Speeches and Writings of M. K. Gandhi/The Iniquities of the Indenture System
THE INIQUITIES OF THE INDENTURE SYSTEM
Under the auspices of the District Congress Committee in Bombay Mr. M. K. Gandhi delivered a lecture on Indentured Indian Labour before a large gathering on 30th October, 1917, at the Empire Theatre, Sir Ebrahim Rahimtullah presiding.
Mr. Gandhi said:—
The question of indentured labour was just now a topical question, because those true and real friends of India, Messrs. Andrews and Pearson, were conducting an enquiry in Fiji. The Fiji Islands absorbed the largest number of indentured Indians at the present moment. Messrs. Andrews and Pearson were not the first to interest the Indians in this question, but it was the deceased statesman Mr. Gokhale, who first impressed Indians with the importance of their duties in connection with this question. The resolution which Mr. Gokhale brought before the Council for the abolition of the indenture system was defeated by a majority though all the non-official members of the Council voted for the abolition. However much a benign and sympathetic Viceroy wished to remove this abominable system of indenture from the Indian Statute Book there was a very serious difficulty in his way and that was the report by the two Commissioners, who were sent by Lord Hardinge, namely, Messrs. MacNeill and Chimanlal which are contained in two bulky volumes. All might not care to wade through the rather dull pages of those volumes but to him who knew what real indentured labour was, they were of great interest. They might, however, take upon trust that the reports recognised that indentured labour should continue just as it was, if certain conditions were fulfilled. Those conditions, Mr. Gandhi said, were impossible of fulfilment. And the recommendations which these two great Commissioners made, showed that they really could not seriously have meant that the system of indenture which existed to-day in Fiji, Jamaica, Guiana and other colonies should be continued a minute longer than was actually necessary. The speaker here referred to the previous Commission and said that the defects which Messrs. MacNeill and Chimanlal had pointed out were patent to all. Their report contained nothing new. But there was unofficial investigation on behalf of some philanthropic body in England some forty years ago, and in that book an unvarnished tale was given, which told in graphic language what were the hardships under that system.
In this connection Mr. Gandhi quoted a statement made by the Prime Minister of Natal in which he said that the system of indenture was a most unadvisable thing and that the sooner it was terminated the better for the indentured labourer and the employer. Lord Selborne said the same thing when he was the High Commissioner in South Africa: he said that it was worse for the employer than the employed, because it was a system perilously near to slavery, Sir William Hunter wrote a beautiful series of letters in 1895 when he first brought himself to study the system personally and compared the system of indenture, after a due investigation, to a state bordering on slavery. On one occasion he used the expression semi-slavery. Mr. Gandhi said if he erred in making these statements, he erred in Lord Selborne's company. And it was in connection with this system that these two worthy gentlemen, the Commissioners, had seen fit to report and advise the fulfilment of certain conditions which, in the very nature of the contract, were impossible of fulfilment. The conditions were that unsuitable emigrants be excluded; the proportion of females to males to be raised from 40 to 50 per cent. The speaker could not understand what they meant by unsuitable emigrants being excluded, The Commissioners themselves told them that it was not easy to find labour in India. India was not pining to send her children out as semi-slaves. Lord Sanderson stated that it was the surplus population from India that went out from dissatisfaction with the economic conditions in India. But they must remember that there were 500 recruiting licences issued in the year 1907. Could they conceive the significance of the extraordinary state of things which required one recruiter to 17 labourers? The Colonial Governments had their sub-agents in India for this indentured labour to be collected. They were paid a sum of Rs. 25 for each cooly recruited, and this sum of Rs. 25 was divided between the recruiter and the sub-agent. Mr. Gandhi thought the mental state of those recruiters must be miserable, who could send so many of their countryman as semi-slaves. After having seen what the recruiting agents did and after having read the many gross mis-statements they made, he was not surprised that thousands and thousands of their countrymen were becoming indentured labourers. The Commissioners devoted several pages to the immorality prevailing on the estates. It was not forty women for sixty men; but the statement was made that these men did not marry these women, but kept them, and that many of these women were prostitutes. Mr. Gandhi said he would decline to send his children under such an indenture, if he was worthy of his salt, out of the country. But thousands of men and women had gone. What did they think of that in India?
The conditions were that rigorous provisions should be either expunged from the Ordinances or that the Protector should control employers. As for the regulations made to protect these labourers they could take it from him, Mr. Gandhi said, that there were a great many flaws in them and a coach and four could be easily driven through these. The aim of the rules was to make the employer supreme. Here was capital ranged against labour with artificial props for capital and not labour.
Mr. Gandhi condemned the "protector" of emigrants. They were men belonging to that very class to which employers belonged; they moved among them and was it not only natural that they should have their sympathies on the side of the employer? How was it then possible that they could do justice to the labourer against the employer? He knew many instances when magistrates had meted out justice to the indentured labourer, but it was impossible to expect such a thing from the Protectors of emigrants. The labourer was bound hand and foot to the employer. If he committed an offence against his employer he first of all had to undergo a course of imprisonment, then the days that the labourer had spent in the jail were added to his indenture and he was taken back to his master to serve again. The Commissioners had to say nothing against these rules. There was nobody to judge the Protector of Emigrants if he gave a wrong judgment, but in the case of the magistrate he could be criticised. Again the Commissioners add that these prisoners should be put into separate jails. But the Colonial Government would be bankrupt if they built jails for hundreds of prisoners that were imprisoned. They were not able to build jails for the passive resisters. Then the Commissioners said that the labourer should be allowed to redeem his indenture by payment of a graduated redemption fee. They made a mistake in thinking him to be an independent man. He was not his own master. Mr. Gandhi said he had known of English girls well educated who were decoyed, and who were not indentured, unable to free themselves. How was it then possible for an indentured labourer to do this? Mr. Balfour compared the labourer under an indenture to a soldier. But the soldier was a responsible man and he could rise to a high position. But an indentured labourer remained a labourer. He had no privileges. His wife was also included under his disabilities, so also his son. In Natal the finger of scorn was pointed at these people. Never could an indentured Indian rise to a higher post than that of labourer. And what did the labourer bring when he returned to India? He returned a broken vessel, with some of the artificial and superficial signs of civilisation, but he left more valuable things behind him. He may bring some sovereigns also with him. They should decline to perpetuate this hateful system of indenture because it robbed them of their national self-respect.
If they could consider well over what he had said, they would try and abolish the system in a year's time and this one taint upon the nation would have gone and indentured labour would be a thing of the past. He wanted to remove the cause of the ill-treatment of the Indians in the Colonies. However protected that system may be, it still remained a state bordering upon slavery. "It would remain," said Mr. Gandhi, "a state based upon full-fledged slavery and it was a hindrance to national growth and national dignity."