people to beat
up one among his own men. Police .had to specifY Aayappa Reddy's men as the
accused as the existence of faction between him and Pavitra Reddy was common
knowledge. Once this is done, Pavitra Reddy starts. sending in feelers for
compromise. This he· had done in so many villages. People often take that bait as
fighting a case is a hugely expensive affair, So the faction politics in this village is
· mainly the brainwork of Mr. Pavitra Reddy. Othervvise there is nothing. There is no
one to oppose him in ten or fifteen villages surrounding Pamudurthy."

Yet another way of retaining control over people in the village

adopted by Pavitra Reddy was to sell land to the followers but never to go for a clean

registration of the transaction. This is because "once the land is registered, his hold

would go away. In order to keep people dependent on him, he encouraged this

15
Blok has argued in the context of the Sicilian Mafia, similar ways in which upwardly mobile rural
and peasant entrepreneurs preserved local and regional isolation by "establishing control over the
precarious links that tied the peasant to the larger society and the framework of the State" (Biok, 1988,
p.2l4)

217
practice". Further, the role of violence, whether potential or real in perpetuating this

fear-based allegiance too cannot be undermined. As one of the political leaders from

the backward castes who emerged autonomously in the village notes with

exasperation: "All the political education we try to impart is in vain at one level. If he

brings in those boyas of Agaraharam one day and hits one of them, they go bac:k to

him saying Nayana."

This of course does not mean that Pavitra Reddy's hold over the

village has not suffered with nearly 10 years of political wilderness ever since 1994.

As Aayappa Reddy's son-in-law notes:

"I do not know why people fear him so much! There is nothing to
be scared about him today. He does not have so much influence now. And police are
against him. Of course ninety percent of people here have something critical to say
about him but of them only some twenty percent have the courage to say it. These
people came up after the emergence of TDP and the political patronage of the party.
Traditionally this family is a Congress family. Now that the balijas got TOP's
support, they are not under his thumb any more. However, even today there is only
one person who can contest election in this village against him. One Shanker. He
worked in this house. He also worked in that house as well."

Another informant observes that it gives a measure of his political

insecurity that today Pavitra Reddy wants all the positions in the local bodies starting

from panchayat president to be peopled by his own family members. Giving another

hint of this insecurity Aayappa Reddy's son- in- law narrates:

"During the last mandai election, some TDP fellow came to me

and immediately some one went to him and reported that I gave 5000 rupees as
donation. Then people came to me and told me that he was not happy. I told them
that it is my money and I decide whom to give and whom not to. Tha~ is none of his
business. The truth is I am not a fool to give that kind of money to someone
contesting at the mandai level; what do I have to gain from it?"

218
 It is this political insecurity that is at the heart of the present round

of factional conflict in the village between Pavitra Reddy and his relative Suresh

Reddy, which precipitated in violence in the year 2002.

The principal opponent of Pavitra Reddy in the present factional

conflict is Suresh Reddy, husband of Kavitha, one of the daughters of Pavitra

Reddy's half brother Venkat Reddy. 16 He is a native of the neighbouring village

Kothakota and had settled in Pamudurthy some years back after retiring from

Government service, with the active encouragement of Pavitra Reddy himself.

Recalling the arrival of Suresh Reddy and souring of his relations with him, Pavitra

Reddy narrates:

"I was quite nice to them. We never had any· ill feelings
towards them. I don't know how they developed some sort of grudges .. .! gave my
lands to them. That lady (referring to his niece Kavitha) though she comes from our
family is very ill-tempered; she does not know what she talks and how people from
respectable families ought to behave, we ... our ladies, my wife she is a postgraduate
and now a MPP member, she never comes out and sits when men are there."

This conflict has taken an overt political. colour in recent times as

Suresh Reddy has been seen to be associating with TDP leaders in opposition to

Pavitra Reddy's affiliation with the Congress (1). This has led to verbal and physical

assaults among the two groups, with Pavitra Reddy having an edge over his

opponents as his leadership in the village is well entrenched and of a longer duration.

