THE BOBBILI FOLK EPIC

 

K. VANI

 

            There are a number of folk epics in the Telugu language. Two of them stand out as the most loved ones among the Telugu people of Andhra Pradesh. One of them is related to Palnadu and the other to Bobbili. While Palnadu ballad brings to our minds the cultural and social atmosphere of the 12th, century giving an account of the efforts made by Brahma Naidu to integrate the warring castes and factions in the country, the Bobbili ballad reminds us of the political conditions of the 18th century providing an insight into the manner the French and the British made inroads into the Indian territory. If one is a tragedy of intrigue the other is a tragedy of disunity. Surpris­ingly, the conditions of the 18th century remained almost the same as those of the 12th century although the country was heading towards the catastrophe of foreign occupation. People were enjoying the same cockfights, using the same old obsolete weaponry and fighting over the same sectarian and caste differences. It was a stagnation of over six hundred years of Indian culture and polity. The brighter side of it, however was the continuance of traditional heroism. The courage displayed by the people of Bobbili matches with that of the people of Palnadu. We find heart-rending scenes of sacrifice, valour and death in both the ballads.

 

            An age-old animosity existed between the houses of Bobbili and Vizianagaram. As a result, many feuds occurred between these two houses, and they finally culminated in the Battle of Bobbili on 24th Jan, 1757. Various reasons are given for these feuds, mainly political, economic, and geographical. Caste also may be added to them. Some consider caste as the main factor for their enmity. While the rulers of Bobbili were Padmanayaka Velamas, the rulers of Vizianagaram were Kshatriyas.1 A famous historian Robert Orrne in his History of Hindostan, referred to this factor. To quote him; “There had long been a deadly hatred between this Polygar and Vizeram­rauze, whose person, how much so ever he feared his power, Rangarao held in the utmost contempt as of low extraction and of new note.” 2 As the Pusapatis were said to be of North Indian Origin, they were considered to be of ‘new note’ and of ‘low extraction’ especially by the Bobbili rulers. According to Hindu caste system, Kshatriyas are superior to Velamas. But the reasons which prompted Bobbili rulers to consider Pusapatis to be of ‘low extraction’ are unknown.

 

            The historians refer to the ‘traditional animosity’. But the reasons for the prevalence of this are not clearly known. Dr. Macleane in the Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency, said the rivalry between Bobbili and Vizianagaram dated back to 1652. It means the enmity had been in existence ever since the formation of these two houses. Vedam Venkataraya Sastry and Kotagiri Venkata Narasimha Satya­narayanarao traced the animosity from the period of Kakatiyas. Singam Naidu of the fifth generation of Velamas marched against the Pusapatis of Jallipally for their confining his brother-in-law, Chintapallv Singama Nayakudu in their fort. The Pusapatis who were said to be the only Kshatriyas of Andhra, had Singama Naidu killed by deception. The sons of Singama Naidu, Anupotamanaidu and Madanaidu avenged the death of their father by ruining the fort of Jallipally. This account has not been substantiated by any historical evidence so far. Ano­ther reason for their animosity could be traced back to the times of Ananda Raju, the father of Vijayarama Raju. He prevailed on the Nawab of Golconda and obtained from, him the firman, granting him the authority over the hill chiefs who became independent of the authority of Vikrama Deo, the ruler of Naraya­napatnam, Ananda Raju could subjugate all the chiefs but the chiefs of Bobbili who successfully offered resistance to him. Mackenzie discussed various political reasons in his ‘Local Records’ follows:

 

