The Criminalisation of the Indian-Irani Community by British Colonial Administration in India During Years 1842 to 1940 and Onwards

Abstract

Indian Iranis are denotified/nomadic tribes living in India since the sixteenth century. A large migrating group of them was declared criminals under British law. Post-independence too this label continued. Even today, police, media and society treat them as criminals. This article argues that though the British-targeted group of the Indian-Irani community was not involved in crime considerably (28 convictions of petty thefts in 98 years), it was noted as criminal tribes in police reports in and around the Bombay presidency from the year 1842 to 1940. A Police Report on Vagrant Bands of Foreigners of 1879 and notes and books by the then British police officers reflect the same. A then foreign-originated, nontribal, isolated community of Indian Iranis was labelled as criminals by the British colonial administration step-wise. The article briefs that the undue criminalisation of one group from this community further led to the criminalisation of the larger group from this community in independent India. Primary data witnessing the impact of such constant criminalisation on the current generation of the community in Ambivli, Thane district, Maharashtra is also briefly discussed in this article. The theories of labelling in criminology most fit to describe this criminalisation.

Introduction

Indian Iranis live primarily in the cities near railway or bus stations. They came to India in two different groups, at two different times under two different circumstances. The first group that kept coming to (India) over the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was the administrators, army men and experts serving the Mughal rulers. Some of the Indian Iranis located at Ambivli, Thane district, Maharashtra, are descendants of Irani army men who served the Mughals.

The second group is described in detail in a police report, namely ‘Vagrant Bands of Foreigners’ (Selections from the Records of the Government of India Home Department, No. CLVII) published by The Government Central Press (1879). It states that this group was the victim of a famine in Iran that occurred in 1852. They roamed all over India in hundreds of groups of men, women and children to collect alms/charity from princely states from 1842 to 1859.

Apart from these two large groups, there were Iranis who were in the trade of horses, precious stones, carpets and so on. They used to bring goods from Persia and sell them here to rich people. A community of Indian Iranis located at Shivajinagar, Pune, and a few from Ambivli, Thane in Maharashtra state shared that their ancestors were traders of horses and ponies.

The 1879 report and other five types of British police reports ¹ recording various nomadic and tribal communities as criminals indicate that the British Police criminalised the Iranis who were the victims of famine and constantly on the move in then India. However, while redrafting laws for notified tribes, other Iranis were also declared as habitual offenders in independent India, especially in some states. Even today some of them are treated as ‘criminals’ by the police, media and society. ²

Origin of the Indian-Irani Community

One finds Indian Iranis’ origin back in Iran, the geographical area which was then known as Persia. They practised the Zoroastrian religion of Iran before they accepted Islam in the 7th AD. Torvald says that the Iranis who migrated from Iran to India are called Iranis. British police officer Naidu notes that Iranis were the army men in the Mughal Empire who were originally the Mughal tribe of Mohammadan.

In 1889, the collector of Sikarpur and political agent of Kairapur described them as ‘Gypsies’ with any origin, probably in northern Persia, now called Iran. He further assumed that these gangs must have left their country several years ago due to several attacks of famine and pestilence as some said or they must have been socially ostracised as low-caste wandering men of criminal propensities with no settled place of abode. He then added that they migrated to India which they heard to be the ‘Land of Plenty’. In 1975, Ramanujam described them as a foreign wandering criminal tribe in India. ³

Understanding the Term Criminalisation

Before understanding the successful attempts of the British police to criminalise the Iranis, it is crucial to discuss the term criminalisation briefly. Criminalisation in layman’s language could be ‘turning an act or omission of an individual into an offense by making it an illegal act and assigning to them a certain range of criminal law sanctions’. For instance, homosexuality is considered to be an illegal or immoral act in some countries.

Roughly there are three dominant processes of the criminalisation process (a) protection of society, (b) protection of the normatively defined moral character of society and (c) protection of the state from threat to its governance. While the initial process of criminalisation may emerge from one or more of these contexts, persons facing disadvantage and criminalised through either of these contexts are at risk of aggravated social isolation and exclusion. They are not just penalised but also victimised by the individual, society and state which damages their identity as well as their future and family. In the process, sometimes, an entire community consisting of varied people of different ages, gender, education, behaviour, occupation, morals and interests is clubbed and stamped as criminals. The British government in British India used power to criminalise large unsettled groups and protect their rule.

