Two weeks ago, in this space, I mapped out the circumstances in which Indians were denied unclaimed remittances and their entitled return passages during indenture and beyond in then British Guiana. I will now show, with evidence, how return passages were denied to Indians in the two decades following indenture. I chose this period because Indians were very much on their own trying to find a niche in their new environment, and what they needed most to form stable communities were, in my opinion, the delivery of promised financial obligations and responsibilities from the colonial state. This did not happen.
What is also important to understand is that the policy of exchanging return passages for land grants in British Guiana began in 1880, stalled in 1882, was revived in 1897, and stopped in 1903. What this means is that Indians were given land for their return passage in only a few years. In another column, I will provide information on how many Indians received land, how much and where. For now, only a small percentage of Indians received a small amount of land in a small period of time, which is contrary to common perception in adversarial sections of Guyana. Indians did not get off the ships and received land.
By 1924, Indian indenture was officially abolished, but Indians had, through signed contracts, reserved their rights to return to India; meaning that their paid return passage of about £10 or $48, to which they had contributed about a third of the cost, were there to be used, if so desired. This option closed after 1955 when the last ship, Insurgent, left British Guiana for India.
Now, in 1924, the total population in British Guiana was around 300,000, and the Indian population was 124,967, which was a gradual increase of about a few thousands from previous years; and was largely due to more registered marriages, fewer deaths, more births, and less out-migration. Of the total India population of 124,976, about 68,351 were living off the estates, which meant that they had bought land on their own terms, or they had exchanged their return passages for a piece of land to settle before 1903, or they were squatting. There is no question about this.
What is of interest is that 56, 616 Indians out of the total population of 124,967 were still residing on the estates. I contend, as the record shows, that out of the 56,616, about 17,331 were children; who obviously were not in a position to make individual decisions. However, about 40,000 adult Indians were able to dictate their own course. Those Indians were waiting to use their return passage, since the option to exchange return passages for land ceased to exist in 1903.
To see if they actually used up their return passages, I examined the Indian population again in 1936, about ten years later. If they had used up their return passages, it would have meant that fewer of them would have been living on the estates and the Indian population would have been much lower, even with new births, since they would have returned to India. The following is what I found.
The Indian population in 1936 was 126,426, which was an increase of a few thousands from 1924, due again to fewer deaths (2,973) and more births (4,856). About 57,125 Indians were living on the estates, and this number comprised 39,686 adults and 17,439 children. The finding is that about 40,000 were still living on the estates, and they had not used up their return passages.
My argument is that those 40,000 Indians, with about 18,000 dependents — which was about half of the Indian population in British Guiana in the 1930s — did not receive their return passages. To put it up front, one of two Indians who remained in British Guiana was denied his/her return passage. If we were to do a calculation, we would have to multiply 40,000 by 48, which brings us to the figure of $1,920,000.
What is also of concern is those Indians who died in British Guiana but were entitled to return passages. What happened with the financial aspect of their return passages? I thought the money was supposed to be handed over to the surviving families in British Guiana or India.
Moreover, this argument is based on a few years; and obviously, the value shown above is much higher today — in the billions of dollars. A professional calculation is forthcoming using various modern models.
Let me say that my argument for unclaimed remittances and return passages is based on an attempt to right a historical wrong, and bring to the Guyanese public issues that have plagued the Indian community for some time, but have remained closeted. Moreover, my call is in tandem with what is going on right now in Guyana. There is a conflated Commission of Inquiry on Amerindian and African land rights. Strangely, Indian land concerns and rights are not included, giving the impression that Indians had benefited from the colonial and modern state more than any other ethnic group. If we are going to investigate history with perhaps the intention to divide up Guyana, I argue that Indians should have a say as well.
Am I asking for too much? Isn’t it appropriate to bring up these issues now, rather than later? ([email protected])