Suresh Reddy believes that:

Pavitra Reddy would not tolerate me, as I could be an

obstruction to his power in future. So, he is creating lot of trouble for me in the
village. He has stopped the 'dhobi', barber, and labourers from coming to my service.
We stay here for only a few days at a time. Most of the time, we stay at our other
house in Madanapalle (in Chittoor district).

16
See foot note I 0

219
 The tussle between Pavitra Reddy and Suresh Reddy started with

the latter supporting a BC candidate, Sanga Shankar, for the post of Sarpanch, who

belongs to TDP. Shankar has been opposing the supremacy of the Reddis in the

village for a long time and he was the first person to formally contest against Pavitra

Reddy's family in last 40 years. He contested against Pavitra Reddy's son when

panchayat elections were held in 1995. Though he was a follower of Pavitra Reddy at

the time of his return to the village in 1969 and defected to Aayappa Reddy's faction

in 1988 and stayed with him till he died in 1993, having openly opposed Pavitra

Reddy in formal electoral fray, he claims a long genealogy of resistance to the

Reddies ofPamudurthy. Acco~ding to him:

"Pamudurthy Sanga people have been opposing these Reddis

since my grandfather's time. Several people who are opposed to their atrocities have
polarized around us. The Reddis had placed restrictions that Communists should not
come into this village. We supported Communists to enter the village. They never
allowed anyone outside their family to ever become a sarpanch. Only for the last 10
years, I am contesting against these people. This is a village with an electorate of
2500. The first time I contested, I lost by 250 votes. Last time I lost by a margin of
mere 108 votes. Today we support anyone who opposes them in Assembly polls, and
sit here as polling agents to ensure a fair poll."

As Suresh Reddy started supporting Sanga Shankar in the local

body elections, the tussle between him and Pavitra Reddy intensified, as a clear

political threat was perceived from Suresh Reddy. However, Suresh Reddy is not too

vociferous about his political affiliations and merely concedes:

Since he (Pavitra Reddy) belongs to the Congress party, I

am given the colour of TOP. But I do not belong to any political party. Since I too
get a shield (of a political party), I do not deny this. When his men attacked my
property and me, TOP minister came to my house to console me and give me
strength; that is how people here started associating me with the TOP. In any case, no
one likes Pavitra Reddy in the district. He never attends any party meeting of the
Congress, or a party programme such as dharnas. He is disliked because of his feudal
attitude.

220
 Pavitra Reddy was swift in his reaction to this kind of open defiance

and attempts at wresting control over the village by Suresh Reddy. He imposed a

social boycott on Suresh Reddy's family. Pavitra Reddy triumphantly describes the

effects of the boycott he imposed as follows:

"Today, nobody goes to him. They do not have a barber, or

a washer man, or a sweeper; they do not have any right because 'you' are opposed to
us. Am I responsible for all that? Because they know that these people are opposed to
me, they do not go to their house. Why should you be like that? What is the reason? I
gave my lands; I gave my house; [ gave everything to you ... what is the ... where
is ... why should he oppose me and what is the reason to oppose me? Just because you
have money, you cannot become a leader in no time. They must have some footing in
the villages; 'you' must have helped somebody and people must realize that 'you' are
helping and they will come to 'you' only when they know that 'you' are helping. Just
six months back 'you' come to the village and all of a sudden, 'you' want to become
a leader, 'you' want to become sarpanch, and 'you' want to become MLA."

Further, in his characteristic way, Pavitra Reddy mired Suresh

Reddy in land related litigation. According to Suresh Reddy:

"I was very close to Pavitra Reddy when I came here. I bought 7
acres of his land for 7.24 lakhs. Of that only 3.5 acres was registered. Since I
supported someone else in panchayat election when his son contested during 200 1,
he refused to register the land that I had bought from him. That precipitated in the
tension in the village and police had to intervene. He said that I had paid only half of
the money due to him ... The police asked if I have any proof of the transaction. What
proof could be there for a transaction between such close relatives? He finally kept 2
acres himself and registered rest of it. In effect, I have been deceived of 2 lakh
rupees."