Criminalisation is a political process; a process, through which the world of politics via criminal policy penetrates the world of law—a process that can and should, nevertheless, be guided by legal principles, rules, and standards. That it ‘should’, stems from the fact that the power to criminalise certain human conduct is an immense power that shapes our values, divides the population into criminals and non-criminals, limits people’s liberty of action and can make (via imposing certain sanctions on certain conduct) some people’s lives significantly worse. ⁴

In the context of denotified tribes and nomads, British police used their power not only to monitor the groups but also to create adverse laws against them and restrict their movement as well as freedom. Experts say that the initial reason for the criminalisation of nomads could be to arbitrarily control the nomads who were the constant movers, having no property and owned houses, land or agricultural property. Hence, it was not easy to bring them under the control of the colonial administration under the land or agricultural revenue laws or any other restrictions put on the other citizens. In the case of Iranis, the large groups of them possessing weapons and constantly moving across could be seen as a threat. The later part of this article elaborates on this point.

The Journey of Iranis to India and Their Criminalisation

Iranis kept immigrating to India at different times for different reasons. The permissions with the sign and seal of the then kings and British officers show that trading horses, carpets and precious stones at princely states in then Hindustan was an ongoing practice and reason for the immigration of Irani traders.

The immigration of the first group of Iranis to India is explained by Haneda. ‘When the Mughal empire was founded in the sixteenth century, many members of the Iranian elite were invited to the Mughal court. The lack of administrative specialists with Persian bureaucratic skills in the newly conquered territory must have been particularly serious.’ There was a constant increase in the Iranian population at the Mughal court in the middle of the sixteenth century. Even in the seventeenth century under Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb, the Mughals welcomed Iranian immigrants and gave them high positions. Persian was the language of court and administration. Persian-speaking people with bureaucratic skills and specialised knowledge of Persian culture were highly valued at the Mughal court. They not only occupied important posts in central and local administration but also served as soldiers, servants of the royal families and in the royal household. The records further say that the Irani soldiers were released from their service by the Mughals somewhere during the end of the rule of Aurangzeb in the seventeenth century. ⁵

A doctoral study by B. Mishra states that the Iranis were also serving as experts in the art and architecture of some memorials and royal buildings built during the Mughal period. It says that many soldiers and experts in literature and art came to India during Humayun’s period and influenced Mughal’s art and literature. ⁶

The second source ‘A police report on Vagrant Bands of Foreigners’ says that large groups of Iranees (Iranis) travelled to then British India as the victims of famine and asked for alms from rich people. This report states that these groups came with duly endorsed passports. It talks about the movements of Iranis during the years 1842, 1856 and 1859. This report reflects the criminalisation of the Iranis. Hence, it is studied in detail as a significant literature for this article. Its content is explained as follows.

Iranis Described in a Police Report on ‘Vagrant Bands of Foreigners’ (1879) for the Years 1842–1859

The report says that in 1842 a large party of Persians found their way to Nilgiri followed by the year 1846 in the districts of Kistna. They entered the houses of inhabitants by way of begging but frequently used the threat to extort money. They had petitions in the English language setting forth their misery and hardship and craving charity and they were very successful in many places.

They claimed that they were earlier farmers, owned lands and had their own carpet business. They lost sheep in famine and came to Hindustan along with their family members to beg.

The Iranees are named in this report as plundering beggars who obtained the passport to authorise begging and they had the right to be fed by the villagers in Mysore city. The report further mentions that they committed theft, threatened people and possessed loaded matchlocks with powder and balls. Once they were alleged of robbery of food articles and a bag of Rs. 97. Their belongings were utensils for cooking, rupee and ana coin ornaments for women, silver chains and girdles for men. They had Tattoos (horses) in large numbers.

