Evolution of the indenture system

The period of formal, organized indenture immigration presented a departure from the previously private attempts to seek an alternative to slavery. Having set­tled on India as the preferred labour pool, the introduction of overseas workers was no longer experimental but presented a significant investment made by the colony, one from which both planters and the administration were increasingly

State-VegulateA immigration and, emergence of a peasantry 145 seeking to maximize their return, as the regulations passed over the following decades demonstrate.

This is in contrast to how early indenture was generally regarded. Correspond­ence from the period suggests that it was envisaged that the Indian workers would only remain temporarily, since the prime concern in the context of their introduction appears to have been that they should not become “a source of expense to his Majesty's Government on the island” after the expiration of their contract or if their services were no longer required,^[660] necessitating assurances that provisions for their return were in place.^[661] A similar issue arose in 1835, when the chief commissary of police in Mauritius insisted that recruiters pay the required security for workers imported from abroad.^[662] The recruiters did not argue against paying the security as such, but contended that it was not due since the workers were subjects of British India and therefore not foreign.^[663] The issue gave Procureur General d'Epinay in his legal opinion the opportunity to allude to the possibility of the indentured labourers not being considered “proper” British subjects, however refusing to discuss the point in any detail and without provid­ing a definite answer, he simply insisted the security was required to safeguard the public purse.^[664]

This preponderance with ensuring that provisions were in place to guarantee the workers' timely departure changed with the advent of state-regulated inden­ture.

The contemporary account of Reverend Beaton on his missionary service in Mauritius during the mid-19th century gives a telling insight into how important Indian labour had become to the island:

Coolies from the banks of the Ganges, brought... to do the work of Helots... and to be so, all but in name................................................... These swarthy Orientals... are the muscles

and sinews of the Mauritius body politic, the secret source of all the wealth, luxury and splendour with which the island abounds. It is from the labour

of his swarthy body in the cane-fields that gold is extracted more plenteously than from the diggings of Ballarat.^[665]

The period of formal indenture immigration to Mauritius until its termination can be divided into three distinct periods: Initially, after immigration resumed following suspension, a “bounty system” was put into place which lasted until 1844, followed by a “contingent system” until 1857, with an overhauled set of new labour laws passed in 1867.^[666]

6.3.1 The bounty system

In 1842, the prohibition of Indian emigration was officially lifted, initially exclu­sively to Mauritius.^[667] The procurement of workers was no longer a private mat­ter, but came under official control. This crucial period in Mauritian history saw the tenure of three different administrators in Mauritius, with the most decisive changes occurring during the term of Colonel William Staveley, who was not formally a governor of the island.^[668]

The schedule attached to the Order in Council permitting renewed immigra­tion to Mauritius contained numerous regulations which sought to safeguard the interests of the Indian labourers.

State-VegulateA immigration and, emergence of a peasantry 147 engagement.^[672] Upon arrival, the Protector of Immigrants was “as far possible by personal inspection of the Ship or Vessel”, to ascertain that the regulations had been complied with,^[673] and no payment from the island's treasury was to be made unless governor of Mauritius was satisfied that this had been the case.^[674]

In terms of labour contracts, the schedule importantly provided:

No Emigrant arriving from India at Mauritius shall be capable of entering into any contract of service to be performed in that Island until he shall have been at least 48 hours on shore there, and every such contract of service made before that time shall be null and void to all intents and purposes.^[675]

In the same vein, no liability existed for the emigrants for contracts entered into before their arrival at Mauritius,^[676] however they were not able to enter into ser­vice contracts except as governed by the local laws for agricultural and manufac­turing labourers.^[677]

These rules can be understood to have been intended to allow the labourer freedom to choose his engagement carefully, by being able to survey the local situation before committing him- or herself.

The interval of 48 hours was perfectly illusory as a means of enabling them to obtain information to guide them in their choice of employers, or as to the terms they should accept, while it was one sufficiently long to expose them to the tricks and frauds of crimps and so-called “labour-brokers”, whose pro­ceedings proved a fruitful source of scandal and complaint for the next six­teen years.^[678]

The rule preventing the worker from entering into a contract within less than 48 hours of arrival may have been intended as a protective measure, but it in prac­tice it proved much too short to help safeguard the labourers' interest. Surveying the local options may also have proven to be impractical, if not outright impos­sible, for the arriving immigrant. Again, the availability of “choice”, like that of the decision to emigrate in the first place, was the merest fiction in the absence of accessible information.

