Realities of early indenture

The issues around early indenture immigration in Mauritius are convoluted and at first glance difficult to unravel. There were various concerns and stakeholders involved, and their interplay was not a smooth one.

Historians have documented to great extent the abuses encountered by inden­tured labourers,^[567] the conceptualization of the system as a “new form of slav­ery” being based on reports of coercion, misrepresentation, kidnap and violence

Informal indenture and apprenticeships 125 involved in the recruitment process, with ill-treatment and poor conditions awaiting at the destination. Marina Carter has rationalized these early experi­ences by stating that slave-keeping is what the planters had been accustomed to, thus the entire system and infrastructure which was in place would naturally have been that of slavery.^[568] If this notion is accepted, not as a defence of the practices but simply as an observation of fact, it is fair to assume that the reality of early indenture, particularly on the plantations, may have resembled slavery to a sig­nificant extent. For reasons stated previously, an evaluation of the actual experi­ence of indentured labour is not attempted in this thesis, to avoid the pitfall of making value judgements regarding its severity.

In any instance, a clear appraisal of conditions is not easily made, as the recorded evidence of labourers demonstrates. For the large number of people who complained of the experience, listing their various grievances, there were also a considerable number of persons who stated they were fairly satisfied with their sojourn and had returned back to India with their earnings.^[569] However, as with all such accounts, the question has to be considered as to how reliable in fact such first-hand testimonies are, given that they were commonly taken by British officials, and it is not unreasonable to assume that a level of intimidation may have been experienced on part of the Indian labourers. Additionally, many labourers had come to associate making complaints not with redress, but punishment, as an 1840 inquiry found.^[570] For these reasons, the emphasis in this study is on the official responses and the evolution of the system, though some oral testimony on the transportation experience has been included below.

The year 1837 witnessed the passage of the first relevant piece of Indian leg­islation in the context of labour immigration to Mauritius.^[571] The Act required the emigration of Indian natives to take place under authorization, with permits being required before embarkation, thus introducing a type of licensing system. Echoing the early contract terms, the Act stipulated that service agreements were

to be limited to five years.^[572] Certain safeguards were also included, such as requir­ing that a memorandum of the contract was to be written not only in English, but also in the native language of the prospective worker,^[573] and that the terms had to be “distinctly explained” to him or her, with the memorandum to be retained by the worker during their years of service.^[574] For granting permits authorizing the embarkation of more than twenty Indians, the relevant officers had the power inspect the vessel in question, with the aim to ascertain the adequate provision of accommodation, food and medical attendance,^[575] and the clear stipulation that such permits were not to be granted unless the provisions were regarded “suf­ficient for their [the natives] health”.^[576] Failure to procure the relevant permit was liable to be punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred rupees per native transported, and in default of such payment, with imprisonment not exceed­ing 30 days.^[577] This legal framework notwithstanding, reports of abuse gained prevalence.

5.6.1 Abuses in the system

The year 1838 proved eventful, in that not only did it witness the end of appren­ticeships in the West Indies, it also saw the first spike in Indian arrivals in Mauri­tius (numbering just over 11,800), while at a public meeting in Calcutta concerns over indenture to the colonies were being voiced, which lead to the formation of an inquiry committee, whose report (the “Bengal Hill Coolie Report”) did not however become available before 1840. In the meantime, in 1839 the Indian government sought to suspend labour emigration by rendering it an offence to contract Indian natives for labour overseas, or “aiding or abetting” their emigra­tion “for the purpose of being employed as a labourer.”^[578] Thus, for a period of roughly two years, from around 1840 to 1842, indentured labour immigration from India was halted. Table 5.2 indeed indicates negligible numbers of arrivals for that period.