            Vijayarama Raju sent Sagi Narayana Raju with military force to capture Narayanapatnam. If they were to go to Nara­yanapatnam, they should pass through Bobbili. But the Bobbili ruler refused them passage through his territory. Upon this Raju vowed to destroy Bobbili fort. Rangarao retorted that he could do no more than his father did and his march against Bobbili would be a march to death. Mackenzie considered this to be the beginning for the conflicts between Bobbili and Vizianagaram. In retaliation, Vijayarama Raju, gathering all his yeomen, attacked the Bobbili fort. But the forces of Bobbili chased them off to the fort of Kumile. Thus Raju met with a defeat at the hands of Bobbili. With this Raju’s desire to con­quer Bobbili fort was further deepened. Thereupon he had a fort built in Belgam (not Belgam of Karnataka) which was under his rule, so that he could make an attempt to create the diffe­rences among the leaders of Bobbili from Belgam which was sixteen miles away from Bobbili and eight miles away from Narayanapatnam. So they made their way to Narayanapatnam from Belgam. Again they attacked Bobbili with reinforced forces only to be defeated. Bobbili Lords advised the ruler of Narayanapatnam not to accept the overlordship of Vizianaga­ram and not to pay taxes to Pusapatis. And assured him that Raju could not come upon Narayanapatnam without their knowledge. If Raju dared at all, he would have full support of Bobbili. When this news reached Raju, he became furious. Immediately, he led his forces against Bobbili. While engag­ing the lords of Bobbili in battle, he directed a part of his force upon Narayanapatnam, so that the Bobbili Lords could not go to the rescue of Narayanapatnam. Thus the ruler of Narayana­patnam was forced to accept the overlordship of Raju. Later, Vijayarama Raju asked all his yeomen to come prepared for the battle against Bobbili. He made up his mind to conquer Bobbili this time. On the advice of his minister, Burra Buchchanna, he, sent Pusapati Ramachandra Raju at the head of his forces upon Bobbili instead of going himself. The lords of Bobbili thought that unless Raju was killed, there would be no relief from the unending attacks on Bobbili. The lords of Bobbili were determined to annihilate Raju, their main pest, at any cost. Taking the person in the howdah for Vijayarama Raju they stabbed Ramachandra Raju to death. When they learnt that it was Ramachandra Raju that they had killed but not Vijayarama Raju, they felt, grieved. Their fury against Vijayarama Raju made them put vaishnavite marks on his forehead and sent it to Raju, a Saivite.

 

            Thus it was quite clear that everytime Vijayarama Raju battled against Bobbili, he met with utter defeat except in the battle in which he had the support of the French. The economic reasons pertained to the problems of water resources. These problems were referred to by Orme and widely discussed by Vastvaraya Jagapati Varma in his, Bobbili Muttadi Charitram. The territories belonging to Raju bordered on the territories of Bobbili estate. The rivulets that were used for farming flowed from Bobbili towards the territories of Vizianagaram. The farmers of Bobbili obstructed the flow of water towards Vizianagaram. It resulted in the heavy losses for the farmers of Vizianagaram. And ultimately these losses adversely affected the income of Viziayanagaram.

 

            In terms of area, income and population, Bobbili prin­cipality was smaller than that of Vizianagaram. And it is said that Bobbili used to pay tribute to Vizianagaram for some time. 3 Orme said that “the fort of this name stands close to the mountains about 140 miles North East of Vizagapatnam; the districts are about twenty square miles” 4 Bobbili fort had locational advantage also. Bobbili climate caused malaria and other fevers prevalent in the hill regions. As Bobbili estate was full of dense forests and hills, the people of Bobbili were confident that it was very difficult for anyone to attack them. With this confidence, the people of Bobbili “made depredations, which Vijayararna Raju, for want of better military means, and from the nature of Rangarao’s country could not retaliate.” 5

 

            Vijayarama Raju, the ‘Manne Sultan’ who brought under his control many Zamindaris, including those surrounding Bobbili Zamindari tried his best to impose his authority on Bobbili also. But the valarous Bobbili rulers offered great resistance to him.

 

            The history of India, like the history of any other coun­try, is replete with a number of wars. Some of these wars are known for their heroism and sacrifice. And others are mostly the battles between unequal forces. The battle of Panipat (1526) between a very small army of Babur and a huge army of Ibrahim Lodi, the battle of Senthone (1748) between a few French soldiers and a large army of the Nawab Carnatic and the battle of Plassey (1757) between a few platoons of the English army and the mighty army of Siraj-ud-Daula of Bengal - which all ended in the triumph of the small armies-are a few instances for the battles between unequal forces. A few battles like the one that Rana Pratap Singh of Chittore fought against the great Moghal Akbar stand out as great examples of heroism and sacrifice. The battle of Bobbili is unique in that it is both heroic and a battle between unequal forces. It is in fact a small battle between 250 soldiers of Bobbili and the combined force (more than ten thousand) of Vizianagaram and the French. The battle was hardly fought for a few hours. Inspite of this the story of battle of Bobbili is very much in vogue all over Andhra Pradesh for the great valour displayed and the sacri­fices made by Bobbili heroes. There is only one more heroic folk - ballad in Andhra Pradesh that runs parallel to the battle of Bobbili. That is the battle of Palnadu. But the battle of Palnadu despite its overwhelming popularity runs short of the battle of Bobbili in respect of sacrifices.

