Dear Editor,
In a recent letter (SN 01/09/23) Hamilton Green took issue with the characterization of indentured labour by some writers. I have not seen those letters but I took note of his attempt to minimize the experience of indentured Indians. The use of indentured Indians in Guyana was the brainchild of the notorious John Gladstone to circumvent anti-slavery legislation. It was a guise for the continuation of slavery. Historians who have done extensive research on the subject have concluded that indentured labour in Guyana was a façade as the essential features of slavery remained in effect. Renowned Guyanese historian, Dr. Walter Rodney in his book, “A History of the Guyanese Working People” wrote that “Indentured Indian labour was enslaved by the tyranny of the law” and “condemned to a history of humiliation almost indistinguishable from the memories of African slavery.” British historian, Hugh Tinker said it was a ”New System of Slavery.” Chief Justice of BG, Joseph Beaumont in his book “The New Slavery” said it was “a rotten, monstrous system rooted in slavery.”
Several British newspapers said as much. The Daily News (in 1871) reported that “the system is slavery in all but name.” The Times (in 1872) said it was “a form of slavery and exploitation that violated the rights and the dignity of workers.” Indian journalist, MJ Akbar, writing in the Guardian, said “Nothing had changed except for the colour of the slaves.” The British government had a similar view from the outset. In 1838, Charles Anderson, a British magistrate, informed the Colonial Secretary that indentured Indians in Guyana were treated “with great and unjust severity by overwork and by personal chastisement” and their decaying remains were often found in fields. Prime Minister John Russell, who served as Secretary of State for the Colonies from 1839 to 1841, expressed concern about the “dreadful loss of life” and the creation of “a new system of slavery.” MPs such as Joseph Hume, Charles Buller and John Bright made similar statements. As a result of those concerns, the system was outlawed in 1838 but the aforesaid John Gladstone organized the plantation owners, lobbied the government and led a campaign to have it reinstated. He prevailed and the ban was lifted in 1940.
The experience of indentured Indians cannot be covered in a letter. It is well documented and I will skip the lurid details. Indians were lured to Guyana with false and exaggerated promises that they would earn enough money to return to a better life in India. Recruiters preyed on the most vulnerable, employing many of the same strategies used in Africa. Deception, coercion and intimidation were the hallmarks of the system. Most Indians did not know where or how far they were going. Some were told they were going to another part of India. They were not prepared for the long and arduous voyage on overcrowded ships with little food and water. Reports say as many as 17 percent died during the journey. Those who survived discovered that the “Golden City of Eldorado” was a myth. Hamilton Green’s assertion that indentured Indians came to Guyana as “free men” is barely a half truth. Truth be told, Indentured Indians left India as free men and women and landed as prisoners in a system of social and industrial control. They were denied the most basic rights, freedoms and liberties by laws designed to give planters the same control they had during slavery but with added support from friendly courts and the police.
The vagrancy laws were used to keep them on the plantation and away from the Immigration Agent responsible for their interests. The labour laws gave the planters broad power to prosecute them for a range of issues such as absenteeism, lateness, poor performance and insufficient production. As a result these “free men” (according to Green) could not quit their jobs, seek alternative employment or visit friends on another plantation. As one planter put it, they had to be at work or in a hospital or jail. Green said Indians were paid but did not mention their “starvation wages.” The truth is their rate of pay was set by the planters and remained stagnant for almost a century. A high performing male could potentially earn a dollar per week: a female 40 cents. However, more than 50% of indentured labourers could not complete a requirement of 5 tasks per week and suffered significant wage losses through arbitrary deductions, in addition to conviction and imprisonment. The court system was a farce.
The contracts and labour laws were written in favour of the planters and interpreted against the workers consistently by magistrates aligned with the planters. Most indentured Indians did not speak or understand English and were unable to represent and defend themselves at trials. The documents bearing their thumbprints were questionable. The legal protection they offered existed only in theory. Cases brought by workers often failed. Coworkers were reluctant to testify fearing retribution and conviction for missing work. Conversely, charges laid by the planters almost always resulted in conviction and imprisonment. Between 1874 and 1895, 65,084 indentured Indians were convicted for breaches of their labour contract. At times, more than seventy percent of the prison population were indentured Indians. Time served in prison was then added to the term of indenture. The planters leveraged their power to lay charges to intimidate and control the workers and extract concessions. They frequently laid false or frivolous charges and then withdraw them if the worker agreed to reimburse the court fee. The intent was to create a work force that was more productive, submissive, compliant and dependent.
Repatriation to India was a major selling feature for indentured Indians but less than 30 percent returned home when their term ended. Many were unwilling to risk or relive the experience of a 3 to 6 month voyage. Some were dissuaded by the planters and some were overwhelmed by the process. About 3,000 received house lots worth a fraction of the cost of repatriation. However, a good many could not afford the contributions imposed by the planters and were left stranded in another continent across two oceans. Slavery and indentured labour were two horrible chapters in Guyanese history. It was wrong for Indians to mislead Indians to sign up for indenture and it was wrong for Africans to capture Africans and sell them into slavery. Like brown and white eggs, the two systems were different on the surface but were essentially the same at their core. Comparing and contrasting them at this stage is an academic exercise. Any question as to which was worse is a topic for a high school debate.
Sincerely,
Milton Jagannath