Suspension was in line with recommendations contained in a report compiled by T. Hugon in 1839.^[579] Hugon's report draws attention to numerous short­comings, which he felt warranted a temporary prohibition. Incidentally, many of the exploitations he identifies are linked to what otherwise could be regarded as the “advantages” of the early system. However, not all of Hugon's recom­mendations are intelligible without an understanding of the reports of abuse that

Informal indenture and apprenticeships 127 were circulating. Having been most clearly documented in the Bengal Hill Coolie Report,^[580] it is therefore considered here first.

The result of an investigation carried out between 22 August 1838 and 14 January 1839, the Bengal Hill Coolie Report presented the views of a com­mittee specifically tasked to inquire into “the abuses alleged to exist in the export of coolies to the colonies”.^[581] The opinions of the five commissioners were split, with a majority of three believing significant abuses had taken place, with the other two disagreeing.

Commissioners T. Dickens, James Charles and Russomy Dutt made the emphatic observation that

we conceive it to be distinctly proved beyond dispute that the Coolies and other Natives exported to Mauritius and elsewhere, were (generally speak­ing) induced to come to Calcutta by gross misrepresentation and deceit practised upon them by native crimps styled Duffadars and Arkotties [note: these terms denote recruiters] employed by European and Anglo-Indian Undertakers and Shippers who were mostly cognizant of these frauds, and who received a very considerable sum per head for each Coolie exported.^[582]

The commissioners found that, had the workers “been distinctly made aware that they were to go beyond seas to a great distance and to remain absent for five years, it is probable that not one, or at least very few, would have been induced to take such an engagement.”^[583]

Testimony suggested that the workers had been persuaded to arrive at the emigration depot in Calcutta by deceptive promises of employment as company peons, road workers, porters, gardeners and the like, and that they were “really incapable of understanding the nature of the contracts they were said to have entered into”, despite the opportunity of for clarifications having been offered.^[584] Further it was found that “kidnapping prevailed to a very considerable extent”, with impotent police authorities unable or unwilling to prevent such occurrences, and perhaps most insidiously, “an impression was successfully created and main­tained... among the Coolies that they would be liable to penal consequences if they expressed dissatisfaction at being sent on board ship.”^[585]

Further notable findings were that much of the emigration took place without the required permits and thus in breach of the 1837 legislation.^[586] The commis­sioners hereby highlighted a transnational failure of the police, marked by

a complacency both in India and in Mauritius whereby the regulations on authorized departures from the former and arrivals at the latter were not being enforced.^[587]

Comparing the income of indentured labourers with that of free workers and apprentices, the commissioners demonstrate in their calculations that the wage of the latter group was between four to six-and-half times higher.

The issue of female labourers was not extensively addressed in the report, but some important observations were made. Commissioners Dickens, Charles and Russomy inferred that, in the absence of any restraint on the emigration of women, and the Mauritian government even being desirous of their arrival in larger numbers, it was the planters who did not seek female workers, with effects “most disastrous to the families of those who have emigrated”,^[590] leaving them in a destitute state back in India. The report also notes that cultural issues^[591] are likely to have played a role in the low number of emigrating women, as the con­ditions of maritime emigration were not conducive to the preservation of certain Asian values.^[592]

How could these shortcomings be remedied? Turning now to Hugon’s report, it contained several recommendations regarding what an improved system of indenture should entail. As will become evident, it was not only the condition of the workers which was being considered, but also that of the planters. In first instance, Hugon suggested that there was a need for more stringent regulation, and he advocated the formation of a “Committee of Emigration” that would be composed of planters and merchants but should also have at least one “of the most intelligent and best educated natives of India settled in the island”,^[593] to promote the labourers’ interest.

