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.
[1] This article is based principally on an account of the Sanaurhias written by Mr. C.M. Seagrim, Inspector-General of Police, Indore, and included in Mr. Kennedy’s Criminal Classes of Bombay (1908).
[2] Crooke’s Tribes and Castes, art. Sanaurhia.
[3] Criminal Classes of Bombay Presidency, pp. 296, 297.
[4] Sleeman’s Reports on the Badhaks, p. 327.
[5] Mr. Gayer’s Lectures on some Criminal Tribes.
[6] Report on the Badhak or Bāgri Dacoits (1849), p. 328.
[7] J. Hutton, A Popular Account of the Thugs and Dacoits and Gang-robbers of India (London, 1857).