4 ( SOCIAL SCIENTIST in districts like Kurnool, Guntur, Chittoor and Nellore.6 The hill regions of the Agency7 were generally divided into Rampa and Gudem areas or blocks, which had 30 (around 700 sq miles) and 10 (around 740 sq miles) muttas or estates respectively. However, Gudem had 411 villages (in 1921) with a population of around 28,050, even though area»«tris6,there wis^ not much of a difference < x toother words, the density of population ^was somewhat greatiar in Rampa than in Gudem, with 40 per sq mile compared to 30 per sq mile in the latter.8 But geographically < Rampa was less* wild than Gudem. The striking difference, however, was the fewer number of muttadars in Gudem compared to Rampa. ^Th^ muttadars in the traditional socio-economic framework bfth^ Rattlpa region had been the actual rulers in their capacity as agents to the feudal lords or rajas in the plains. The muttadars, however, had no property rights on land in the hills. A muttadar, generally speaking, was entitled to collect existing taxes or levy new ones.9 During the British rule, while their mediatory role remained the same, the unlimited powers they had enjoyed until then were truncated. For, under the British administration a muitadar had only the right to collect a fixed revemHe— a^ fixed from time to time by the Agent—and he received a remuneration for doing so either in cash or in the shape of* grants of land and trees free of rent. However, these rights had no statutory basts aNd lh^ muftadars were permitted to enjoy them only as a matter of policy. All the rights could be snatched away by the British government, If it became necessary to do so.10 In other words, they Were effectively brought into the Fold* of colonial administration, which, in turn, regularised and controlled the rights of the muttadars (even the right ^f 6 Dominant tribes in Kurnool were Chenchus; in Guntur, Chenchus and Yanadis and in Chittoor and Nellore, Yanadis and Irulas which were classified as criminal tribes. A Aiyappan, op cit. 7 For geographical information see, G T Boag, Report on Census of India, Vol XIII, Part I. Madras, 1920-21, pp 7-8^ 8 Report from Agent, Vizagapatam Agency (Govt. of Madras), Land Revenue< and Settlement, G 0 No 2587 (Rev), December 11, 1929i Govt. of Madras, Rev. Dept.GONo 1171 (Rev.), July 17, 1930; Also see. Land Rev. and Sett.» GO No 312 (Rev), February 16, 1923 Govt. of Madras (hereafter as G 0 M). in ^ 9 A rfiuttadar theoretically collected land revenue and paid a Pxed kuttubqdi (revenue) to the raja in the plains For his services he retained the land revenue collected in excess of the kattu^adi amount and enjoyed free lands. A Aiyappan, op fit, pp 25-26. Also sec Minute, Board of Revenue Proceedings, August 24, 1818, (Indian Office Library, London), quoted in David Arnold, ^Rebellious HHlmen: The Gudcm-Rampa risings 1839-B24", in Ranajit Guha (cd), Subaltern Studies I: Writings on South Asian History and Society, Oxford, 1982, p 104. 10 For details see, GOs No 37 (Rev), January 14, 1929; No 1Q9 (Judicial), January, 16, 1880; No 1666. (Rev), July 27, 1929; No 2587, (Rev), December 11. 1929; NO 2.162. (Rev), August 27, |938; No 1153, (Rev).Jwe 11, 1^34.