The head of the police reported that the Iranees after arriving at Ossoor applied for Rs. 20 daily and seven sheep. Further, they said that if this was not given to them, they would have sought subsistence by begging and one party of them would have gone to Trichinopoly and the other to Madras. Hence, the police accepted their application and the police authority also supported the same. In search of their baggage, they were found with no means of support, and hence the paying of allowances was considered to be justifiable.

The SP Madras on 26 February 1856 mentions them as the wandering tribes of Persia who frequently come to India and cause uneasiness among the inhabitants.

A letter dated 7 April 1856 by a British officer stated, ‘They were examined separately and cross-examined closely, and there was no reason whatever to doubt the fact that they left their own country under severe pressure principally caused by famine. They wandered to India like many others of their countrymen with the object of begging and hoarding. They had petitions in the English language setting forth their misery and hardship and craving charity. Some of the endorsements showed that they were very successful in many places.’

The report further described that they could make their way through the country honestly and peacefully through the contributions that they would collect from charitable persons from towns and large places.

In short, through constant monitoring of them by the British officers, they were seen to be plundering beggars, extorting, victims of famine who were making a peaceful way, craving for charity, holding endorsements to be fed, undergoing misery and hardships, and holding weapons and ponies.

However, the report further reflects that just before the beginning of the Mutiny Revolt, the British started seeing them with more suspicion, examined and cross-examined them closely primarily to know the routes of their journey.

The report states, ‘Iranee distinctly say that they can make their way through the country honestly and peacefully by the contributions which they collect from charitable persons from towns and large places but their statement about their destination appears contradictory.’ Some of the statements contradicting their destination are described as follows. In some instances, the British colonial administration forcibly changed their destinations.

A party of 17 men, 17 women and 23 children arrived at Sircy and professed to be going to Mecca but were found false.

In one more description, it is noted that they told their destination as Mecca but came to a place Canara from where it was impossible to obtain shipping for Mecca.

They were willing to go to the south side but were sent to Calcutta by the British office.

A four-year journey statement by one Mohammad Beg of Shiraj states that they travelled to Kirman–Khorasan–Herat–Cabul–Hindustan via Guzni and Peshawar–Punjab–Delhi–Lucknow–Futtinghur (were robbed by a gang and lost property, cash, carpets of value 4000 and two of their men were shot dead by robbers)—back to Lucknow (asking for justice for their men)—Kanpur–Acharabad–Gwalior–Mahodpore–Indore–Malligaon–Ahemadnagar–Sholapur–Dharvad–Shimoga—taken to Banglore and—were sent to Madras by British forcefully. They wished to go to Calcutta.

Whereas another group travelled to Kirman–Khorasan–Herat–Cabul–Candahar–Shikalpur–Multan–Firozpur–Ludhiana–Delhi–Agra–Gwalior–Oojain–Indore–Behrampur–Aurangabad–Ahemadnagar–Sholapur–Belgaum–Dharwad and so on.

One more contradiction the report puts forth is about one Ali Uskur from this group who during interrogation said that he was a Priest but was originally a servant of a horse dealer Hussain Zall Beg.

Based on these facts, the author of this article tries to explore the possibility of connecting these contradictory facts about the years and routes of travel, destinations and identities of Iranis as horse traders with the Mutiny Revolt, of 1857 which occurred almost immediately after these instances. Following are the statements showcasing the said possibility:

The famine in Persia took place in the year 1852, whereas the records indicate that the groups of Iranis came to India in 1842 and onwards which is 10 years before the famine.

The groups claimed to be beggars but possessed cash and kind worth Rs. 4000 and more with them.

Some groups narrated their destinations falsely.

They visited many places such as Delhi, Kanpur, Lucknow and places around Jhansi which were the then centre of the Mutiny Revolt of 1857.

Leaders of the 1857 revolt in three of the above-mentioned centres Delhi, Lucknow and Kanpur (Bahadur Shah II and General Bakht Khan, Begum Hazrat Mahal and Birjis Qadir, Ahmadullah Azimullah Khan, respectively) were Muslim which was the religion of Iranis too.