 

            The story of Bobbili that has endeared itself to Andhra in the form of ballad has many versions besides the historic version. The historic version of the battle of Bobbili is given by Robert Orme (1728 - 1801) in his A History of the Military Transactions of the British Nation in Indostan (History of Hindo­stan). Robert Orme describes the fort of Bobbili, its defences and the battle as follows:

 

            The province of Chicacole has few extensive plains, and its hills increase in frequency and magnitude, as they approach the vast range of mountains that bound this, and the province of Rajahmundram, to the N. W. The hills, and the narrower bottoms which separate them, are suffered to over­run with wood, as the best protection to the opener vallies allotted for cultivation. The Polygar, besides his other towns and forts, has always one situated in the most difficult part of his country, which is intended as the last refuge for himself and all of his own blood. The singular construction of this fort is adequate to all the intentions of defence amongst a people unused to cannon, or other means of battery. Its out line is a regular square, which rarely exceeds 200 yards; a large round tower is raised at each of the angles, and a square projection in the middle of each of the sides. The height of the wall is 22 feet, but of the rampart within only 12, which is likewise its breadth at top, although it is laid much broader at bottom; the whole is of tempered clay, raised in distinct layers, of which each is left exposed to the sun, “until thoroughly hard­ened, before the next is applied. The parapet rises 10 feet above the rampart, and is only three feet thick. It is indented five feet down from the top in interstices six inches wide, which are three or four feet asunder. A foot above the bottom of these interstices and battlements, runs a line of round holes, another two feet lower, and a third within two feet of the ram­part. These holes are, as usual, formed with pipes of baked clay; they serve for the employment of fire-arms, arrows and lan­ces; and the interstices for the freer use of all these arms, instead of loop-holes which cannot be inserted or cut in the clay. The towers, and the square projections in the middle, have the same parapet as the rest of the wall; and in two of the proje­ctions, on opposite side of the fort, are gateways, of which the entrance is not in the front but on the side, from whence it continues through half the mass, and then turns by a ‘right angle into the place; and, on any alarm, the whole passage is choked up with trees, and the outside surrounded to some distance with a thick bed of thick brambles The rampart and parapet is covered by a shed of strong thatch, supported by posts; so near, the caves of this shed project over the battlements, but fall that a man can scarcely squeeze his body between; this shed is shelter both to the rampart and guards against the sun and rain. An area of 500 yards, or more in every direction round the fort, is preserved clear, of which the circumference joins the high wood, which is kept thick, three four or five miles in breadth around the centre. Few of these forts permit more than one path through the wood. The entrance of the path from without is defended by a wall, exactly similar in construction and strength to one of the sides of the fort; having its round towers at the ends, and the square projection with its gateway in the middle From natural sagacity, they never raise this redoubt on the edge of the wood; but at the bottom of a recess, cleared on purpose, and on each side of the recess, raise breast-works of earth or hedge, to gall the approach The path admits only three men abreast, winds continually, is every where comman­ded by breast-works in the thicket and has in its course several redoubt, similar to that at the entrance, and like that flanked by breast-works on each hand Such were the defence of Bobbili; against which Mr. Bussy marched with 750 Euro­peans, of whom 250 were horses four field-pieces and 11,000 peons, and sepoys the army of Vizeramrauze, who commanded them in person.

 

            Whilst the field-pieces plied the parapet of the first redoubt at the entrance of the wood, detachments entered into the side of the recess with fire and hatchet, and began to make a way, which tended to bring them in the rear of the redoubt; and the guard, as soon as convinced of their danger, abandoned their station, and joined those in the posts behind; the same operations continued through the whole path, which was five miles in length and with the same success, although not without loss. When in sight of the fort, Mr. Bussy divided his troops into four divisions, allotting one, with a field-piece, to the attack of each of the towers Rangarao was here, with all his parentage, 250 men bearing arms, and nearly twice this number of women and children.