This land dispute was a source of further intensification of conflict

and was at the center of a series of incidents of intense violence since the start of the

present factional conflict in the village. Seven acres of this disputed land is irrigated

by a well. Since only five acres of it was registered for Suresh Reddy the water rights

too are to be shared. According to the terms of sharing, Suresh Reddy could use

water from the well for five days and Pavitra Reddy could use the water for two days.

Both Pavitra Reddy and Suresh Reddy gave this land on lease to their respective

221
followers for cultivation with same instructions for sharing water. But these tenants

started having disputes regarding the sharing of water. This eventually precipitated in

clashes that involved not only the tenants themselves but also the followers of Pavitra

Reddy and Suresh Reddy. While one may discern tangible immediate reasons for this

faction in the present and consequent incidents of violence, Suresh Reddy himself is

keen on tracing the present conflict to the long standing ill- feeling between the

families due to the unjust distribution of wealth to his wife's family.

To sum up, the family faction that started with the property disputes

and family discord within a locally dominant Reddy clan between Pavitra Reddy and

Aayappa Reddy became a political tussle that drew the entire area of its influence into

is ambit. The conditions for the existence of factions here were diminished once

Pavitra Reddy and his family members came to dominate the position in local bodies,

with no ·effective opposition to his control over Pamudurthy and nearby villages. But

with the advent of Suresh Reddy, there is a real possibility of the emergence of

factions again in Pamudurthy as Suresh Reddy, his wife and his son have started

opposing the complete control that Pavitra Reddy had over Pamudurthy. Further,

conforming to the idiom of factional mobilization that Pamudurthy is familiar with,

Suresh Reddy is trying to re-ignite old property related disputes within the family to

mobilize some groups in the village around him. Thus, the case of Pamudurthy
"
faction is representative of the way that factions arise in villages, what happens to a

faction when it is devoid of a leader and how political patronage and village level

factions are interlinked.

The factional conflict in Pamudurthy also points to the ways in

which village factions could continue to exist irrespective of its patronage by big

222
leaders and political power. Pavitra Reddy had once had both political power and

patronage of district level Congress (I) leaders through which he could not only

consolidate his power in Pamudurthy and its neighbouring villages but when out of

power manipulate his once powerful stature to put his family members in important

positions in the local bodies which effectively functioned through him. In this

situation, the use of force and violence proved to be handy in instilling fear on

opponents and keeping his flock together. Violence has different meanings within

such a system, sometimes being used to keep people in subordination and at other

times a necessity in the game of political intrigue and supremacy.

Although Pavitra Reddy himself was out of formal political power

until the recent Assembly elections, his wife is MPP president of Bukkapatnam

mandai and his son is the panchayat president of Pamudurthy panchayat. He wields
/

power through his wife and son, who usually stay away from the village in the state

capital Hyderabad, giving Pavitra Reddy a free rein in all political matters concerning

the mandai and the panchayat. While this dispute is autonomous from the factions in

its neighbouring villages such as Kothakota, Siddaramapuram, and Yerlampalli, as a

prominent Reddy family of that mandai, their advice and patronage is coveted among

the groups in these other villages. Thus, the dispute in Pamudurthy is not a typical

faction dispute although it is significant for understanding how patronage networks

connect several villages under a leader seen as powerful within the area. We now

narrate a conflict in a village neighbouring Pamudurthy, namely Kothakota, to

document the ways in which patronage, political contests and violence are

interlinked within the mandai.