An important issue facing Colonel Staveley and the local council was the issue of costs. Ordinance No. 2 of 1842 established an Immigration Fund from which

the introduction of immigrant workers was to be financed, allowing the sum of £25,000 annually to be appropriated for that purpose from the revenues of the colony.^[679] It was evident however that these funds would be insufficient to meet the expenses involved in labour immigration, in particular, the need to provide a return passage for the workers. To that end, Staveley, with the consent of the Government Council, passed Ordinance No. 7 of 1842, which, for the explicit purpose of financing Indian labour immigration, imposed a consumption tax on liquor, specifically rum or arrack manufactured in Mauritius, and spirits, wines and cordials imported from abroad.^[680] The same ordinance stipulated that for each legally introduced labourer, the Immigration Fund would provide £6 for adults (male or female), and £3 for children.^[681] The 1875 report states that back in Britain, Lord Stanley^[682] felt the notion of “legally introduced” workers was not clear, and in any event regarded the ordinance as unnecessary, and therefore rec­ommended its disallowance.^[683] However, it appears the ordinance was eventually approved.^[684]

Ordinance No.

With a view to increasing the supply of Indian labourers, the indemnity (or “bounty”) that was available from the immigration fund was raised from £6 to £7 for male labourers by Ordinance No. 3 of 1843.^[686] In a further attempt to increase the number of female recruits, the ordinance also introduced a con­voluted provision to the effect that the bounty for male labourers would be increased by a further 5 per cent “whenever the number of females shall be in the proportion of five to every one hundred male labourers brought over in the same ships”, provided those females were aged between 12 and 30.^[687]9 How­ever, the indemnity would not be paid for the first ten females, nor for more than 25 females per hundred males, whatever the actual number of females transported.^[688]

State-VegulateA immigration and, emergence of a peasantry 149

The Indian Act No. XVI of 1843 restricted emigration to Mauritius to the port of Calcutta, with the recruitment of workers taken out of the hands of emigration agents and given to an official appointed by the government of Mauritius, subject to the supervision of a Protector of Immigrations appointed by the government of India, who from January 1844 was to be in sole control of emigration. This shift was hoped to encourage a “superior class of females” to emigrate, as well as more families, thus encouraging permanent settlement on the island instead of temporary migration.^[689] Incidentally, the number of female arrivals did not rise; in fact, for the years 1847 and 1848, it fell drastically to a mere 656, from 4,307 females in 1843, as can be gathered from the data contained in Table 5.2.^[690]2

The period of the “bounty” system can be wrapped up by noting that recruit­ment from other countries, such as China and certain parts of Africa, was not deemed successful or desirable.^[691] As discussed in the previous chapter, the pros­pect of importing workers from the African continent in particular was consid­ered too reminiscent of slavery, and there were suspicions that it would have been nearly impossible to ascertain whether the workers obtained from that area were actually “free.^[692] In the light of these concerns, the recruitment of labour from India was preferred insofar as the officials could satisfy themselves, simply from the place of origin, that it was “free”.

6.3.2 The contingent system

In 1845, ten years after slavery had ended and the steady introduction of inden­tured labourers had begun, the demand for workers in Mauritius continued una­bated. This persistent need for labour sparked the establishment of a committee set up by Governor William Gomm,^[693] with the specific purpose of inquiring into “the causes of the continued demand for labour, notwithstanding the already extensive introduction of immigrants into the colony.”^[694] The report of the Raw­son Committee addressed two main questions: first, whether or not there existed sufficient labour in Mauritius in order to meet the needs of the island; and sec­ond, whether the regulation that limited engagements to one year should be

Table 6.2 Abstract of the population of Mauritius on 1 August 1846⁶⁷

rescinded.^[695] [696] Following calculations that considered mortality, illness, persistent absenteeism as well as departures, the report concluded that

the total number of labourers now engaged on estates, including the ex­apprentices, is 40,000; that of these 9,450 are, from various causes with­drawn from such labour; and that the value of the labour of the remainder is only equal to that yielded by 23,000 slaves, making no allowance for the diminished amount of labour rendered at the present time by the ex-apprentices.^[697]

As the Rawson report notes, while this number roughly corresponded to the number of slaves available just a few years prior to emancipation, the capacity of Mauritius for sugar production had drastically increased since then, and would no longer satisfy the demands of the island's economy.^[698] The committee made a number of findings, notably that the number of Indian arrivals was an erroneous basis on which to estimate the available labour, especially since workers were not only required for the sugar industry, but also other kinds of employment, espe­cially public works (such as the maintenance of roads, etc.). It was thought that “the urgent demand for labourers has led to many of the evils under which the planters labour”, amongst which predominantly the issue was “the enhancement of wages”, and that “many of the evils complained of by the planters would be remedied by the further introduction of labourers �to such an extent as to create competition for employment' ”. However it was recognized that under the pre­sent system that level of immigration was impossible to reach.^[699] The committee suggested that if engagements were to last longer than a year, planters would feel a greater incentive to invest in immigration.

