Dear Editor,
I commend Darren Wade for his missive “Imperative not to conflate slavery and indentureship experiences” (Sep 25) in which he argues that they were two different (aspects of economic) systems and should not be conflated because it has the potential to continue and or further divide us along ethnicity lines. However, in his brief attempt to compare the two, he made a fundamental error, a common one made by many who have not studied indentureship, that needs correction.
He wrote: “Indentured labour in British Guiana, now Guyana, was contractual and involved individuals of East Indian, Portuguese, and Chinese descent who voluntarily migrated to the region”.
Wade wrote his epistle in the context of the visit and apology by heirs of the Gladstone family. For clarification, as best as I know from my studies and readings on indentureship, the Gladstone family that owned plantations and slaves in British Guiana and recruited as well as shipped indentured Indians, were not involved in Portuguese and Chinese indentureship. Wade used two key words – contractual and voluntary that need amplification to understand the context of their meaning in 19th and early 20th century British India. Prof Kapil Kumar of Indira Gandhi University in book “Colonial Plantations and Indian Indentured’ as well as several other scholars pointed out that the contract (called girmit by the indentured labourers or girmityas) was not understood and was in English. (The language didn’t matter). Scholars demolished this concept of the contract.
The overwhelming number of girmityas were not versed (read and write) in English or their native language and also could not sign their names. They were told they were making a short journey and would earn a lot of money, and they simply put their thumb print on the girmit or agreement without understanding what they were agreeing. As it were, the journey lasted three to five months at sea. Prof Hugh Tinker (1993) wrote: “Conditions on the (indentured) ships were similar to those on slave ships. In 1856-57, the average death rate for Indians travelling to the Caribbean was 17% due to diseases like dysentery, cholera and measles. After they disembarked, there were further deaths in the holding depot and during the process of acclimatisation in the colonies”. Prof Kumar and others demolished (contradicted) every aspect of the written contract.
There were forced tasks performed on the plantations that were not included in the contract or girmit. Also, whipping the girmityas and fining them (forced withdrawal from remuneration) for incomplete tasks or visiting jahajis (brothers and sisters) in neighbouring plantations (estates) were not mentioned in the contracts. Even on their day off, Sunday, they were bound to the plantations unless they got a permit to visit neighbouring estates. And cremation of deceased Hindus was not permitted as per their scriptures. Had they been told, Prof Kumar asked, that their corpse would not be cremated, would Hindus (85% of total indentured) have undertaken the journey?
Wade stated that the indentured “voluntarily migrated”. That is a factually incorrect statement. Large numbers of Indians did not volunteer for the journey. Unlawful means like kidnapping and nefarious schemes of deception were used to get Indians to make the journey. Many were kidnapped, and all were deceived about the length of the journey, food served, conditions of employment, and the financial remuneration. Recruitment of the girmityas were contracted out to arkatiyas who were paid for every recruit not dissimilar from recruiting slaves; kidnappings, lies, and deceptions were the means to meet quotas and to increase their earnings. Doctors falsified medical records. There were numerous accounts of kidnappings. My par nanni and par nanna (great maternal grandmother and grandfather), for example, were victims of kidnapping.
Several ‘volunteered’ for the trip, some under false names, to avoid British troops who were looking for them for participating in revolutionary activities against colonial rule. It was either death by hanging or firing squad or escape as ‘a volunteer’ for indentureship. There were countless cases of wage theft, human trafficking, and other exploitation that have occurred at the hands of labour recruiters and the plantation owners. Women were sexually abused during transportation to the holding depots, at the holding depots and on board the ship. The above illustrations does not support an argument of voluntary migration, and as a practicing lawyer, Wade should know the difference between it and involuntary labour.
I agree with Wade that Africans and Indians and other groups should not be in competition for apology or reparation and each should have their own narrative. Indentureship and slavery were horrible for both groups. And the Indian narrative, to use his term, should be told except that it has not been given space and has been neglected in all aspects of studies (history, literature, languages, etc.) at universities and even lower levels of schooling throughout Guyana and the Caribbean region as well as by CARICOM. While there were many similarities between slavery and Indian indentureship, I agree with Wade and others who argue that Indians should not merge their horrific experiences of indentureship with those of manumitted slavery.
And on the issue of reparative justice or apology, while it is best to have a united movement making demands from Europeans on behalf of all races that were affected by slavery and indentureship, given that Africans commenced the movement (established a territorial and a regional commission) making the case for reparative justice from the Europeans without the input of representatives of other races, and given that there are no representatives of Indians, Chinese, Portuguese, and Amerindians in any territorial and the regional commission, it may be best for representatives of the other ethnic groups to jointly pursue reparations or do so separately.
In unity, there is strength, but if it is not practical, then the representatives of the groups should go their own way in claiming reparations with support from CARICOM governments similar to the support that the regional body gave (give) to representatives of Africans to pursue reparative justice. It is critical that we pen history as accurately and objectively as possible. It is imperative, as Wade advises, that slavery and indentureship should not be conflated or misidentified or be equated. Also, Africans, Indians, and other ethnic groups should be supported to give the narratives or accurate experience of their ancestors and people.
Sincerely,
Vishnu Bisram (PhD)