223
 Kothakota is one of the main villages in Bukkapatnam

mandai with Yerlampalli and Rasimpalli as its hamlets and is situated at a distance of

6 kilometers from Pamudurthy. In this village, there are two Reddy families. The rest

of the village is composed of mainly Boyas, and a few households of Kammas,

Chakalis, Harijans and Kummaras. Disputes first started in this village in the 1970s

over the trusteeship of 23 acres of temple lands in the village. While some held the

opinion that the land belonged to the government and therefore should be distributed

among the landless in the village, others believed that it should be left to the trustees.

Vanam Venkat Reddy was the original trustee of the lands although his opponent

Kusi Sriramulu also claimed that the Venkateswara temple lands were under the

trusteeship of the ,Xusi family. Both of them tried to win the land from the

government for their followers who were mainly Boyas. Venkat Reddy's wife

explains:

There is some 23 acres of endowment land for temple.

People get it on lease annually after auction. There is a problem there. Those who get
the auction do not pay up properly. In those times, most of Sriramulu's men were
cultivating those lands. When they did not pay, my husband summoned them and
asked them to pay regularly. That is one of the reasons behind rivalries and conflicts
(kakshalu).

Intense faction started between Venkat Reddy and Sriramulu in

1982, and two of Sriramulu's men were killed in rioting during this period. Venkat

Reddy got the support of Pamudurthy Pavitra Reddy while Sriramulu was with

Pavitra Reddy's brother, Aayappa Reddy. In those days, Pamudurthy Reddis were

powerful in the district:

. . . They were big Reddis in the district and in this area. So,
whatever we did, we went to them to take their advice. Then Reddi was a big thing,
now no one cares for that.

224
 Venkat Reddy's wife corroborates with the version of the Boyas

about the way in which the Pamudurthy Reddis were associated with the village and

Venkat Reddy:

Except for the word of mouth, Pavitra Reddy never helped us

in any way. In turn, we helped him a lot. We gave away our wealth. If he wanted fuel
wood, we sent it in carts; if he needed men, we supplied men by paying for them
ourselves. Whatever work he has, men from this village has to go and do work for
him. We never expected a great deal from him.

The followers of Venkat Reddy and Sriramulu do not have similar

opinion about the influence of the two leaders in the village. While Venkat Reddy is

seen as someone who was kind to them in their day-to-day affairs, Sriramulu is seen

as one who could give them other benefits like jobs and advice in times of trouble:

Venkat Reddy helped us to a degree. When we did not have

enough to eat, he sometimes gave us grain and money at times. Sriramulu never did
that. He knows how to conduct affairs, laws and procedures. He could talk with
government officers and get something done. Maybe if we were in jail, he would talk
with concerned officers and get us released. But he does not spend money for his
followers as Venkat Reddy did. Venkat Reddy used to spend his money and get the
work done. We were all with Venkat Reddy until his death. Now, we go to
Pamudurthy Pavitra Reddy when we are in trouble and need to sort out things.

Although only one Reddy family is left in the village now, there

were 10 of them earlier. There was a faction before the one between Venkat Reddy

and Sriramulu started in the 1980s but the information could not be elicited from

Venkat Reddy's wife, who merely said:

There were some I 0 Reddy families in the village. With

the menace of these Boyas (who are numerically stronger in the village), all ofthem
left. There was a faction between Sriramulu and Laxmi Reddy before I 980s. I do not
know the detail of it much. My father-in-law was also involved. Sriramulu's father
Kusu Venkat Ramudu too had a faction with my father-in-law. My father-in-law died
when my husband was I3 years old. My mother-in-law was a very strong woman.
Her name is Parvathamma. She continued the faction with Kusu Venkat Ramudu
after my father-in-law's death. She was alive for I 0 years after my marriage. There
were violent conflicts then as well. My husband had vivid memories of all these
incidents.