These groups had many horses with them. They narrated losing their sheep in the famine but came with a large number of horses that surprisingly survived the same famine.

Identity of a servant of a horse dealer was hidden by the group.

Possession of weapons like matchlocks, pistols and so on.

Considering and connecting these interesting aspects of the Iranis who had a background of horse-trading, who were visiting various princely states and the then centres of Mutiny Revolt where the leaders belonged to their religion which was Islam, having cash and kind worth Rs. 4,000 or more but posing themselves as beggars, hiding the identity of a person concerned with horse-trading, possessing weapons, coming to Hindustan with many ponies, certainly, creates a question about the real purpose of these visits. The following facts noted in British notes and books throw some light on the probable profession of these large groups.

Mr Hunt in 1895 says that Irani’s ostensible profession is the merchandise of ponies and other things. They train their ponies well and they are strong and fit for hard work. They pay no attention to the marks about which the Hindus are very particular. ⁷

The police report of 1879 says that they carried no other merchandise except a large number of ponies and a few matchlocks.

Nondisclosure of the destinations and identities, coming with a large number of ponies and travelling through the Muslim leading areas might have been seen as a threat by the British police. Whatever might have been Irani’s profession and intent to visit India, they were certainly looked upon with suspicion by the British police. They were not criminals. But they were labelled as criminals. It was a step-wise systematic process of criminalisation undertaken by the British which made their lives miserable.

The following content of the Police Report, 1879, and other police reports, as well as notes indicate the efforts of the British police to criminalise this group of Iranis for decades together.

The Police Report of 1879 mentions that foreign travellers were earlier given passports or escorts to pass the jurisdictions of one district to another by the British—in-charge of those respective districts. However, in November 1856, the secretary to the Government of India, the Home Department strictly prohibited the granting of such passports or documents. People who wanted to seek such documentation were supposed to make applications for the same to the concerned department of government directly.

It would not be wrong to state that all people on constant movements were seen with suspicion by the British colonial administration and treated accordingly before the Mutiny Revolt, of 1857. The fear of the British government towards the possibility of an attack by Iranis on the British cantonment is reflected in the following words of the British officer in the police report, 1879.

The words are, ‘The parties consisted of 126 persons 56 being men, 70 being women and children, and 110 Tattoos. They are reported to be of unruly conduct and plundering vagabonds; hence, they were suggested to be kept unarmed while passing the cantonment areas.’

To conclude, if the Irani groups were secretly engaged in the Mutiny Revolt, of 1857 by way of selling their horses to the then leaders and kings of then Hindustan is the topic of another in-depth historical research. However, the equations of the British police with the Irani community certainly changed just before and after 1857. The British Police kept all nomadic communities under constant surveillance and restricted their movements too. The change in their language, as well as actions, is reflected in other British police reports too.

Reflection of the Criminalisation in British Reports from 1884 to 1895

Once the suspicion was established, the systematic stepwise process towards labelling the actions of Iranis as illegal and criminalising them was initiated. It started by portraying them negatively and describing the allegations or possibilities of committal of offences by them with great detail. The underlined words below indicate the reporting of attempts and possibilities.

The chapter on Iranis from the book ‘History of Bauris, Sansis, Chapparband, Cabulis, and Iranis’ by Naidu M. P. R. reflects the change in the tone of the British police reports from the year 1884 to 1895. They described Iranis as ‘wandering gangs of unruly conduct, vagabonds, menace and anxiety for the law-abiding public, serious trouble, nuisance, obnoxious, engaged in extortion, mischief, and attempted to terrorize the countryside, fight among themselves which could have resulted in serious breach of peace, nefarious activities being a problem for the police, suspected, usual objectionable methods of obtaining a livelihood, leaving trails of undetected crimes, holding weapons like firelocks, pistol, ax, knives, half swords, etc., giving trouble to police and people, 6 being convicted for theft in the year 1888’.