Informal indenture and apprenticeships 129 of government had been “studiously avoided and even opposed”, it should now be introduced “wherever it can prove efficacious in the prevention of abuses”.^[594] As a major change, Hugon suggested there be only one emigration agent in each Indian presidency approved by the Indian government. The existence of too many traders was considered a critical issue, as they reputedly employed “extor­tions” to which planters had to agree or risk not receiving their required number of workers. Competition, it was found, was not beneficial in this type of com­merce. Hugon pointed out that any sum charged to planters over and above the expenses actually incurred would be borne by the workers, for their masters “were left to remunerate themselves at the expense of the labourers by taking from them most of the wages given in advance under the pretence of debt.”^[595] The fact that an acknowledgement had been made in front of a magistrate carried little relevance to an illiterate labourer, who was likely to be easily induced by the descriptions of the advantages of emigrating and, according to Hugon, make “the ignorant dupe consent to the payment of a premium”.^[596] One of the appar­ently greatest lures to enter into an indenture contract, advance pay, presented thus one of its major pitfalls. As stated Hugon: “The system of paying in advance is vicious and in India always the cause of great abuse.... The fact that only two or at most three months having been received out of the six is an unanswerable argument against the system.”^[597] The same was also noted by the commissioners of the Bengal Hill Coolie Report, namely that in the system of advance pay, the planter paid the required sum fully, but the worker actually only received a frac­tion of it.^[598]

A further problem arising from the high level of competition in labour trad­ing was the hardship suffered by the workers on the journey to the colonies. The Bengal Hill Coolie Report inquired into the issue, questioning ship captains and relevant officials.^[599] It emerged that the stay on the vessel could be considerably longer than just period of the passage. For Mauritius, the actual sea voyage took on average a month, but in the case of the Cavendish Bentick for example, sailing in February 1838, Captain Alexander Mackenzie stated that “the passage, includ­ing a month's detention in the river, and three days quarantine at Port Louis, lasted from the 19th February to 16th May.”^[600]

The evidence of Captain Mackenzie as well as others involved in the trans­portation of workers claimed that the labourers were content, comfortable and

reasonably well provided for during the journey, with sufficient food and clean water.^[601] However, the account of Indian ship physician Dr Abdoolah Khan, who had been engaged twice on a vessel conveying workers to Mauritius at the time of questioning, paints a very different picture. While he affirmed that they knew where they were going and for what purpose, when asked if the labourers knew whether they would be separated from their families for five years, Dr Khan said they believed they were going be absent only for two months, as stated to them by the “Duffadars”.^[602]

To the question “Did the Coolies appear to be happy and comfortable?”, he replied “What happiness! They were all crying.” Dr Khan stated they were crying “for their discomforts, such as want of room for sleeping and for dressing victuals and also for want of utensils for eating from.” As to the sufficiency of water, “it was stinking and thick, something like beer foaming up.” Finally, to the question “Did the Coolies say they were very sorry for having come?”, Dr Khan replied in the affirmative. As to the treatment of labourers by the captain and officers on board, he stated “they used to beat them and drive them from one place to another.”^[603]

The issue of transportation is frequently neglected in scholarship, invariably because when compared to the slave trade, later conditions appear undoubtedly improved. This illustrates the striking shortcomings when discussing indentured labour with slavery as a benchmark, for despite the ameliorated state, the situa­tion on the vessels was grave. The competition for labour ensured that no real complaint could be laid by planters against the traders, yet the adverse effects of overcrowding could be so severe for the labourers that while “no very great mortality took place on board, they arrived in such a debilitated state as to remain for months unable to perform any work.”^[604] Such was the seriousness of the issue that Hugon recommended a pecuniary reward for each worker arriving in good health as an incentive for the captain, with penalties where the opposite took place, in addition to a ban on the vessel for further emigration purposes.^[605] In the same context he called for greater government regulation regarding health and safety, as well as quarantine procedures at the end of the journey, which could otherwise be very protracted, much to the discomfort of the passengers after a long voyage.