225
 The faction between Venkat Reddy and Sriramulu, who is a Kamma

with substantial property in the village, started in the '80s and continued for 5-6 years

after which they both came together. After they compromised, one ofVenkat Reddy's

key followers and a leader of Backward Castes (Boyas) in the village, Talari

Chinnappa was elected as the sarpanch of the village. However, Talari Chinnappa

who is an illiterate, once he became the sarpanch, bypassed Ven.kat Reddy and used

the skills of an educated youth of Nagiri caste to get access to the district authorities

and political leaders. This resulted in the precipitation of animosities in the village all

over again. This time Ven.kat Reddy continued to lead one group and his opponents

were led by Narasimhulu whose help Chinnappa had earlier solicited. Several of the

villagers remarked that Narasirnhulu does not command support in the village either

by the virtue of his caste members in the village nor by the wealth he possesses. He is

seen to be having patronage of powerful district leaders who emerged along with the

rise of the TDP. He does contract business and is a postgraduate. There was an

attempt to get him elected in the panchayat elections of 1995 after Chinnappa's

tenure was over. However, Venkat Reddy did not relent despite Chinnappa's threat
.
that he and his followers would support Narasimhulu in the event of a contest. A

contest ensued in which Venkat Reddy won. There were clashes between Venkat

Reddy's followers and Narasirnhulu's followers, in which a cousin of Talari

Chinnappa died and Ven.kat Reddy was put as the first accused il} the case. After this

violence, Venkat Reddy's faction suffered:

Most of his followers went away from the village. Houses of

his followers who left were looted. Venkat Reddy was lodged in the jail for 3
months.

226
 The original faction between Venkat Reddy and Sriramulu was that

between Reddy and Kamma caste, but after the 1995-panchayat elections, the faction

became that between Backward Castes and the rest as Chinnappa and Narasimhulu

are essentially the leaders of the BCs. Chinnappa himself is a BC and Narasimhulu

has the patronage of the MLA and minister from this constituency who is from the

Backward Caste. For Chinnappa, the support ofNarasimhulu during his tenure as the

sarpanch of the village was very important and that was one of the reasons for

supporting Narasimhulu when he contested for sarpanch's post against Venkat Reddy

in 1995. Chinnappa says:

We were with Narasimhulu even when I was sarpanch. I am

illiterate; since he is an educated person, all the official work was taken care of by
him. ·
(During the sarpanch election in 1995) I said to Venkat Reddy,
"sir, this boy is educated; we give him the presidentship this time". He did not agree.
I said, "you said you did not take up the position when it was offered. You said you
have to take care of your children's education; we are refusing to make this boy
president for last two terms. Now we cannot avoid. If you insist on a contest, we are
goirig to be on the side of this boy". Venkat Reddy is very proud and pompous; he
refused to concede. So the contest ensued.

Subsequent elections to the local bodies were peaceful as Kothakota

was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. Present sarpanch of Kothakota is from

the SCs, but he has the support of Narasimhulu and Chinnappa. The latter are the

village leaders today as Venkat Reddy's followers did not want to associate with

them after Venkat Reddy's death. This is how one of Venkat Reddy's earlier

followers compared him.with Narasimhulu:

Venkat Reddy was a leader with certain integrity. He stood by

his followers as a moral duty. Narasimhulu and Chinnappa are not like that; they are
opportunists ... When our cattle were poisoned, minister Kistappa had offered a job
and 70,000 rupees in cash. However, some days later, Narasimhulu went to him and
told him that our cattle were fine. And we did not receive any help. We realized how

227
 evil this leader is only then. We stopped going to them then. He manipulates all the
government contracts in the village and he is happy with his earnings out of them.

In Kothakota, then, there is a definite caste antagonism among the

Boyas and the Reddy family and the Kammas. Even among the Boyas, groups owing

allegiance to Venkat Reddy 'go to' Pamudurthy Pavitra Reddy at present, while the

other group is led by Chinnappa, Narasimhulu and minister Nimmala Kistappa who

themselves are from the Backward Caste. Nagaraju, who belonged to Venkat Reddy's

faction, says:

In this village, there are several groups. Some household from

each of these groups keep shifting sides depending on the kind of benefits they
expect from one group or the other. One group of Shankar is there; my relations are
one group; Chinnappa's is another. There are leaders for each of them. They offer
goodies, and make groups shift allegiance from one leader to another. Moreover, if
one of the followers appears to be getting on firm financial footing, their own leader
would do something to check that person's growth.

