The cornerstone of Indian indenture was that Indians would be transient labourers in British Guiana; and in that process, they were required to provide five years of labour in exchange for wages, basic housing, a free return passage, and other fringe benefits. Nowhere in their contract was there the opportunity to become land owners.
The British Colonial Government in India insisted on the cyclical nature of the indenture system for two basic reasons. One: Indians should have the opportunity to work, save, and bring back remittances to develop themselves and their communities.
Two: the right to free return passage should be in all contracts primarily to safeguard the labourers from ill-treatment in their new domicile. If they were ill-treated, then the free return passage would provide the labourers with the option to leave the colony, if so desired.
Of course, the colonised Indian Government’s position and policy turned out to be a figment and fragment of imagination, insofar as the labourers were repeatedly abused in their sojourn in British Guiana. The planters’ interests of power, dominance and control permeated the affairs of the colony, not the interests of indentured labourers.
So, when Indians left their homeland, hearkened in the back of their minds was the notion that they would return home; and perhaps they did not mind being duped, or even signing contracts to labour in an unknown environment. What they wanted most from their contracts was to become “successful” economic migrants, save a few hundred dollars, and return home. They never wanted to disturb the colonial system. They never wanted land. They never wanted to stay in British Guiana. Why, then, did they become land owners?
Indians became land owners because of the changing nature of the indenture, which was not always straightforward. To illustrate: from 1838 to 1851, the circular labour exchange of indentured servants was characterised by suspension and resumption. Indenture started in 1838, but was suspended the same the year. Resumed in 1845, it was suspended again in 1851, and finally abolished in 1917 (immigration) and in 1920 (indenture).
The suspensions and abolitions occurred because of the callous treatment the labourers received, the economic crisis of the sugar estate, anti-immigration sentiments, and continuous conflicts between the British Guianese planters and the Colonial Office regarding the rules and regulations of indenture. By 1854, pressure from various watchdog groups helped to push the organisation and supervision of the indenture system from private hands to being state-controlled, removing some inconsistencies and inadvertently setting the platform upon which Indians would become potential land owners.
After it was realised that Indians were reliable workers, the organisation and management of indenture shifted with supersonic speed to suit the planter class; namely, to minimise costs and maximise profits. The cost of introducing and returning Indians was targeted. The cost of introducing one Indian indenture to British Guiana in 1908, for example, was around £16. The cost of sending one time-expired Indian back to India was around £10. The planter class argued that the cost of introducing and sending back Indians was too expensive, and Indians should be given the option to re-indenture and receive a $50 bounty, but retain the right to a return passage. The gist of the planters’ argument was: why invest so much in the labourers and then send them back to their home environment, where their plantation experience was less useful? Induce them to stay with the aim to have a cheap labour supply available at the planters’ disposal.
The argument was persuasive and offered the first sign that Indians might become settlers in British Guiana; but, contrary to what some think, Indians did not step out of the ship and receive land. From 1850 to 1851, some 2,210 Indians re-indentured for another five years and received $107, 410 bounty. In some ways, the bounty system was more expensive than sending Indians back to their homeland. This was a colonial state problem, not an Indian one. Some Indians used their bounty to buy state land. So far, they did not receive any land, and so far, there is no evidence that they had been taking land from anyone in British Guiana.
In 1873, the colonial administration abolished the option to re-indenture, and instead focused on Indian settlement; which again was not based on humanitarian reasons, but to meet the needs of the planter class. Re-indenture was abolished for a host of reasons: (1) the abuse of the immigrants, emanating from the planters’ desire to retain them through inducement rather than obtaining their goodwill; (2) the increase of the fee payable by the planters to the Immigration Fund in regard to each re-indentured Indian — from $120 in 1873 to $200 in 1875; (3) the planters’ determination to avoid the financial responsibility of sending back time-expired indentured Indians. The amount paid for return passages of Indians from 1850 to 1870 was $478,217. To avoid future financial responsibility of sending back Indians, as stated in their contract, the argument for the right of return passage to be exchanged for land grants (5 to 10 acres) preoccupied the Colonial Government, including Sir Charles Bruce, Lieutenant Governor of British Guiana. The colony, he claimed, could only benefit from Indian immigration if the return passages were not included; and this in light of the fact that, among other things, the Indian population in British Guiana was increasing and Indians could use their remittances to develop British Guiana. Land inducement and settlement was a most feasible option. The Colonial Government had made up its mind that Indians would become settlers in British Guiana. Bruce never suggested that Indians would be settled in areas where other ethnic groups owned land. To be continued… ([email protected]).