Hugon also felt that labourers should not be bound by an extended contract, but rather be able “to void it at any time by a re-imbursement of the expenses of his introduction reduced at the lowest sum possible by interference of Govern­ment”, so that “he would in fact be merely indebted for that amount and acquit

Informal indenture and apprenticeships 131 himself gradually by his labour.” Hugon noted however that “this condition I am aware will meet with serious objections on the part of the less enlightened por­tion of the public of Mauritius but it forms the only guarantee that could possibly be offered to the native against imposition in India and ill-usage here.”^[606] He favoured a shorter, three-year contract, for while long contracts ensured planters against a rise in the price of labour, such agreements did nothing to secure against the depreciation of it, and the sugar industry was a volatile one, thus not truly requiring long-term contracts.^[607] Despite advocating greater government regula­tion, Hugon was circumspect about the role “Laws and Magistrates” should play, whose intervention he felt was “the surest way of promoting discord” between the parties.^[608] Rather he promoted the idea that planters should educate them­selves about the customs and habits of their workers, which he felt would guaran­tee them the long-term fidelity Indian labourers were stereotypically known for.

5.6.2 The nature of coercion and “unfreedom”

How is the first phase of indenture migration to be evaluated from a standpoint of labour relations? These five years, from 1834 to 1839, are easily sidelined in a study on Indian indentured labour, which after the ban on emigration was lifted in 1842, continued for the rest of the 19th century and into the early 20th cen­tury. Here, however, it is argued that this early and comparatively short period represents an important foundation on which the later was system built, being the starting point from which it evolved. As already noted, Indian indenture dur­ing the 1830s was conducted on an informal basis, sought out by the planters themselves, initially as an insurance against the loss of the apprentices, but later as their preferred pool of labour. The persistent comparisons to slavery invite close scrutiny of the recruitment process, and if the focus is on labour relations as in this study, the question arises as to how that labour relationship was initially formed. With the exception of instances of kidnap and unlawful imprisonment (which according to the contemporary reports and historical opinions discussed above, appears to have existed to a significant, yet uncertain extent), the process could ostensibly be described as a “free” one. As outlined previously, prospective workers were presented with a contract in the presence of a magistrate, upon which they applied their mark. If labourers entered into these contracts voluntar­ily, is it appropriate to speak of a “coercive” system?

To answer this question, the issue which has to be addressed in first instance is an assessment of the worker in question. Who were those first labourers who arrived in Mauritius? A most vivid description is provided by Leela Gujadhur Sarup. From the Commissioners’ Report of 1840 it has already been gleaned that in the early years the workers were known as “Hill Coolies”. Sarup states that the

first batch hailed from the Chota Nagpur hills,^[609] whose inhabitants were report­edly “known to be the most backward tribals of India”, who she describes as an “uneducated” and “uncultured” people, who “wore no clothes and roamed the areas” stealing cattle and crops for subsistence, using spears and hatchets.^[610] This fairly savage image is not one commonly painted by scholars, who instead tend to merely stress the low economic standing of the Indian recruits. Basdeo Man- gru for example simply observes that the hill dwellers were known to habitually leave their homes and families behind in search of work, a reason he gives as to why they were possibly willing to seek labour opportunities outside of India.^[611] Sarup’s depiction however meshes well with a very telling account contained in an exchange of 1836 between John Gladstone and recruiters in India.

Gladstone,^[612] previously a member of the British parliament, owned sev­eral plantations in the West Indies. Concerned with the anticipated end of the apprenticeship system in Demerara and Jamaica, he wrote to Gillanders, Arbuth­not & Co., stating “that it is a matter of doubt and uncertainty how far they may be induced to continue their services on the plantations after their apprentice­ship expires in 1840”, with the planters and merchants thus being “most desir­ous to obtain and introduce labourers from other quarters, and particularly from climates something similar in their nature.” Gladstone’s contemplation would appear reasonable enough in seeking to ensure the continued economic viabil­ity of his holdings. Another section in his letter however reveals deeper, politi­cal considerations. He states: “It is of great importance to us to endeavour to provide a portion of other labourers, who we might use as a set-off, and when the time for it comes, make us, as far as it is possible, independent of our negro population”.^[613]