 

            The attack commenced at day-break, on the 24th January, with the field pieces against the four towers and the defenders, lest fire might catch the thatch of the rampart, had pulled it down. By nine O’ clock, several of the battlements were broken, when all the leading parties of the four divisions advanced at the same time, with scaling ladders; but, after much endeavour for an hour, not a man had been able to get over the parapet; and many had fallen wounded; other parties followed with as little success, until all were so fatigued, that a cessation was ordered, during which the field-pieces, having beaten down more of the parapet, gave the second attack more advantage; but the ardour of the defense increased with the danger. The garrison fought with the indignant ferocity of wild beasts, defending their dens and families: several of them stood, as in defiance, on the top of the battlements, and endeavoured to grapple with the first ascendants, hoping with them to twist the ladders down; and this failing stabbed with their lances but being wholly exposed themselves were easily shot by aim from the rear of the escalade. The assailants admi­red, for no Europeans had ever seen such excess of courage in the natives of Indostan, and continually offered quarter, which was always answered by the menace and intention of death; not a man had gained the rampart at two O’clock in the after­noon, when another cessation of the attack ensured; on which Rangarao assembled the principal men, told them there was no hopes of maintaining the fort, and that it was immediately necessary to preserve their wives and children from the viola­tion of Europeans, and the more ignominious authority of Vizeramrauze. A number called without distinction were allotted to the work; they proceeded, every man with a torch, his lance, and poignard, to the habitations in the middle of the fort which they set fire indiscriminately, plying the flame with straw prepared with pitch and brimstone, and every man stab­bed without remorse, the women or child, which so ever att­empted to escape the flame and suffocation. Not the helpless infant, clinging to the loson of its mother, saved the life of either from the hand of the husband and father. The utmost excesses whether of revenge or rage, were exceeded by the strecious prejudices which dictated and performed this horrible sacrifice. The massages being finished, those who accompli­shed it, returned, like men agitated by the furies, to die them selves on the walls. Mr. Law, who commanded one of the divisions, observed, whilst looking at the conflagration, that the number of the defenders was considerably diminished, and advanced again to the attack; after several ladders had failed, a few grenadiers got over the parapet, and maintained their footing in the tower until more secured the possession. Ranga rao hastening to the defenca of the tower, was in this instant killed by a musket ball. His fall increased, if possible, the desperation of his friends; who, crowding to revenge his death, left the other parts of the ramparts bare; and the other divisions of the French troops, having advanced likewise to their respective attacks, numbers on all sides got over the parapet without opposition; nevertheless, none of the defen­ders quitted the rampart or would accept quarter; but each fell advancing against, or struggling with, an antagonist, and even when fallen, and in the last agency, would resign his poignard only death. The slaughter of the conflict being completed another much more dreadful, presented itself in the area the transport of victory lost all its joy; all gazed on the another with silent astonishment and remorse, and the fiercest could not refuse a tear to the deplorable destruction spread before them. Whilst contemplating it, an old man leading a boy was perceived advancing from a distant recess; he was welcomed with much attention and respect, and conducted by the crowd to Mr. Law, to whom he presented the child with these words: “This is the son of Rangarao, whom I have preserved against his father’s will”. Another emotion now succeeded, and the preservation of this infant was felt by all as some alleviation to the horrible catastrophe, of which they had been the unfortunate authors. The tutor and the child were immediately sent to Mr. Bussy, who, having heard of the condition of the fort, would not go into it, but remained in his tent, where he received the sacred captives with the humanity of a guardian appointed by the strongest claims of nature, and immediately commanded patents to be prepared, appoint­ing the son lord of the territory which he had offered the father in exchange for the districts of Bobilee; and ordered them to, be strictly guarded in the camp from the malevolence of enemies.