Around the time that Kothakota faction died down, its hamlet

village Yerlampalli developed factional rivalries between Boyas and Kapus or

Reddis. Yerlampalli, situated at a distance of 3 kilometers from Kothakota is located

in the interior of the countryside surrounded by hillocks and light to thick forests. It is

isolated without any motorable road and consists of about II 0 houses. Boyas

constitute the predominant caste in this village; the faction is between two groups

within the Boya community- Talari and Daraboyana. The Kapus or Reddis who owe

allegiance to Venkat Reddy of Kothakota and in turn to Pamudurthy Pavitra Reddy

supports the latter. Talari Chinnappa of Kothakota supports the Talaris. Trouble

started in Yerlampalli after compromise was effected in Kothakota after the I995-

panchayat elections although this has no connection with the dispute there. The

faction between the two groups among the Boyas started in 1995 when the leader of

228
the Talaris, Talari Sreenivasulu outraged and insulted a woman of Daraboyana group.

Before this incident, several small incidents such as theft of cattle and agricultural

produce had also taken place. Hence, the feelings between the two groups were

strained when this incident took place. This led to further clashes between the two

groups and Talari Chinna Kesappa of the Kapu group was murdered in October 2002.

Twelve people of the Talari group were accused in the murder. Talari Chinnappa of

Kothakota tried to effect a compromise and towards that goal went to the Kapus of

Yerlampalli on behalf of the accused but the Kapus refused to enter into a

compromise and wanted the guilty .to be punished. When efforts at compromise

failed, the accused chose a person from their own group and murdered him to make it

look as though it was done by the Kapus to avenge the killil}g of the earlier murder of

one of their own men. This was done so that they can put a case on their rivals and

get them to compromise. However, police investigations revealed the true nature of

the incident and the accused in the murder case were jailed. Thereafter, most of the

Boyas left the village and settled elsewhere, although there are still two groups in the

village.

The BCs of Kothakota saw the Yerlampalli faction conflict as

damaging to their interests. They recalled how after the initial conflicts over cattle

theft by one group, the ill-feelings in Yerlampalli had its repercussions on the Boyas

of Kothakota:

After the stealing (of cattle), there was conflict (in

Yerlampalli) and then a section of the Boyas from the village came behind
Narasimhulu (of Kothakota). Before this, there were local leaders like Nageshwar
Reddy, Keshav Reddy, and Hanumantha Reddy, who led the village.

229
 The Reddis of Yerlampalli were always with Venkat Reddy.

During panchayat elections in 1995, some Boyas who were with Narasimhulu were

beaten up. Nageshwaramma, the mother of a victim of the clashes in 1995, laments:

During panchayat elections, my son Kesappa was with

Narasimhulu. He had a grocery store. He was going to get stock when those people
caught hold of my son and beat him up and broke his limbs. Followers of Venkat
Reddy also poured kerosene on 20 carts of groundnut and burnt them down.
Whatever we lost, we lost; we have hands and legs intact, so we are eating by doing
daily labour.

Nagaraju, Nageshwaramma's other son, argues:

Once faction is there, the occurrence of violence is not a one-

time event. It is not like this day there is a clash and thereafter everything is normal.
Everyday, there is something or the other.
There was one Mangala Girappa in this village (Kothakota). He
had an illicit relationship. His wife could not bear it; she stabbed her husband's
paramour. Venkat Reddy and few others did a 'panchayat' about it and gave
compensation of 2 acres of land and 20,000 rupees in cash to the victim. There was
resentment about this decision. We sympathized with Mangala Girappa and that
irritated Venkat Reddy as this was seen as defiance of his authority. Otherwise, we
did not have any enmity with Venkat Reddy.