Gladstone’s ambition, to be “independent” of the black population in the West Indies, echoes the development which eventually occurred in Mauritius, with former apprentices becoming sidelined in favour of Indian labourers, discussed above. The statement suggests that such a course may not have been incidental to the circumstances, but rather consciously pursued from the very outset, in both colonies. Leaving these broader political considerations however aside for the moment, and returning to the new type of worker which was being sought, the

Informal indenture and apprenticeships 133 recruiters’ provided Gladstone with a favourable reply, outlining how by then, more than 2,000 Indians had been sent to Mauritius. Crucially, they stated that they were “not aware of any greater difficulty [which] would present itself in sending men to the West Indies, the natives being perfectly ignorant of the place they agree to go to, or the length of the voyage they are undertaking.” It was noted further that “the tribe that is found to suit best in the Mauritius is from the hills to the north of Calcutta”, which had inhabitants of “hardly any ideas beyond those of supplying the wants of nature”. Additionally it was stated, “they are also very docile and easily managed, and appear to have no local ties, nor any objection to leave their country.” The recruiters noted that “our friends at the Isle of France have always discouraged the men being so accompanied [by their wives]”, yet stated “we firmly believe we are breaking no ties of kindred, or in any way acting a cruel part.” The answer to Gladstone’s enquiry concludes with the summary that

the Hill tribes... are looked down upon by the more cunning natives of the plains, and they are always spoken of as more akin to the monkey than the man. They have no religion, no education, and, in their present state, no wants beyond eating, drinking and sleeping; and to procure which they are willing to labour.^[614]

The information provided by the recruiters is highly problematic, for reasons beyond the blatant racism which even by 19th-century standards appears strik­ing. Indentured labour to British Guiana proceeded from John Gladstone’s initial efforts,^[615]8 which in the end saw close to a quarter of a million Indians emigrate to the colony situated on the northern coast of South America.^[616] Crucially, the recruiters admitted that, despite the geographically much farther distance to the West Indies (as compared to Mauritius), they perceived no significant difficulties in dispatching Indian workers to that part of the world, as, to repeat their own words, “the natives are perfectly ignorant of the place they agree to go to”, or even “the length of the voyage they are undertaking”. This ignorance and lack of understand­ing on part of the workers, so obviously known to and exploited by the recruiters, seriously undermines the argument that coercion was absent in this type of contract labour. As Amy Stanley observed, the idea of the contract in labour relations has often been primarily understood as a “metaphor for freedom”, in that the obliga­tion to work has been incurred by choice, by volition of the person rather than

imposed through force externally.^[617] Importantly however, the contract connoted not only freedom, but also exchange. “The mechanism of the exchange established the symmetry of the relation”, Stanley notes.^[618] Such symmetry was clearly lack­ing when the labourers in question agreed to depart to destinations they did not know where situated, nor the length of the voyage involved. In the estimation of Guyanese historian Basdeo Mangru, the most operative inducement on the hill coolies had been false statements by the recruiters on the type of journey and work involved, which alongside short, but unlawful imprisonment as a type of coercion were most commonly used to convince Indians to emigrate.^[619]

Misrepresentation of this nature was heavily criticized by the Bengal Hill Coolie Report Committee, as noted above. The letter by Gillanders, Arbuthnot & Co. also confirms the committee’s suspicion that the emigration of women was being discouraged as a result of planter preference, and while the recruiters did not feel they were “acting a cruel part”, the report noted that families left behind often fell into destitution.^[620]

It is evident that the labour relationship between the workers and the recruiters was a fundamentally imbalanced one, and that the voluntary aspect, so crucial to the notion of free labour, was being negated through the recruitment practices, even where these did not involve obvious coercion such as the use of force or kid­nap. The research presented above indicates that the indentured labourers of the early period did not understand the implications as they applied their mark, com­monly a thumbprint, to an agreement of sailing and working abroad. Misrepre­sentations as to destination, length of voyage and type of work to be undertaken are sufficient to argue that such contracts were effectively void.