 

            The ensuing night and the two succeeding days passed in the usual attentions, especially the care of the wounded, who were many; but in the middle of the third night, the camp was alarmed by a tumult in the quarter of Vizeramrauze. Four of the soldiers of Rangarao, on seeing him fall, concealed themselves in an unfrequented part of the fort until the night was far advanced, when they dropped down the walls and speaking the same language, passed unsuspected through the quarters of Vizeramrauze, and gained, the neighbouring thickets; where they remained the two succeeding days, watching until the bustle of the camp had subsided; when two of them quitted their retreat, and having by their language again deceived those by whom they were questioned, got near the tent of Vizeramrauze; then creeping on the ground they passed under the back part, and entering the tent found him lying on his bed, alone, and asleep. Vizeramrauze was extremely corpulent, in ­so much that he could scarcely raise himself from his seat without assistance; the two men, restraining their very breath, struck in the same instant with their poignards at his, heart; the first groan brought in a sentinel, who fired, but missed, more immediately thronged in, but the murderers, heedless of themselves, cried out, pointing to the body, “Look here! We are satisfied”. They were instantly shot by the crowd, and mang­led after they had fallen. They had stabbed Vizeramrauze in 32 places. Had they failed, the other two remaining in the forest were bound by the same oath to perform the deed, or perish in the attempt.6

 

            The three versions of the folk-ballad of Bobbili are; a) ‘Bobbili Yuddha Katha’ edited by Mallampalli Somasekhara Sarma and published by Madras Oriental Library in 1956. b) ‘Bobbili Raju Katha’ authored by Kontam Nrusimhachary and published in 1896. c) ‘Pedda Bobbili Maharaju Katha’ published by Bharadwaja Printing Press in 1912. Now this Pedda Bobbili Maharaju Katha is being published with the title ‘Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha’. Dr. B. Rama Raju mentions in his ‘Telugu Janapada Geya Sahityam’ that this Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha first published by Denuvakonda, is the epitomized version of ‘Bobbili Raju Katha’ by Nrusimhachary. Dr. Tangirala Vankata Subba Rao in his article, ‘Bobbili Katha’, published, in Bharati, a literary Telugu monthly magazine, says that C. P. Brown is the first man to collect this story, C. P. Brown recor­ded it while Peddada Mallesam sang it to him in 1842. Dr. Tangirala Venkata Subbarao adds that according to Gidugu Sitapati the story of Bobbili was rendered into English by one Yates in 1966.

 

            The story of Bobbili, as presented in the ballads, is at variance with the historic version by Orme in some aspects. The main difference between them lies with regard to the mur­derers of Vijayarama Raju. According to Bobbili Katha, it is Paparayudu, the brother-in-law of Rangarayudu and the ruler of Rajam fort that killed Vijayarama Raju but not two soldiers of Rangarayudu as said by Orme. While Orme’s version says that the attack commenced at day-break, the story of Bobbili says that it started at night. With regard to the strength of for­ces on either side and the duration of battle Orme’s version varies from the story of Bobbili.

 

            In the story of Bobbili, Vengalarao, the younger brother of Rangarao is mortally wounded in the battle and later succumbed to injuries according to Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha or stabbed himself to death in the tent of Bussy, according to Bobbili Yuddha Katha, edited by, Mallampally Somasekhar Sarma, Historically this is not true. Mr. Carmichael says that Vengalarao along with Chinna Rangarao, the infant son of Rangarao fled from the battlefield to Bhadrachalam. In Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha, there is no mention of Hyder Jang after the death of Rangarayudu. According to Bobbili Yuddho Katha, Hyder Jang, after reaching Golconda, kills himself fearing to meet the Nawab with so many of his soldiers killed in the battle Hyder Jang killing himself is contradictory to the history as h­is killed by Nizam Ali, the younger brother of Salabat Jang at Aurungabad.