Thus, the presence of patronage networks within the village ensure

that every conflict in the village becomes a part of the broader faction in the village

either when the individual conflicts are taken to the leaders for arbitration or when the

leaders themselves involve themselves on behalf of their followers. In this process,

the entire village is divided into one faction or the other, and although groups often

shift their allegiances from one leader to another, they usually belong to some group

in order to get support from a leader in times of trouble. While such arbitration may

mitigate violence in conflicts, it might contribute to the possibility of violence at a

later time when the leader's interests are at stake.

Kothakota being a village where Boyas are numerically stronger,

Venkat Reddy had to rely on them for support at the village level while Pamudurthy

230
Pavitra Reddy served as his patron at the mandai level. In Kothakota, the Boyas

themselves were divided into factions because of their internal tussles for supremacy

in the village and proximity to the minister who belonged to the BC. Yerlampalli and

other hamlets were divided in their allegiance to Venkat Reddy and Narasimhulu,

depending on their caste affiliation and their loyalty to a particular leader. However,

in the context of factional conflicts, the reasons for staying with a leader is often

determined by immediate causes such as the fulfillment of interests of one's group

and the perception on the part of a group about a leader's capacity to deliver the

goods. The case of factions in Kothakota and its hamlets demonstrates that splits in a

faction leads to further fission in the groups, with each group trying to manipulate

resources at their disposal for the benefit of the group. While factions in Kothakota

have tended to be further split into what the members of the group term as 'teams', it

has underlined the fact that without the support of a leader who is powerful at the

village, mandai or district level, conflicts do not usually take the form of factions. In

Kothakota, after the demise of Venkat Reddy, the absence of a leader who could

oppose the BC faction ofTalari Chinnappa and Narasimhulu has meant that followers

of Venkat Reddy had to look for leadership somewhere other than the village. This

they found in Pamudurthy Pavitra. Reddy, but since Pavitra Reddy himself is no

longer an important political leader after he lost his Assembly seat to the BC

candidate Nimrnala Kistappa, even his leadership is not seen as significant.

Pamudurthy, which had earlier provided two opposing leaders in the person of

Aayappa Reddy and Pavitra Reddy, had followers in the villages of Kothakota,

Siddaramapuram, and their hamlets. But gradually, with the faction dying down

between the two brothers Aayappa Reddy and Pavitra Reddy due to the death of the

231
former, even Pamudurthy Reddis could not provide the kind of leadership that a

factional conflict presupposes, namely, centres of influence and prestige, with the

promise of support and patronage in times of need. The nature of the conflict in

Pamudurthy has changed over the years, which has made it difficult to sustain a kind

of politics based on factional loyalties, as Pamudurthy has been left with no such

leader who commands power and prestige in district politics.

These two case studies of factional conflicts in Anantapur illustrate

the various ways in which conflicts in village society get articulated in terms of local

political aspirations of local notables, and their interlinkage with the district and

regional level political contests. Although the genealogy of the conflicts in each of

the two cases are entirely dif~erent, it is nonetheless borne out by the two cases that

factional groupings form around influential leaders, as a result of their economic and

political contestations, primarily within a village and secondarily within a district and

a region.

Political party factions and village level factions have a symbiotic

relationship in shaping the regional politics of Rayalaseema as political parties have

been utilizing the traditional factional structures, as that noticed in the case of the

Pamudurthy conflict, to mobilize support at the local level. The case of Yellanur

mandai, however, could be seen as a case where the aspirations of the regional elites

prompted the politicization of disputes at the village level, leading to the articulation

of a village dispute in a factional form, where it was not a traditional factional

conflict which was manipulated by the political parties, but one in which political

motivations created a factional dispute. Hence, modem democratic politics has not

232
only transformed the traditional village factions in Rayalaseema, it has manipulated

disputes and therefore altered the political morality in a significant way.

233