Indentured Labour: A Difficult Chapter in Migration History

Reference library · 1036 words

Between the 1830s and the First World War, roughly one and a half million people left India under contracts of indenture to work on plantations in colonies scattered across four oceans. Their descendants make up the majority population of Mauritius, close to half of Trinidad and Tobago and of Guyana, a large minority in Fiji and Suriname, and substantial communities in South Africa, Jamaica, Réunion, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Malaysia. This is the reason there are Hindu temples in the Caribbean, Tamil is spoken in Malaysia, and a form of Bhojpuri survives in Fiji. It is also the least comfortable chapter in the history of Indian migration, because it began as a direct replacement for slavery and was in some places administered by the same men, on the same estates, under the same overseers.

The trigger was legal. The Slavery Abolition Act passed by the British Parliament in 1833 ended slavery across most of the empire from 1834, with a transitional apprenticeship period that was abandoned in 1838. Sugar planters in Mauritius and the West Indies faced the loss of a captive workforce and the collapse of estate profitability, and looked to India, which the East India Company already governed and which had large populations of landless and indebted agricultural labourers. The first shipment of Indian workers reached Mauritius in 1834. Recruitment to British Guiana and Trinidad followed in the late 1830s and 1840s, to Jamaica, to Natal from 1860, to Suriname under a treaty with the Netherlands from 1873, and to Fiji from 1879, when the ship Leonidas arrived at Levuka.

The contract and what it concealed

Indenture was a written agreement, and the word for it entered the languages of the diaspora in mangled form: girmit, from the English agreement, giving girmitiya as the name for the migrants themselves. The standard terms were five years of labour on a named estate, a fixed daily wage, rations, housing and medical care, with a return passage to India provided after a further period of residence, usually making ten years in total. On paper this was a free labour contract between consenting parties, and colonial officials defended it in exactly those terms.

In practice the gap between the document and the experience was wide. Recruiters known as arkatis and duffadars worked the villages of the Bhojpuri speaking districts of eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, and the Tamil and Telugu country in the south, often in years of famine or agrarian distress. Many recruits were illiterate and did not understand the destination, the duration or the impossibility of return within the term. Emigrants were held in depots at Calcutta and Madras before embarkation, and the sea voyage, though shorter and better regulated than the Atlantic slave passage, still carried significant mortality in the early decades. Colonial regulation imposed a quota requiring a minimum number of women per hundred men, commonly set at forty, which was intended to allow family formation but in practice produced acute sexual imbalance on the estates and, in Fiji and elsewhere, appalling levels of violence against women.

Most decisive was the criminalisation of ordinary labour disputes. Under indenture ordinances, absence from work, refusal to work or leaving the estate were criminal offences punishable by fine or imprisonment, not merely breaches of contract. A worker could be jailed for what an English labourer could only be sacked for. This is the feature that historians point to when they argue that indenture, whatever its legal form, functioned as coerced labour.

How it ended

Opposition built from several directions at once. Plantation resistance was constant: strikes, desertion, arson and occasional riots. In South Africa, Mohandas Gandhi spent two decades from 1893 among Natal Indians, many of them former indentured workers or their children, and the campaign against the punitive three pound tax imposed on those who stayed on after their terms was a formative part of his political education. In India, Gopal Krishna Gokhale moved a resolution in the Imperial Legislative Council in 1912 calling for abolition. The reformer C. F. Andrews and W. W. Pearson travelled to Fiji and published a damning report in 1916 on conditions there, with particular attention to the position of women. Nationalist opinion had by then converted indenture from an economic question into a question of national humiliation.

The Government of India suspended recruitment in 1917 under wartime powers, and the system was formally wound up over the following years, with the last indentures in Fiji cancelled on 1 January 1920. Not everyone went home. Return passages were used by perhaps a quarter to a third of migrants overall, with wide variation by colony, and many who did return found they no longer had a place in the villages they had left. Those who stayed acquired land where they could, moved into trade, shopkeeping and eventually the professions, and built the communities that exist today.

Memory and argument

The legacy is politically live. In Fiji, tension between Indo Fijians and indigenous Fijians over land tenure and political representation produced coups in 1987 and 2000 and drove large scale emigration to Australia, New Zealand and Canada. In Guyana and Trinidad, party politics still substantially tracks the division between Indian and African descended populations, a division that colonial labour policy created deliberately. Mauritius, by contrast, has made the story central to its national identity: the Aapravasi Ghat in Port Louis, the immigration depot through which most arrivals passed, was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2006.

Historians continue to disagree about how to characterise the system. Hugh Tinker described it in 1974 as a new system of slavery, and that phrase has shaped popular understanding ever since. Later scholarship, working from shipping registers, estate records and the migrants own petitions, has argued that this flattens real differences: that many migrants exercised choice, however constrained, that wages were sometimes remitted home, that conditions varied enormously between colonies and decades, and that treating the girmitiyas purely as victims erases the agency they showed in surviving and building. Both readings rest on evidence. The honest position is that indenture was neither slavery nor free labour, but a distinct and deliberately constructed thing in between, and that its architects knew exactly what they were doing.

Back to the library