Iranis were then alleged for engagement in the trade of false coins. Mr. Hunt reported in the year 1895 about an inquiry revealing that they were in the trade of various legal things and false coins too. He states that the Iranis were engaged in trades of false coins of different kinds. Their coins were spuriously containing large proportions of alloy and less silver and were made only at Bombay by Kathiawar/Parja Sonars and at Calcutta and Nagpore. Though the report talks about their engagement in the trade of false coins, British police officers in their reports mention the incapacity of police officers to trace any of these offences. ⁸

The report mentions Iranis carrying weapons like matchlocks. However, the reports have no records of crime in this context.

British officers could not establish cases against Iranis despite watching them constantly and arresting them, but the Iranis were still targeted and portrayed as criminals. The underlined words in the above paragraphs indicate the documentation of the allegations of undetected, untraced offences and attempts or possibilities.

Reflection of the Criminalisation in British Reports from 1901 to 1920

Naidu noted that ‘it was impossible for two or three constables, who were often deputed to watch Iranis, to prevent them from committing crimes in different ways. There were instances where even the police inspectors with several constables failed to recover stolen property from them, knowing full well that they committed theft.’ The same report further says that in one instance about the year 1902, the police superintendent arrested a few to recover the property but in vain. The report also states that the Iranis used to move further with many untraced offences. ⁹

In short, even the senior police officers failed to prove that the Iranis committed offences. Despite this, Iranis were portrayed as criminals.

The urge to tag all of them as criminals is reflected in Mr. Naidu’s notes which say, ‘women and children took the most active part in earning their nefarious earnings’. However, the conviction records in the same chapter do not reflect the conviction of any Irani woman or child.

There is no record of crime by Iranis until 1917 in the available archival British police records. In the Police Report of the Bombay Presidency, including Sind and Railways, for the years 1901, 1903, 1905, 1907, 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1915 and the Annual Report on the Police in the Town and Island of Bombay for the year 1908, 1913 and 1914, there is no mention of Iranis.

They are mentioned in the British police reports titled ‘Police Report of the Bombay Presidency, including Sind and Railways,’ as 3 and 221 wandering gangs in 1917, 6, 2 and 155 in 1919, and 1 in 1920 travelling from one district to another. These reports mention locating Irani gangs but there are no criminal cases or convictions mentioned in these reports against them. Still, they were kept under constant watch and described in police reports as wandering gangs noticed, watched and some escorted to other districts.

Reflection of Criminalisation in Reports from the Years 1921 to 1940

The records from 1921 to 1935 are the only records, where 22 Iranis are seen to be convicted for theft offences. After constant vigilance and negative descriptions of Iranis for over 98 years, actual convictions of Iranis in theft cases across 98 years are as follows:

The Police Report of the Bombay Presidency, including Sind and Railways, for the year 1921 indicates nine persons being arrested and convicted for theft cases.

Whereas, in 1928, four Iranis were convicted for offences against property.

The report of 1929 noted two convictions for cognisable offences under IPC.

Annual Police Report of the Bombay Presidency, excluding Sind, for the year 1933 notes the conviction of the Five leaders of Irani gangs.

Report on the Working of the Criminal Tribes Act in the Bombay Presidency Part I for the year 1935 shows two convictions.

To conclude, five reports from the year 1921 to 1935 indicate 22 convictions of Indian Iranis which is not a considerable number to treat the entire large group as ‘Criminal Gangs’. Overall British Crime Records throughout these years conclude that across 98 years from 1842 to 1940 only 28 (including six convictions in the year 1888) Irani persons were convicted of petty offences of theft. Especially, when the number of Irani gangs entering and roaming around India in those days was not less than hundreds of gangs and thousands of members as per Naidu.

Reflection of an Urge to Register the Iranis as Criminal Tribes

The Annual Police Report of the Bombay Presidency, excluding Sind, for the year 1930 mentioned that the gangs of Iranis gave no serious trouble. But still same report further mentioned that the question of registering the wandering Iranis as a criminal tribe is once more under the consideration of the government. This indicates the urge of the British police to formally label Iranis as criminal tribes irrespective of no considerable crime records.