Based on the recommendations of the report, and with the aim of making labour immigration more cost-effective for planters, Ordinance No. 1 of 1846 was passed. However, its provisions were found to be so “unjust and oppressive”

State-VegulateA immigration and, emergence of a peasantry 151 to the Indian labourers that it was disallowed by the Colonial Office.^[700] Earl Grey^[701] objected, in particular to Article 4 of that ordinance^[702] which sought to make every oral engagement binding for a month, and would further continue every month unless either the master or servant gave a 14-day notice before the expiration of the month. In Earl Grey's view this would likely place an Indian immigrant in a position of perpetual engagement, given his likely ignorance of the language and requirements of the law.

However, Article 4 was by no means the only objectionable provision. Article 7 aimed to severely punish desertion from work. A labourer absent for one cal­endar month was liable to imprisonment with hard labour for between one and two months, or a fine of 5 l., or both. Where absence had been for three months, a labourer was liable upon conviction to “confinement in any legal house of cor­rection”, as well as hard labour on the public streets and highways, for a period between two to four months, or a penalty of 10 l. or both.^[703]

Further, Article 8 subjected workers to the formality of obtaining a Certificate of Discharge at the end of their contract. Specifically within 48 hours of dis­charge, they were required to apply for it from a stipendiary magistrate, in default of which their engagement “shall be deemed unfinished”, and additionally ren­dering liable to certain penalties.^[704] Article 9 further stipulated that without such a certificate, a labourer was prohibited to enter a new contract of service, except if he was re-engaging with the same master. The effect of that would have been, as noted by Earl Grey, a compulsion to re-engage with the same employer.^[705]

Earl Grey made the insightful observation that

the original error to which all the objectionable provisions of the Ordinance are to be traced, is that it proceeds upon the principle of endeavouring by law to enforce upon the immigrants the due performance of the obligations to labour which they have contracted by accepting a free passage to the colony.^[706]

He regarded this as a “great mistake”, for “all experience tends to prove that no legal regulations, however severe, if they stop short of the extreme compulsion

which is the characteristic of slavery, can succeed in enforcing really efficient labour”.^[707] Instead he suggested that policies be pursued that would encourage the industry of the labourers by working in their interest.

The provisions of the disallowed ordinance demonstrate the pervading para­digm of labour relations persisting a decade into indentured labour immigration, which rendered the fulfilment of the contract a public, or criminal, law matter instead of a private law relationship between employer and employee. Further, Articles 8 and 9 clearly sought to take advantage of the labouring population by introducing a level of bureaucracy that they were unlikely to have been able to navigate. This strategy however was strongly applied in subsequent years, under the new labour regulations discussed below.

Ordinance No. 24 of 1847 was designed to re-enact the provisions of Ordi­nance No. 1 of 1846, taking into account some of Earl Grey's objections. Nev­ertheless, the content of Article 4 on oral contracts was basically left intact, and whilst Article 7 on desertions was withdrawn, the new articles merely replaced the penalty of imprisonment for system of fines.^[708] In substance thus, the labour con­tract remained subject to a punitive system of enforcement in which the adminis­tration clearly stood behind the interests of the planters.

Meanwhile, the Indian government was apprehensive about the slowly chang­ing system of immigrant labour in Mauritius. Since emigration had been allowed by the Indian legislature for the purpose of increasing available labour on the island, it was felt that the freedom of the labourer to choose his engagement and obtain the highest pay possible should not be curtailed in any way.^[709] In the con­text of Ordinances No. 22 and No. 24 of 1847, the board of directors of the East India Company regarded with concern the endeavour to increase immigration for the purpose of creating competition among labourers and depress wages; for if Mauritius proved to be unable to compete with other sugar producers in the following years, the island would fall into crisis, and would lack sufficient means to return the workers to India.^{[710] [711]}

The arrangement of the “contingent system” that dominated this period is best illustrated through certain provisions in the ordinances passed during the 1850s. Under Article I of Ordinance No. 15 of 1854,⁸3 it fell to the governor to determine, on a yearly basis, the number of immigrants to be introduced to the island, which thus provided a basic contingent of workers. Workers were distributed according to a quota which, in the case of sugar manufactures, was

State-VegulateA immigration and, emergence of a peasantry 153 calculated on the basis of the estate's output from the previous year.^[712] Any employer seeking to engage more workers than they had been assigned was able to do so by paying £3 for each extra immigrant allocated.^[713] The latter provisions were repealed by Ordinance No. 22 of 1857, so that employers had to bear the full cost of the introduction of the extra immigrants they wished to engage beyond their allocated quota.^[714] This system induced a high level of competition between the planters, who as Mauritius was producing more and more sugar, vied for labourers to join their estates, and in the long term it did not prove tenable.