 

            The ballad, Bobbili Yuddha Katha, edited by Mallampally Somasekhar Sarma is said to be the available authentic version of Peddda Mallesam’s Bobbili Katha. ‘Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha’ is another popular version of Bobbili Katha. There are some subtle differences between these two. In ‘Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha’, the episode of the cock fight between the lords of Bobbili and Vizianagaram is so prominent that its sub­title is given as ‘A battle cropped up from the cock-fight’ (kodipandemuna kaligina kalaham). The Bara cock of Bobbili seems to represent the valour and the might of Bobbili heroes. But, in ‘Bobbili Yuddha Katha’ there is just passing reference to the cock-fight. While, the former attributes the recapture of the bastions, Bobbili lost to the enemies, to Vengalarao, the latter to Rangarao. In ‘Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha’, the nawab of Golconda has got Dubasi Lakshmaiah trampled to death for cheating Bobbili Lords out of their fort. But, according to ‘Bobbili Yuddha Katha’, Dubasi Lakshmaiah is killed by his sub­ordinate. In ‘Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha’, Rangarayudu kills Lalkhan in order to avenge the death of his brother, Vengalarao, But in ‘Bobbili Yuddha Katha’, Lalkhan is killed by Vengalarao. In order to provide relief to the pathetic and sorrowful story, the story teller adds an episode of the restoration of the fort of Bobbili to Venkatarao the son of Rangarao at the end of ‘Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha’ which is not found in ‘Bobbili Yuddha Katha’.

 

            The story of Bobbili is so popular that it has been dra­matized by renowned writers like, Vedam Verikataraya Sastry, Sri Peda Krishna Murthy, Nedunuri Krishna Rao and others. It also appeared as a ‘Prabandha’ in Telugu by Dittakavi Narayana Kavi. It has been made in to films, ‘Bobbili Yuddham’ and ‘Tandra Paparayudu’, with a remarkable success.

 

            A careful reading of the ballads, ‘Bobbili Yuddha Katha’ and ‘Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha’ reveals that these two ballads have been developed from the same source. The resemblance between these two lies in the style, narrative technique and to some extent in diction also. Though there are some oddities in diction and typographical errors in ‘Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha’. I feel it is more interesting and absorbing than ‘Bobbili Yuddha Katha’ in terms of characterization and dramatic effect.

 

            According to ‘Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha’, as the death of Vengalarayudu indicates the imminent fall of Bobbili fort, Queen Mallamma Devi goes in dejection to the temple of Gopalaswamy to offer prayers to Him, beseeching His grace. Lord Gopalaswamy indicates the imminent and inevitable fall of Bobbili through inauspicious signs. Her disturbed mind returns, to Vijayarama Raju, the bane of Bobbili. Then she climbs the foot-wall and on seeing the tent of Raju, she proclaims her famous curse. In ‘Bobbili Yuddha Katha’, the indication of inauspicious omens is not effectively followed by the utterance of curse. Moreover, the inauspicious omens are indicated to Vengalarayudu, when he goes to the temple of Lord Gopalaswamy before he sets out to the battle, but not to Mallam Devi. The indication of the inauspicious omens to Mallam Devi is more appropriate than to Vengalarayudu. The inauspicious omens do not have any effect on Vengalarayudu. He seems to be little disturbed by this omen as he goes to the battle with a strong determination to face the enemy. But it is entirely different with Mallamma Devi. Though she is fully aware of the forthcom­ing disaster, she goes to the temple of Lord Gopalaswamy with a little hope. Disconcerting her, lord Gopalaswamy has shown inauspicious omens, which confirm her fears. In her intensified agony, she pronounces her curse which comes true later. Moreover, it is natural for a character like her to curse, when she is made sure of the imminent bereavement or disaster.

 

            In ‘Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha’, Mallamma Devi appears in the dream of Paparayudu who has come to Bobbili to avenge the ruin of Bobbili family and to make the curse of Mallamma Devi come true by killing Vijayarama Raju. And she spurs the sleeping Paparayudu to action. On the other hand in ‘Bobbili Yuddha Katha’ it is Miryala Sitanna, the servant of Paparayudu, that wakes the sleeping Paparayudu to action. The appearance of Mallamma Devi, who has cursed Vijayarama Raju that he will be killed by Paparayudu, in the dream of Paparayudu seems more appropriate.

 

            As regards characterisation, the portrayal of the characters of Rangarayudu and Vengalarayudu in ‘Bobbili Yuddha Katha’ is not as impressive as it is in ‘Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha’. It seems, in the former the emphasis is on the character of Mallamma Devi.

