Written by Maia Bennett
The Abolition of Slavery Act (1833) was a landmark piece of legislation that represented a revolutionary humanitarian victory and a turning point in the history of British colonialism. Whilst this act undoubtedly ushered in a new era of universal humanitarian rights, it simultaneously gave rise to a controversial new form of cheap labour: indentured servitude. Although presented as distinct from slavery, many contemporary historians, such as Hugh Tinker in his influential book A New System of Slavery: The Export of Indian Labour Overseas 1830-1920, have convincingly argued that indenture was simply slavery rebranded. In an effort to placate abolitionists, colonial authorities presented indenture as a voluntary system, framed through legal channels that allegedly offered workers some degree of agency. However, this ‘agency’ was illusory. Juries were biased, and the trials being conducted in English meant that workers could not effectively articulate their grievances. Misinformation and the deliberate misrepresentation in indenture contracts meant what was purported as a freely made choice was, in reality, coercive and exploitative.
The problem with focusing solely on the oppressive tactics of colonial administration is that it obscures the personal agency and identity of these individuals, reducing them merely to their condition as indentured labourers. This article will align with revisionist scholars, Crispin Bates, and Brij V. Lal, who seek to empower the narration of indentured servants through subaltern approaches, such as reading colonial archives against the grain and analysing cultural expressions. This methodology centres indentured voices, highlighting that they were not passive victims. Despite significant oppression, labourers were able to carve out social autonomy through acts of resistance, forging community ties, and grasping opportunities unavailable to them back in India.
It is important to clarify that the assertion of agency in this article does not suggest that the indenture system was just, nor does it refute conclusions that it was a loophole in the institutional rejection of slavery. Rather, the subaltern and revisionist approaches supplement the historiography of indenture, which is rooted in evangelical nineteenth-century abolitionism. This article seeks to give the indentured labourers’ lived experience—beyond their condition as indentured servant—a platform, ensuring that they are a part of the colonial narratives.
Although written to explain changes to productivity, administrative colonial reports documenting desertions and absences exemplified the labourers’ active struggle against the legal manipulation that maintained the system of indenture. One quote from an immigration inspector in 1990 in Fiji labels desertion to be a protest of “the most stubborn and determined manner”. The linguistic choice of “stubborn” and “determined” reveals that even colonial officials recognised that the workers retained significant cognitive autonomy. Even when archives reveal instances where desertion attempts were unsuccessful, such as Mauritius where “coolies [who] fled […] were imprisoned for desertion”, their actions illuminate their capacity to perceive human injustice and react against it. This demonstrates that the condition of indentured servant did not diminish strong free will, a hallmark of humanity.
Brij Lal and Crispin Bates comprehensively examine instances where community ties between Indian indentured labourers demonstrate and facilitate social agency. Lal’s article, “Understanding the Indian Indenture Experience” is an insightful early-revisionist examination of how shared experiences and collective understanding of the indentured labour experience formed community bonds. The journey to the colony would no doubt have been distressing for labourers, as a symbolic and physical abandonment of social ties and community bonds. Yet, rather than isolation, the trepidation around creating a foreign life propelled the formation of new bonds of support. An example of this brotherhood is the term jahajibhais, meaning ship mates, signalling forms of brotherhood that transcended their condition as labourers.
In a paper on South Asian labour emigration, Bates reads colonial administrative archives to uncover several instances of sirdars undermining authority. One example is a sirdar being disciplined for telling his workers to slow production, as “if they made 30 cane holes they would get their 5 rupees and would get no more if they made 60”. Meanwhile, several sirdars were disciplined for redistributing pay to those who took sick days. Not only did shared experience foster informal bonds, but these alliances were able to undermine colonial policy for the benefit of the indentured community. This evidence underscores the revisionist argument that colonial archives, if read against the grain, can reveal the avenues of freedom that operated outside of, and in spite of, colonial control.
For individuals who were subjugated by Indian societal norms, indentured labour provided a key avenue for social mobility. The traditional caste system broke down as soon as the ship left the port; cleaning chores were unsegregated, communal cooking removed adherence to food taboos and the confined space erased physical space that was culturally expected between castes. ‘Untouchables’ had newfound power in their interaction with peers and the physical space. This social fluidity continued onto the plantation where previously marginalized individuals were now able to gain authority. Totaram Sanadhya, an Indian indentured labourer in Fiji, recalls an untouchable sirdar, Bhagvana, lording his authority over the high caste labourers by ordering them to get him water or light his pipe. His statement that “these people under me can’t even squeak” suggests that he used the reorganised social sphere to avenge the maltreatment he experienced throughout his prior years. Similarly, Rhona Reddock notes that widows used indenture as a vehicle to remarry, work and live autonomously from in-laws. This level of self-government and freedom from gendered constraints would have been unthinkable had they remained in India.
Ultimately, Indian indentured labourers had social agency through their collective influence on, and opportunities within, indentured structures. Although this autonomy was often eclipsed by the superior power of colonial administration, it is crucial to recognise labourers’ capacity to shape their social environment. This broader perspective challenges a one-dimensional view of indentured labour and reminds us that even within colonial oppression, human agency and community bonds endured. Moreover, scholars have a responsibility to honour the complex legacies of their subjects’ experiences and to ensure that contemporary colonial debates do not obscure their identities.
Bibliography
Bates, Crispin. ‘Some thoughts on the representation and misrepresentation of the Colonial South Asian Labour Diaspora.’ South Asian Studies 33, no.1 (2017): 7-22
Lal, V Brij. ‘Understanding the Indian indenture experience.’ South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 21, (1998): 215-237.
Lal, V Brij, Yogendra Yadav. ‘Hinduism under Indenture: Totaram Sanadhya’s Account of Fiji.’ The Journal of Pacific History 30, no.1 (1995): 99-111.
Tinker, Hugh. A New System of Slavery: The Export of Indian Labour Overseas, 1830-1920. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974).
Reddock, Rhonda. ‘Indian Women and Indentureship in Trinidad and Tobago 1845-1917: Freedom Denied.’ Caribbean Quarterly 45, no.4 (2008): 41-68.
CSO, 3237/1900. National Archives of Fiji.
Featured image credit: A map of the East-Indies and the adjacent countries (1717). Accessed via Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:B26055943A_-_A_map_of_the_East-Indies_and_the_adjacent_countries.jpg
Retrospect Journal 