The 1933 report says that 35 persons from the Irani community were struck off from the register of notification as criminals as ‘no Irani was convicted under the IPC.’ Also, no Irani person is registered as an absconder in this report. Then, 5 Irani leaders are noted to be convicted.

Reports from the years 1936 and 1939 talk about wandering Irani gangs being noticed, whereas the report of 1940 mentions that five Iranian applications were expelled by the British colonial administration.

In short, the records indicated the conviction of only 28 convictions over a period of 98 years. Despite such a low number, the British police were trying to bring Iranis under the purview of criminal laws. The beggars peacefully passing the way with valid documents or the constantly travelling groups with large numbers of ponies and a few weapons were then shown as troublesome, and nuisance followed by being portrayed as the wandering gangs, traders of false coins. British police further urged to declare them as criminal tribes. Neither the number of cases justified the criminalisation nor the gravity of the convicted offences.

The study of the reports indicates that just like other groups of tribes and nomads, a large number of groups of Iranis in the constant movement was probably seen as a direct threat to British rule by the British colonial administration. Hence, all efforts were made to bring them under absolute control by falsely and forcibly portraying them as criminals.

The British police involved the locals too to seek their aid against desperate criminals by making small grants of land or assignments of land revenue to them, says Gayer. ¹⁰

Theoretical Contextualisation of the Criminalisation of the Indian-Irani Community

The framework of the labelling theories of criminology is most appropriate for analysing the impact of criminalisation on the Indian-Irani community. A constant process of criminalisation of Indian Iranis by the British colonial administration and then by the Indians is largely reflected in the following key principle of the labelling theories.

Labelling leads to further labelling.

Labelling one small group leads to labelling a larger group.

As described above, a constantly migrating group of the Indian-Irani community was labelled as born criminals by the Britishers. The period during which this group was in constant migration was a period of preparations for the revolt against British colonial administration rule.

The initial step of the British police was to observe them and their movements keenly and report about them to each other. They were noted as a nuisance earlier but labelled further as plundering gangs, not groups. The next step is seen to be constantly showcasing them with negative connotations. It was followed by portraying them as criminals without sufficient grounds. There are plenty of British police reports that alleged them as offenders and portrayed them as troublesome criminals but ended up with no statistical records of convictions, though the British police were desperate to bring them under the purview of the Criminal Tribes Act of 1971. But, the Reports on the Working of Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 from the year 1919 to 1940 show no records of the Iranis being kept in any of the settlement camps established in the Bombay Presidency. Nonetheless, they were constantly targeted and portrayed as criminals in the police records and reports.

In short, the picture of ‘Irani gangs’ created by the British police throughout their reports and records does not match with the factual number of convictions made against Iranis. Labelling severely and then labelling the entire group including the women and children irrationally was a systematic stepwise criminalisation of Iranis done by the British police. The misery continued more widely in independent India too.

Continuation and Expansion of the Criminalisation of Irani/Bhartiya Iranis in Independent India

On 31 August 1952, after long stigmatisation for more than 80 years under the Criminal Tribes Act, of 1971, the so-called criminal tribes were declared as denotified tribes in independent India, and The Habitual Offenders Act, of 1952 was introduced. The legislation overwrote the born criminality with habituality. Hence, just like all other denotified groups, the criminalisation of Indian Iranis not just continued but impacted the larger Indian-Irani group. The groups of traders and released army men were never mentioned and looked upon as criminals by the British government over these years. However, the usage of the nomenclature Irani/Bhartiya Irani (Indian-Irani) by Indian lawmakers brought them all into the category of habitual criminals. Even today, many states in India note them as denotified tribes and many as nomadic tribes. The current draft list of denotified tribes, nomadic tribes and semi-nomadic tribes of India (2023) notes them as denotified tribes in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and as denotified tribers in Rajasthan, whereas they are considered to be nomadic tribes in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. They are noted as Bhartiya Irani (Indian-Iranis) only under the Maharashtra state list. In the rest of the state lists, wherever they are mentioned, they are mentioned as ‘Irani’.