 

            According to ‘Bobbili Yuddha Katha’, as the nego­tiations fail, Rangarayudu bids Vengalarayudu to migrate to Palakollu Manyam taking along with him the women of Bobbili fort because of the possibility of their becoming obstacles in the ensuing battle. By refusing to obey the order of Rangarayudu, by accusing Velama heroes of possible cowardice, by emphasizing the possibility of Bobbili women being treated as slaves by Vijayarama Raju if they migrate to Palakollu, and by stressing that Bobbili folk should perish in the fort of Bobbili itself, Mallama Devi proves to be more aggressive than Rangarayudu, Vengalarayudu and other Bobbili heroes. In Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha; Rangarayudu thinks of migrating to Palakollu taking the women, Vengalarayudu advises him against this.

 

            In Bobbili Yuddha Katha, when Rangarayudu is in a fix, with regard to the safety of royal women, Malla­mma Devi rushes to the court Rangarayudu (which is not a usual practise with royal women) and asks:

 

            “velamadoralu karatayya miru, miru velama dorallara

            mutini misam leda miku velama dorallara

            parasukudu tinipistara aduvari kella”.7

            “Are you not Velama heroes? O Velama Lords

            Are you divested of your moustaches? O Velama Lords

            Will you have the women eat French food?”

 

            And then she herself stretches her neck asking her hus­band to cut it off. When Rangarao is still hesitating, she persuades him to do so. In ‘Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha: the mortally wounded Vengalarayudu utters his last words advi­sing Rangarayudu to free himself from all the family ties before going to the battle. Following the advice of Vengala­rayudu, Rangarayudu sends Narasarayudu to kill the women in order to get free from all the family ties. In ‘Bobbili Yuddha Katha’, by her great foresight, aggressive nature, valour and spirit of sacrifice, Mallamma Devi seems to over-shadow the characters of Rangarayudu and Vengalarayudu. In ‘Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha’, though Mallamma Devi is delineated with her valour, foresight and readiness to sacri­fice, she never outdoes Rangarayudu and Vengalarayudu and other Velama heroes.

 

            These two ballads seem to be indicted in favour of Bobbili heroes. They paint the character of Vijayarama Raju with pale colours in comparison to the colourful delineation of Bobbili heroes. And in ‘Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha’, this favouritism is more conspicuous. For instance, Bussy, the French commander is shown to be scared of the valour of Bobbili heroes. When Bussy and Vijayarama Raju hear of the approach of Velama heroes, they flee from their tents to save their skin. In another context, they shake the corpse of Rangaravudu, with the spear to make sure that Rangarayudu is really dead: “We should not believe Bobbili people, we should not if you go near them, taking them for dead. They will leap up and fight”.

 

            It is natural for the composers of ballad to paint their favourite characters in bright colours and to exagge­rate their abilities. This exaggeration does not mar the characters, and on the other hand. It evokes the admira­tion and sympathies of the listeners or readers. Also it enhances the readability of the ballad.

 

            With regard to the diction, ‘Bobbili Yuddha Katha’ is over sprinkled with urdu words which affect its readabi­lity Despite a few incongruities like ‘Rajaram’ for Rajaram and absurd expressions like ‘umainta kalikituray chandamama chekki’. ‘surya soma vidhulakkada yerparachiremi’ the ease in the reading of ‘Pedda Bobbili Raju Katha’ is not much impaired. But there are many obscure expressions which have not been explained in dictionaries of regional dialect.

 

            The main characters in the battle of Bobbili are: Rangarao alias Rangarayudu, the ruler of Bobbili; Vengala­rayudu, his younger brother; Paparayudu the mighty lion of Bobbili and brother-in-law of Vengalarayudu; and Dhrama­rayudu, the brother-in-law of Rangarayudu.

 

            Vijayarama Raju was the ruler of Vizianagaram. He invited the Bobbili Lords for a game of cock-fight. But he lost the game. This made him bear a spite against Bobbili. He was determined to wreak vengeance upon Bobbili and was waiting for the opportune moment.