The notion of “volition” and “coercion” will be examined further in the next chapter in the context of state-regulated indenture, where certain push factors that drove Indian emigration in the second part of the 19 th century are examined.

5.6.3 Cultural issues relevant to Indian labour migration

As already noted, scholars debate the extent of fraud and kidnapping that occurred as part of the recruitment of labourers.^[621] In this context, aspects of Indian cul­ture are often discussed, for a significant issue implied in the decision to emigrate,

Informal indenture and apprenticeships 135

whether by inducement or necessity, would have been the inability to maintain certain customs and cultural requirements, notably those relating to caste.

The “loss of caste” involved in crossing the sea as an operative concern on labourers’ minds has been both underlined and dismissed.^[622] Part of the issue is the symbolism of a sea voyage from a religious point of view (presenting a cross­ing of the “Kala Pani”, meaning “black water”), which is complex and may be difficult to grasp for the uninitiated. However, a more tangible aspect is the way in which the workers were forced to intermingle at the beginning and during the journey, in a manner that in their home societies would have been deemed unacceptable. Leaving a discussion on the prejudices inherent in the caste system aside and focusing merely on the labourers’ accustomed way of living, contem­porary accounts indicate that a forceful breaking down of social barriers among the workers, ultimately unavoidable in a plantation environment, appears to have been a conscious aim of the recruiters from the outset.

The account of Totaram Sanadhya, a labourer from India who emigrated to Fiji in 1893, is considered a unique narrative, ghost-written by Banarsidas Chatur- vedi, which provides insight into the personal experiences of those who par­ticipated in indenture migration.^[623] Sanadhya recounts the embellished version presented by recruiters to potential draftees of what life in the plantation colonies would be like. He explains that their own clothes were taken away and that they were instructed in how to answer to the magistrate who questioned them prior to registration. The mere lip-service paid to this aspect of safeguarding the inde­pendence of recruits is evident in Sanadhya’s statement that 165 persons were registered in roughly 20 minutes.^[624] Sanadhya himself changed his mind about emigrating after learning that it would involve field labour but was not allowed to leave by the recruiters, and in fact was locked into a room. His subsequent experience is quite telling and illustrative of the issues faced by Indian labourers:

When I was brought from the cell I saw that Chamar, Koli, Brahman and so forth [note: different groups of caste] were all seated in one place and forced to have their meal together. Just about everyone was forced to have their meal on re-used plates, and was forced to drink water. When anyone said anything, then what, but he was beaten specially. Seeing this situation I said, “I will not eat with these people even if I die of hunger”. The officer said, “Die. No one fears that. We’ll throw you in the river”. In the end I was ordered to eat with the cook.^[625]

John Kelly has described this series of actions experienced by Sanadhya as the process by which “coolies were made, rather than born, and made by pollution and isolation.”^[626] “Pollution” in this context refers to a forced intermingling of the castes, which the recruits would not otherwise have engaged in. The opera­tive effect of the “isolation” element is the separation from an ordinary societal context. Kelly reiterates that by the time the workers arrived in the colonies, they were under the charge the overseers beyond any cultural sensitivity and knowl­edge of religious customs, and at that point, “their standardization by law was complete”.^[627] Indeed, it had to be for their successful integration into the sugar production system.

Cultural homogenization began at the emigration depot and continued on the vessel carrying the workers to their destination. As previously noted, the issue of transportation has not been extensively discussed in scholarship,^[628] but contemporary accounts provide a glimpse of the conditions during the long sea voyage which have been recounted above. Cumulatively, the recruitment pro­cess and voyage can be regarded as reconstructing the identity of the labourer for the precise needs of his employment. Disturbingly, this took place by elimi­nation of other elements of his identity, such as caste, religious and cultural preferences.

5.5