Indian Iranis staying at Mumbra and Ambivli, Thane district, Maharashtra, confirm that their ancestors were either army men or traders of horses, carpets and precious/semi-precious stones. Two ladies from Ambivli and Mumbra clarify, ‘We have a history of being fighters or traders and not beggars’. They proudly show the permissions for trade received by their ancestors from the British administration and Indian prince as evidence of their history.

Hence, one may argue that the British labelled and trapped a specific set of Irani as criminals but the Indians labelled Iranis/Bhartiya Iranis as a whole. They are seen and treated as ‘criminals’ by the police, media and society. Wealthy Irani families closely associated with the Parsi community are an exception to this though.

Brief on the Vulnerabilities Forcing the Indian-Irani Community Towards Criminalisation

The vulnerabilities of the Indian-Irani community driving them to fall into the trap were probably supportlessness, landlessness, an isolated lifestyle and the background of a victimised religious minority.

Iranis preferred and still prefer to live in India without mingling much with others. They always lived in their groups. It helped them maintain their unique identity but must have caused supportlessness too. Parsis, on the other hand, who too flew from Iran but in comparatively wealthy positions gelled with Indian society, settled down, developed friendly business relations with the British and yet maintained their unique identity.

Iranis are Shia Muslims which is an added vulnerability too. History witnessed that the fight between Sunnis and Shias led to the extreme exploitation of Shias. They were a minority and victims of infringement of all their rights. They kept migrating and preferred to remain isolated to such an extent that they hid their identity as Shias during the censuses conducted by the British in India.

Impact of the Criminalisation on the Current Indian-Irani Community in Ambivli, Thane District of Maharashtra State

The Census of 1931 conducted by the British colonial administration does not note Iranis as citizens. ¹¹ They were entitled to citizenship of India after independence. The Maharashtra Government Resolution for the years 2006 and 2008 recognises them as Nomadic Tribes with 2.5% reservation and are classified as Bhatkya Jati (Nomadic Tribes B).

Indian-Irani members from Ambivli, Mumbra and Ghatkopar, Maharashtra share that they live in all states of India and are well connected to each other. The young Irani activist says their population is approximately 7–8 lakhs in India. Their groups are called ‘Kabila’ and have a chief (Sardar). They have a Panchayat (court) in each Kabila which includes the Sardar and a few male and female members. They rarely approach the judiciary to sort their disputes. Rather they prefer to solve their disputes by hearing both parties and passing orders accordingly for approving divorce, restitution of conjugal rights, custody of the disputed couple’s children, boycotting a person marrying non-Irani, restraining a person engaged in crime and so on at their Panchayat. Sixty to 70 years back, they were nomads and used to live in tents. Now, they live a settled life. They speak the ‘Madri Farsi’ language which is in Urdu script. Some mingle with locals. The majority of them speak the local languages. They follow Islam and pay Namaz regularly. Alcohol is prohibited by their religion, say some seniors. However, a few youngsters are trapped in drug addiction. Indian Iranis prefer to marry within their community. They have entitlements such as ration cards, PAN cards, Aadhar cards and so on and a few have passports too. Paying a visit to Mecca is considered holy by them. Indian-Irani women do not cover their faces with Burka (veil). They are brave and beautiful.

The majority of their children are enrolled in schools. A few who are unable to pay fees have dropped out of the school. Few complete school studies, whereas a few study up to graduation. However, getting white-collar jobs is difficult due to the stigma. Sometimes, police visit their workplaces to either apprehend them on suspicion or inquire about their relatives allegedly engaged in crime. It affects the sustainability of their jobs. To avoid such stigma and its implications, a few Indian Iranis have changed their surnames and hidden their identity as Irani, whereas a few have chosen to live far from the Irani locations.