 

            Bussy, the French commander of Pondicherry, got the firman issued by the Nawab of Golconda ceding him the Northern circars, which included Bobbili and Viziana­garam. When Bussy sallied forth to the Northern circars, the Nawab of Golconda sent Hyder Jang as the subedar of Golconda army. Dubasi Lakshmaiah was the translator for Bussy. Bussy sent messages to the rulers of both Bobbili and Vizianagaram to meet him. The Bobbili Lords did not respond to the message. After deliberating for two days, Vijayarama Raju wrote a letter to Vengalarayudu that they should go together to Bussy. But he was humiliated by Vengalarayudu. This intensified his grudge against Bobbili Lords. Vijayarama Raju successfully bribed Bussy to issue a firman ceding him the Bobbili fort.

 

            In the meantime, as a precautionary measure, Ranga­rayudu sent Paparayudu to guard the route from Rajam to Bobbili against the French.

 

            The forces of the French and Raju encircled the Bobbili fort at night annihilating the Telaga youths, who tried to obstruct their progress towards Bobbili. When Ranga­rayudu came to know of the encirclement of Bobbbili fort, he sent Dharmarayudu to negotiate with Bussy. But the negotiations failed. Queen Mallamma Devi, the wife of Rangarayudu, came to know of the encirclement of the Bobbili fort. Then she sent a letter seeking mercy for Vijayarama Raju through Venkata Lakshmi, a chamber-maid, Vijayarama Raju tore the letter and slapped Venkata Lakshmi. And the letter sent by Ven­galarayudu to Paparayudu was intercepted by the soldiers of Vijayarama Raju. As soon as Vijayarama Raju learnt that Paparayudu was not in the Bobbili fort, he persuaded Bussy to start the attack at once. The forces of Raju and the French captured Tattukota bastion, Tattukota bastion and the main bastion of Bobbili fort in succession one after another. Then Vengalarayudu entered the fray and recaptured the lost three bastions. He was, however, mortally wounded in the hands of Lalkhan, and fell unconscious. He was then carried to Rangarayudu. When he regained consciousness, he cautioned Rangarayudu against the gunshots and asked him to extri­cate himself from all the family ties before going to the battlefield. Then he breathed his last. Queen Mallamma Devi went to the temple of Lord Gopalaswamy. She shuddered, when Lord Gopalaswamy showed inauspicious signs. Then she pronounced a curse that Vijayarama Raju would be killed by Paparayudu. She sent her son, Venkatarayudu to her sister through Venkata Lakshmi. Venkata Lakshmi was caught by the soldiers of Raju, Bussy, admiring the bravery showed by that boy rescued him from Raju. He ordered some French soldiers to escort Venkata Lakshmi.

 

            At the behest Rangarayudu, Narasarayudu, his brother-­in-law went to the chambers of royal women to kill all of them to save them from dishonour. Knowing the job assigned to him, Mallama Devi and other women stretched their necks to be cut off. Thus Rangarayudu freed himself from all the family ties. Other Velama lords followed suit by killing their kins-folk. Rangarayudu who received innu­merable wounds in the battle-field, stabbed himself to death.

 

            Paparayudu, who came to know of this, proceeded to Bobbili in guise, accompanied by Maddala Venkanna and Miryala Sitanna. They entered the tent of Raju furtively. Paparayudu stabbed the sleeping Raju to death and later stabbed himself to death.

 

            Bussy returned to Rajahmundry, where Anand Raju, a nephew of Raju met him. Bussy collected all the taxes due to him from Anand Raju and returned to Pondicherry.

 

            After a lapse of twelve years, Venkatarayudu who learnt this from his aunt Jagamma, set out to Golconda. At the request Venkatarayudu,          the Badshah of Golconda restored Bobbili fort to him. The Badshah had Dubasi Lakshmaiah trampled to death for cheating the Bobbili Lords.

 

 

1 Sri. P. V. G. Raju, the last coronated king of Vizianaga­ram, in a conversation with me expressed the view that caste was the main reason for enmity between Bobbili and Vizianagaram.  

2 Robert Orme: History of Hindostan, P. 254.

3 Dr. E. Nagamamba: History of the Pusapatis - 1652 – 1794 ­A. U. 1978. P. 110.

4 Robert Orme: History of Hindostan, P. 254.

5 Ibid

6 Robert orme: A History of the Military Transactions of the British Nation in Indostan, London, Vol. II, PP. 255-260.

7 Bobbili Yuddha Katha, edited by M. Somasekhara Sarma p. 96.

 

Back