Dear Editor,
During the course of this month Indians in the diaspora are observing the centennial of the abolition of indenture. It took a massive campaign solely confined to India to bring an end to this iniquitous system which was based on fraud and labelled ‘a new system of slavery’, ‘the new slavery’ and regulated serfdom. Indeed indenture was a monstrous, rotten system rooted in slavery. In this anti-indenture campaign Indian nationalists, both men and women, politicians, political leaders, Indian newspapers and influential organizations played a leading role.
From the commencement of Indian emigration in 1838, following the abolition of slavery four years earlier, the Government of India adopted a policy of benevolent neutrality which was maintained almost throughout the 19th century. Under this laissez faire policy, the notion was that once the intending emigrant understood his prospects in the recipient colonies he would act on a rational calculation of his own economic interest and the system would benefit all. Accordingly, the Indian Government was keen to ensure that he was aware of his contract, that his health and comfort were preserved on the voyage, that he had adequate protection in the colonies and that he received a free return passage to India at the end of his 10 year contract. Once guarantees appeared satisfactory, the Indian Government was prepared to permit labour recruitment in India and remove unnecessary obstacles.
This policy had some minor changes but the basic structure remained unchanged. In the first decade of the 20th century certain developments led to the questioning of this policy.
Beginning in 1895 a number of discriminatory immigration, franchise and municipal laws were passed in Natal which seriously affected the rights and status of indentured Indians settled there. It was Mohandas Gandhi’s passive resistance against the discriminatory laws which demanded swift action in India, especially as the Natal Government refused to withdraw them.
Accordingly, in 1910 the Indian nationalist, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, introduced in the Viceroy’s Imperial Legislative Council a resolution for the termination of emigration to Natal. With hardly any sustained objection, the Government of India discontinued Indian emigration to Natal in 1911. The first effective blow at indenture had been struck and this paved the way for a massive campaign between 1911 and 1917 for total abolition.
In March 1917 Gokhale introduced in the Viceroy’s Imperial Legislative Council a resolution for the prohibition of recruitment of Indian labour for colonial and inland employment. He listed several objections to indenture: an unfair contract which omitted the penal sanctions, high mortality, absence of safeguards, mounting number of court prosecutions, appalling number of suicides, the degrading position of Indians who were disparagingly referred to as ‘coolies’.
He labelled indenture “a monstrous system, iniquitous in itself, based on fraud and maintained by force”. He ended his resolution with a stark reminder: “the conscience of our people, unfortunately asleep for too long is now waking up to the enormity of this question, and I have no doubt that it will not rest till it has asserted itself”.
Several other members vented their anger against indenture. Subha Rao concentrated on the theme of Indian dignity: “This question strikes at the root of our self-respect itself, stunting the moral growth of the people concerned, and labour should not be prostituted to promote the interests a few”. Although Gokhale’s motion was lost, it spurred others to join the anti-indenture protest. Within two years of the termination of indenture to Natal, the system was abolished in Mauritius with hardly any publicity.
As the anti-indenture campaign gained momentum, several other organizations emerged in India. Among them were the Arya Samaj and the Indentured Coolie Protection Society.
Their members distributed pamphlets in the recruiting districts of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh which supplied about 95% of the recruits to the colony. One pamphlet read thus: “Save yourselves from depot wallas… They take you overseas to Jamaica, Fiji, Damra, Trinidad, Honduras. They are not colonies but jails”. Another pamphlet was more assertive. “Don’t entangle yourselves with their cajoling. Don’t hear what they say, don’t stand near them…”
It was under the Viceroyalty of Lord Harding that indenture was truly exposed. In a dispatch to the Secretary of State for India, he condemned the high death rate, the appalling incidence of suicides, mounting planter prosecution and the “indescribable sexual immorality” among Indian women which produced a high level of Indian wife murders. He called for the abolition of indenture “to remove a social stigma” which was bitterly resented by Indian educated opinion.
Coming from such an influential official, Harding’s indictment coupled with an intensive anti-indenture campaign and the outbreak of World War I which required Indian ships and labour led to the suspension of indenture on March 20, 1917. The system was officially abolished three years later. An alternative plan proposed by planters in Guyana to introduce Indians on a colonization scheme did not bear fruit.
This topic is explored in detail in my book Indenture And Abolition.
Yours faithfully,
Basdeo Mangru
Associate Professor
Emeritus
York College, CUNY