Some are engaged in the roadside sale of goggles, artificial stones, wristwatches, clothes and perfumes, and a few have small shops for selling petty things, whereas some are alleged under theft cases. Majority of the concerned police function with the belief that all Indian Iranis are criminals/heredity criminals. A police constable in Thane district, Maharashtra, shared that some of the Indian-Irani youths were engaged in chain snatching cases. However, they kept acquitted by the courts. So, the Thane police used the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) against them which prolonged their bail. Though the conviction rate despite applying MCOCA remained low at 20–50%, it helped the police to keep the Indian Iranis in jail for longer. Due to MCOCA, around 50% of Indian-Irani male members from the community located at Ambivli are in jail, say community members and the police. Now, all Maharashtra police apply MCOCA against Indian Iranis. An engagement of a few in the theft cases has led to labelling the entire community as a community of thieves. Police illegally detain them, conduct combing operations, illegally seize their property, use abusive language with the family members of the suspect and verbally and physically abuse the women.

Audio-visual and print Media usually portray them as criminal gangs, thieves of Ambivli and so on except for a very few stating their vulnerabilities. A young Indian-Irani law student uses social media to create awareness about the vulnerabilities and atrocities of the Indian Iranis.

A recent article by Bhosale in the local newspaper magazine in Maharashtra quotes that the police periodically make a list of suspects in chain snatching cases. Community members from village Ambivli share that the names of their young and innocent children are incorporated in such lists. ¹²

A youth says that the police demand ‘recovery’ in the form of money or gold to avoid the apprehensions of the youths. If not given, the boys are falsely alleged in multiple cases. They end up in jails for years together. Since many are alleged under multiple cases and MCOCA charges, grant of bail becomes difficult legally and monetarily too.

A person from the community adds that all Iranis are not innocent. A few are engaged in offences just like the Hindus and Muslims are engaged. However, the label of criminality is applied to Indian Iranis only. They are always targeted by the police. ‘If this continues, how the next generation will survive and live a better life?’, asks the boy.

A person shares about the CCTV cameras being placed in and around some parts of the community. He claims that the footage of the fights between the local villagers and Indian Iranis are referred by the police to arrest Indian Iranis only. ¹³ Moreover, the cameras placed in the homes of a few Indian-Irani families were broken by the police to ensure that the footage of police’s indecent behaviour, and illegal search and seizure is not used against them as evidence, claim the members.

There have been 4–5 cases filed against the police atrocities and police causing the death of Indian-Irani persons. However, the community members claim that the police pressurise the deceased’s family to be hostile in court. If not, they will be alleged under MCOCA. A few also claim that the daily atrocities by the police started immediately after filing the first case against the police.

A teacher working in a local school in the community at Ambivli opines that theft is in Irani’s blood and hence the school does not allow their children to mingle with other kids in the school. She adds that the provision under Right to Education compels the school to admit Indian-Irani kids. But if given the choice, she will never allow them in her school. She further says that the engagement of Irani families in crimes makes children criminals. Ironically, this teacher has won the ‘Best Teacher Award’. ¹⁴

Conclusion

The analysis of the British police reports, notes and books indicates that the systematic criminalisation of the Indian-Irani (then Iranis/Eranees) community was done stepwise. It started with constant and keen supervision, followed by documenting them with negativity, marking them in many police reports constantly though they did not have records of crime/convictions. It was followed by documenting the attempts of offences, registering cases against them and declaring those cases as ‘undetected and untraced’, constantly urging to include them all under the Criminal Tribe Act based on suspicion and 28 convictions in petty theft cases.

Indian lawmakers not only continued the label but also extended it to the larger group of Indian Iranis situated in many states all over India. A community of varied backgrounds, ages, aptitudes, aspirations, thoughts, capacities, behaviours, occupations, morals and interests was stamped and treated as criminals.

Their present generation at Ambivli is isolated, less educated, stigmatized, traumatised and struggling to live a reasonable life without stigma. The impact of their criminalisation is visible in every aspect of their life. The media portray them as criminal gangs. Police treat them as habitual criminals. Society sees them collectively as thieves. Their children are stigmatised in schools and colleges, and youth are unable to get or sustain work opportunities. Overall, the opportunities and motivation to live a reasonably decent life are low. The criminalisation that started almost a century back by foreign rulers is continued by their countrymen. It haunts their daily, social, financial, educational, cultural and psychological lives every day. What they want is the removal of stigma and fair treatment for innocents. Is it unreasonable to demand so? A fair answer to this question is awaited.