6.3.3 Regulating labour

During those decades, regulations regarding immigration presented merely one aspect by which the labour market was being controlled. Another strategy was, of course, to introduce legislation to regulate conditions of the workers after arrival.

As mentioned previously, the fact that contracts were limited to one year was regarded as a great inconvenience, whether under the bounty system or the con­tingent system. It was found that “this period was quite insufficient to reimburse the colony or the planter, for the expenses of the introduction”, since, with the labourer being under no obligation to re-engage, the only right he lost if he chose to return to India at that point was his free passage.^[715]

In response, Ordinance No. 3 of 1849 extended contracts, which then still had to be entered into in Mauritius and no earlier than after 48 hours after the immi­grant had arrived, to a period of three years.^[716] This frame was further extended by Ordinance No. 16 of 1862 to five years,^[717] thus equalizing the engagement with the period for required residence (contemporarily referred to as “industrial resi­dence”, clarified further below.) Importantly, in 1858, Ordinance No. 15 legal­ized contracts made in India, provided these did not exceed three years.^[718]

An enduring distinction was introduced in 1847 by Ordinance No. 22 which, for the first time, differentiated between “Old” and “New” immigrants.^[719] Article 1 defined “New Immigrants” as Indian labourers who immigrated into Mauri­tius after the promulgation of the Order in Council of 15 January 1842, and for whose introduction the government had paid. The term “Old Immigrant” was applied to those Indian labours who had immigrated prior to that time, “or for whose introduction no public money was paid.”^[720]

The distinction was an important one, for those deemed “Old Immigrants” would have completed their initial engagement and were essentially bond-free. They could return to India or seek alternative means of subsisting on the island, whether in different branches of employment or by acquiring a small plot of land for self-cultivation. They were no longer obliged to work on the sugar estates, the original reason for which they had been introduced to the colony. For “New Immigrants”, by contrast, opportunities were decisively curtailed, directing them exclusively to the sugar industry by stipulating that “no male immigrant of 14 years of age or above, arriving in this Colony after the passing of this Ordi­nance, shall engage himself otherwise than with a sugar planter.”^[721]

Through formalizing the distinction between old and new immigrants, Ordi­nance No. 22 introduced a level of bureaucracy which the labourers had to navi­gate henceforth, and which with time became more convoluted, as discussed below. To start with, in order to prove their status, the workers were issued with tickets bearing their name, immigration number and other identifying details, such as age, “stature” and “marks”.^[722] The ordinance made clear that until five years of industrial residence had been completed, no labourer would be entitled to a free passage back to India.^[723] The period of industrial residence began on the first day after which the immigrants were allowed to leave the arrival depot,^[724] and consisted of residence in the colony either in the employment “under a stamped engagement with a sugar planter”, or by the payment of a monthly tax “in lieu thereof... during any part of the above period of five years in which the immi­grant is not so employed.”^[725]

However, in an evident bid to further control the available labour on the island, Ordinance No. 16 of 1852 abolished the right to a free return passage,^[726] with only those who had arrived since 1 May 1847 entitled to one if they had

State-VegulateA immigration and, emergence of a peasantry 155 completed their five-year industrial residence,^[727] but for other new immigrants the entitlement ceased.^[728]

These regulations, along with the immigration restrictions lifted as already dis­cussed, lead to a significant increase in available labour. As a result, the produc­tion of sugar in the following years was “of an amount... without parallel”, peaking in 1862-1863 with the hitherto largest crop ever achieved.^[729]

The following years however, rather unexpectedly, proved difficult. Natural calamities in India such as hurricanes and floods caused an increase in emigration to Mauritius, which the planters only too readily sought to absorb. However, the increase of emigrants was also accompanied by a decrease of grain and crops exportation from presidencies like Bengal, on which Mauritius had come to rely on to feed its population. With an unfavourable season marked by droughts on the island, as well as greater competition on the sugar market from the cultivation of European beet, the situation in Mauritius became one of “general distress”, for both food and work was suddenly hard to come by for the many labourers.^[730] It is in this climate of a large and depressed population that the new labour laws of 1867 were introduced.

6.4