It appears that Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee (APCC) president Y S Sharmila has decided to go ahead with the wedding of her daughter, Anjali Reddy, at her bungalow in Yelahanka, Bengaluru, on November 25, despite objections from her brother, YSR Congress Party president Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy.
According to reports in a section of the media, Sharmila has refused to succumb to pressure from Jagan and look for an alternative wedding venue.
“She has decided to face the consequences from Jagan, come what may,” sources said.
Anjali Reddy is set to marry Dr Somala Raghurama Reddy, with wedding arrangements and invitations gathering pace as the date approaches.
Sharmila has reportedly been personally inviting prominent political leaders, including the Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, as well as senior Congress leaders. She has met several of them and handed over wedding invitations.
As if confirming her decision, the groom’s family has also started distributing wedding invitations declaring Sharmila’s residence as the wedding venue.
According to the invitation, the wedding will take place at 5 p.m. on November 25 at Sharmila’s residence in Yelahanka, Bengaluru.
The invitation has circulated widely on social media, bringing renewed attention to the question of where the wedding would be held.
The mention of the Yelahanka residence appears to settle the venue issue, at least according to the details printed by the groom’s family.
Apparently, Sharmila’s family has given a strong reply to Jagan’s letter, in which he had objected to using the Yelahanka Palace as the wedding venue due to security concerns.
Though it is not immediately known who gave the reply, its contents have gone viral on social media.
The reported letter questions Jagan’s concerns about a potential threat to his life in connection with the wedding and challenges his objections to holding the ceremony at the Yelahanka residence in Bengaluru.
Sharmila’s family has asked whether Jagan, who has expressed concerns about a possible threat to his life, considers himself more vulnerable than his father, former Chief Minister Y S Rajasekhara Reddy.
It refers to Rajasekhara Reddy’s political career, during which he served as both Leader of the Opposition and Chief Minister, and asks whether he refrained from conducting family weddings despite alleged threats involving country-made bombs and knives.
The letter reportedly asks whether Rajasekhara Reddy had invited even political opponents to family weddings and whether several marriages involving members of the extended Y S family had taken place at family residences.
It cites the weddings of Anil Reddy, son of J George Reddy; Yuvraj and Divya, children of Vimala, described in the letter as Rajasekhara Reddy’s sister; Raghudeep, son of Ravindranath Reddy, Rajasekhara Reddy’s brother-in-law; and Veronica Reddy, daughter of Y S Sudheekar Reddy.
Using these examples, the letter questions why security concerns should prevent the family from conducting Anjali Reddy’s wedding at the Yelahanka residence.
According to the letter, the two buildings at the Yelahanka estate have separate structures and compound walls. It argues that the physical separation of the buildings should be taken into account when assessing concerns about security during the wedding.
The letter further points out that the groom’s family has already printed wedding invitations identifying the venue as Sharmila’s residence in Bengaluru and distributed them among relatives.
It questions whether raising security concerns at this stage could embarrass Sharmila before the family of her future in-laws.
It also asks why objections should arise if both families wish to hold the wedding in the presence of a limited gathering of around 100 important family members and guests from each side.
The letter reportedly alleges that the objections are connected to Jagan’s reluctance to attend the wedding and suggests that security concerns are being used to justify his position.
It questions why Jagan should object to the venue by arguing either that the property is not Sharmila’s or that the wedding could create security complications.
It further alleges that the controversy could be an attempt to avoid the criticism that might arise if he remained in Bengaluru but did not attend his niece’s wedding.
The response reportedly concludes by telling Jagan that if he is uncomfortable with the wedding arrangements, he could travel to another country or stay elsewhere for a few days rather than attempting to obstruct the ceremony through security-related objections.
