I will, in the next few weeks, return to my analysis of Indian indentured historiography as we approach 100 years since indentured immigration to Guyana ceased. March 12, 2017 will mark 100 years since the British and Indian governments stopped indentured immigration to indentured colonies worldwide.
One disappointment with Indian indentured historiography is the insular approach or the analysis of discontinuity from India to the Indo-phone Caribbean (Guyana, Trinidad and Suriname) and from the Indo-phone Caribbean to India. Except for a few studies, most published studies on indentureship from India tend to concentrate on the emigration of Indians from that region, and places little emphasis on the experience of Indian indentures in the Indo-phone Caribbean.
Likewise, the focus of most studies on indentureship from the Indo-phone Caribbean has overwhelmingly been on the Caribbean aspects of indentureship, namely the plantation experience. When studies from the Indo-phone Caribbean do include India, the content is restricted to recruitment and emigration of Indian indenture. We are left with not too many convincing reasons as to what transpired before the emigrants left their homeland to labour overseas. Are we to believe that a majority of them left their homeland unwillingly? Recent findings have challenged this view.
Similarly, studies on the return migration of the ex-indentured Indians from the Indo-phone Caribbean to their homeland tend to cease after the return ships arrived in India. Few studies have concentrated on the re-integration of ex-indentured Indians to their former communities and even the second migration of Indians to the Indo-phone Caribbean.
We are left again with unanswered questions. Whatever happened to the returnees? Did their Caribbean experience allow them to challenge their long established social institutions? Were they successful in re-integrating themselves with village life in 19th century India? Or was their new expressive experience suppressed because it was inconsistent with their village customs?
Certainly, the great distance and poor communication networks, coupled with language and cultural barriers between the two locations are some reasons why there is a discontinuity and disconnection in the study of indentureship from India and the Indo-phone Caribbean. From the Indo-phone Caribbean, only a handful of scholars can speak the official language of India, namely Hindi. From India, not many scholars can speak the dialects of Indians in the Caribbean. Moreover, the culture of Indians in the Caribbean has evolved immensely from their original homeland. To some extent, new Indian communities have been formed overseas that would shock an average Indian who never visited the Indo-phone Caribbean.
The discontinuity in the study of indentureship from India to the Caribbean has produced a contradiction between there (India) and here (the Caribbean), and as a consequence, there has been a desperate need to connect the roots and routes of Indian indentured experience. What is needed, and to which I will address in the next column, is an interdisciplinary, as well as trans-disciplinary approach towards the study of indentureship. Unfortunately, this will have to happen outside of Guyana since there seems to be little motivation and resources to pursue this initiative.
Speaking of Guyana, it is here that the first shipload of Indians landed in 1838 and, coincidently, it is here that one problem with Indian indentured historiography started. We are not sure if 396 or 439 Indians arrived in 1838. Actually, inconsistent and inaccurate numerical statistics are replete in Caribbean-Indian indentured historiography.
Scholars studying indentureship seem to accept that 500,000 Indians were brought from India to the Caribbean from 1838–1917 to work as indentured servants. Of this total, one-third returned to their homeland, while two-thirds stayed in the Caribbean, due largely to an induced policy of land acceptance/settlement in lieu of their entitled return passage. However, there seems to be no study to justify the accuracy of these statistics. Where these statistics came from and who actually started to use them as facts remain a mystery. Yet, the above figures have been regularly cited for the total number of Indians brought to the Caribbean.
Repeated information is acceptable insofar as it is based on further analyses to ensure transparency and appropriate interpretation of results. But this has not been the case with Indian indentureship and numerical statistics.
([email protected]).
