1. A band of criminals

Sanaurhia, Chandravedi.1—A small but well-known community of criminals in Bundelkhand. They claim to be derived from the Sanādhya Brāhmans, and it seems possible that this may in fact have been their origin; but at present they are a confraternity recruited by the initiation of promising boys from all castes except sweepers and Chamārs;2 and a census taken of them in northern India in 1872 showed that they included members of the following castes: Brāhman, Rājpūt, Teli, Kurmi, Ahīr, Kanjar, Nai, Dhobi, Dhīmar, Sunār and Lodhi. It is said, however, that they do not form a caste or intermarry, members of each caste continuing their relations with their own community. Their regular method of stealing is through the agency of a boy, and no doubt they pick up a likely urchin whenever they get the chance, as only selected boys would be clever enough for the work. Their trade is said to possess much fascination, and Mr. Crooke quotes a saying, ‘Once a Sanaurhia always a Sanaurhia’; so that unless the increased efficiency of the police has caused the dangers of their calling to outweigh its pleasures they should have no difficulty in obtaining recruits.

2. Traditions of origin

Mr. Seagrim3 states that their home is in the Datia State of Bundelkhand, and some of them live in the adjoining Alamgarh tract of Indore State. Formerly they also resided in the Orchha and Chanderi States of Bundelkhand, having six or eight villages in each state4 in their sole occupation, with colonies in other villages. In 1857 it was estimated that the Tehri State contained 4000 Sanaurhias, Bānpur 300 and Datia 300. They occupied twelve villages in Tehri, and an officer of the state presided over the community and acted as umpire in the division of the spoils. The office of Mukhia or leader was hereditary in the caste, and in default of male issue descended to females. If among the booty there happened to be any object of peculiar elegance or value, it was ceremoniously presented to the chief of the state. They say that their ancestors were two Sanādhya Brāhmans of the village of Rāmra in Datia State. They were both highly accomplished men, and one had the gift of prophecy, while the other could understand the language of birds. One day they met at a river a rich merchant and his wife, who were on a pilgrimage to Jagannāth. As they were drinking water a crow sitting on a tree commenced cawing, and the Sanādhya heard him say that whoever got hold of the merchant’s walking-stick would be rich. The two Brāhmans then accompanied the merchant until they obtained an opportunity of making off with his stick; and they found it to be full of gold mohurs, the traveller having adopted this device as a precaution against being robbed. The Brāhmans were so pleased at their success that they took up stealing as a profession, and opened a school where they taught small boys of all castes the art of stealing property in the daytime. Prior to admission the boys were made to swear by the moon that they would never commit theft at night, and on this account they are known as Chandravedi or ‘Those who observe the moon.’ In Bombay and Central India this name is more commonly used than Sanaurhia. Another name for them is Uthaigīra or ‘A picker-up of that which has fallen,’ corresponding to the nickname of Uchla or ‘Lifter’ applied to the Bhāmtas. Mr. Seagrim described them as going about in small gangs of ten to twenty persons without women, under a leader who has the title of Mukhia or Nālband. The other men are called Upardār, and each of these has with him one or two boys of between eight and twelve years old, who are known as Chauwa (chicks) and do the actual stealing. The Nālband or leader trains these boys to their work, and also teaches them a code vocabulary (Pārsi) and a set of signals (teni) by which the Upardār can convey to them his instructions while business is proceeding. The whole gang set out at the end of the rains and, arriving at some distant place, break up into small parties; the Nālband remains at a temporary headquarters, where he receives and disposes of the spoil, and arranges for the defence of any member of the gang who is arrested, and for the support of his wife and children if he is condemned to imprisonment.

3. Methods of stealing

The methods of the Sanaurhias as described by Mr. Seagrim show considerable ingenuity. When they desire to steal something from a stall in a crowded market two of the gang pretend to have a violent quarrel, on which all the people in the vicinity collect to watch, including probably the owner of the stall. In this case the Chauwa or boy, who has posted himself in a position of vantage, will quickly abstract the article agreed upon and make off. Or if there are several purchasers at a shop, the man will wait until one of them lays down his bundle while he makes payment, and then pushing up against him signal to the Chauwa, who snatches up the bundle and bolts. If he is caught, the Sanaurhia will come up as an innocent member of the crowd and plead for mercy on the score of his youth; and the boy will often be let off with a few slaps. Sometimes three or four Sanaurhias will proceed to some place of resort for pilgrims to bathe, and two or three of them entering the water will divert the attention of the bather by pointing out some strange object or starting a discussion. In the meantime the Chauwas or chicks, under the direction of another on the bank, will steal any valuable article left by the bather. The attention of any one left on shore to watch the property is diverted by a similar device. If they see a man with expensive clothes the Chauwa will accidentally brush against him and smear him with dirt or something that causes pollution; the victim will proceed to bathe, and one of the usual stratagems is adopted. Or the Sanaurhia will engage the man in conversation and the Chauwa will come running along and collide with them; on being abused by the Sanaurhia for his clumsiness he asks to be pardoned, explaining that he is only a poor sweeper and meant no harm; and on hearing this the victim, being polluted, must go off and bathe.5 Colonel Sleeman relates the following case of such a theft:6 “While at Saugor I got a note one morning from an officer in command of a treasure escort just arrived from Narsinghpur stating that the old Sūbahdār of his company had that morning been robbed of his gold necklace valued at Rs. 150, and requesting that I would assist him in recovering it. The old Sūbahdār brought the note, and stated that he had undressed at the brook near the cantonments, and placed the necklace with his clothes, about twenty yards from the place where he bathed; that on returning to his clothes he could not find the necklace, and the only person he saw near the place was a young lad who was sauntering in the mango grove close by. This lad he had taken and brought with him, and I found after a few questions that he belonged to the Sanaurhia Brāhmans of Bundelkhand. As the old Sūbahdār had not seen the boy take the necklace or even approach the clothes, I told him that we could do nothing, and he must take the boy back to camp and question him in his own way. The boy, as I expected, became alarmed, and told me that if I would not send him back with the angry old Sūbahdār he would do anything I pleased. I bade him tell me how he had managed to secure the necklace; and he told me that while the Sūbahdār turned his back upon his clothes in prayer, he had taken it up and made it over to one of the men of his party; and that it must have been taken to their bivouac, which was in a grove about three miles from the cantonments. I sent off a few policemen, who secured the whole party, but could not find anything upon them. Seeing some signs of a hole having been freshly made under one of the trees they dug up the fresh earth and discovered the necklace, which the old man was delighted to recover so easily.” Another device which they have is to beat the Chauwa severely in the sight of a rich stranger. The boy runs crying and clings to the stranger asking him for help, and in the meantime picks his pocket. When the Sanaurhias are convicted in Native States and put into jail they refuse to eat, pleading that they are poor Brāhmans, and pretend to starve themselves to death, and thus often get out of jail. In reply to a letter inquiring about these people from the Superintendent of Chanderi about 1851, the Rāja of Bānpur wrote:

“I have to state that from former times these people following their profession have resided in my territory and in the states of other native princes; and they have always followed this calling, but no former kings or princes or authority have ever forbidden the practice. In consequence of these people stealing by day only, and that they do not take life or distress any person by personal ill-usage, and that they do not break into houses by digging walls or breaking door-locks, but simply by their smartness manage to abstract property; owing to such trifling thefts I looked upon their proceedings as a petty matter and have not interfered with them.”7 This recalls another famous excuse.