Anand Moteelal

2013030872
CAS 130
Two of the most horrible historic happenings to occur in Caribbean history are slavery and
indentureship. Slavery, according to Merriam-Webster, (2014), is the state of a person who is a
chattel of another. By extension, chattel slavery, also called traditional slavery, is so named
because people are treated as the chattel (personal property) of an owner and are bought and sold
as if they were commodities (Wikimedia Foundation, 2014). Indentureship, on the other hand, is
the state or period of being a servant bound to service for a specified time in return for passage to
a colony (Farlex, 2014). More specifically, East Indian Indentureship refers to the arrival of East
Indians from India to the Caribbean to replace African labour under a contract. They are usually
closely associated because when describing situations involving these two occurrences,
extremities of negativity are always depicted and mistreatment such as exploitation of workers,
poor quality of life and sheer intensity of work seem to be their common theme.
Consequently, because of these shared similarities, questions were raised as to how
conditions had changed and whether indentureship was indeed a disguised form of slavery. In
addition, the fact that indentured labour immediately followed slavery meant that it was viewed
as a cheap alternative to what had become illegal labour. The British academic and historian
Hugh Tinker (1974) postulated this notion in his book where his position re-enforced the
abolitionists views that deception, kidnapping and coercion were the hallmarks of
indentureship. Also, more recently, Brinsley Samaroo (2007) identified indentureship as just
another form of slavery that enslaved the minds of Indians, stole their identities and provoked
them to act against their moral fibre (as cited in Mokool, 2007). However, there were critical
differences between slavery and indentureship mainly because of the former occurring for over
four centuries and encompassing horrors of unimaginable proportions. This factor distinguished

Anand Moteelal
2013030872
CAS 130
them as having varying historical circumstances, therefore, it is important not to view indentured
labour as a mere extension of slavery as the two are fundamentally different.
The most fundamental difference between the two systems of labour was the most obvious
one, namely the fact that slavery was not a choice and indentureship was. Africans were captured
from their native homelands and forcefully enslaved as prisoners of war, payment of debt,
victims of kidnappings and raids or as gifts given to tribal owners and European slave traders
alike (StudyMode, 2014). African slavery was almost invariably for life as slaves had little
chance of becoming free, except by running away or staging a successful rebellion. Moreover,
the child of a slave was born a slave, and slaves were usually encouraged to have children as it
increased their number at little cost (Bristol, 2000). In contrast, indentureship was a deliberate
choice, despite of how bad the economic situation was at home or how bad the
conditions/contract might well have been, those that did, did so because they had made a choice
to and thus had the choice not to, an aspect of migrant workmanship no slave ever had access to
(James, 2014). The contracted period was usually five years and indentured Indians could look
forward to an end of their lot and the possibility of returning home at the termination of their
contract. In addition, ex-indentured Indians were legally free and their children, who came from
India and those locally born, were not indentured and had the right to repatriation (StudyMode,
2013).
Another major aspect which differentiated slavery from indentureship was the discipline of
slaves and the indentured Indian labourers. The discipline of slaves was legally left largely to the
jurisdiction of their owners, who made the rules and imposed and executed the penalties on
slaves whom they considered delinquent (McGowan, 2009). Not surprisingly, such punishment
was marked by excessive cruelty, including incredible torture as they were regularly whipped,
2

Anand Moteelal
2013030872
CAS 130
beaten and sometimes even killed (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 2014). In contrast, the discipline
of indentured labourers, was entrusted to the magistrate courts where decisions were guided by
various ordinances passed by the local government to regulate relations between masters and
indentured workers. These laws imposed fines and imprisonment if labourers failed to complete
their tasks or refused to work. In addition, labourers contract could be extended to twice the
period while they were in jail. Though the system weighed heavily against the indentured
immigrants, the penalties to which they were subjected were far less onerous than those
experienced by slaves, especially in terms of physical brutality (McGowan, 2009).
Life on the plantation was another difference between the slaves and the indentured Indians.
For the slaves it was a life of endless labour. They worked up to 18 hours a day, sometimes
longer at busy periods such as harvest. There were no weekends or rest days. Slave women were
routinely raped and some were even forced to use sexual favours simply to survive or to obtain
better conditions, even freedom, for themselves or their children (Bristol, 2000). On the other
hand, the Indian indentured labourers did not work as many hours as the slave and were required
to work only 280 days per year (Nantambu, 2013). However, being physically weaker in
comparison to the African slave, could not complete these tasks and were liable for punishment
(Pillai, 2003). Furthermore, those labourers who finished their tasks early and went home could
also be arrested and fined. Women were no exceptions as they were made to work, even in
advanced stages of pregnancy, contrary to the rules, and they were also jailed and later employed
as convict labourers in the colony
Other major differences between slavery and indentureship were often overlooked which
tend to approximate the two systems and to refer to indentureship as a new form of slavery.
One such difference was the treatment on the ships/vessels. Slave trader John Newton stated in
3

Anand Moteelal
2013030872
CAS 130
his journal, in 1754, that the African men were packed together below deck and were secured by
leg irons. The space was so cramped they were forced to crouch or lie down. Women and
children were kept in separate quarters, sometimes on deck, allowing them limited freedom of
movement, but this also exposed them to violence and sexual abuse from the crew (as cited in
National Museums Liverpool, 2014). However, this was totally different in the case of the
indentured Indians.

The ships had separate compartments for single persons and married

couples. However, to ensure some form of discipline, the emigrants were divided into group of
twenty five and were placed directly under supervision (Pillai, 2003). Another distinct difference
was that the Africans were brought to the West Indies with their original, ancestral African names
in 1516 but the vast majority of their descendants now carry Euro-centric names. Indians also
came with their original, ancestral Indian names in 1845, however, in some cases, their
descendants still carry those names at present. (Nantambu, 2013).
Ultimately both slavery and indentureship were systems of human exploitation and
manipulation. The indentured immigrants, like the captive Africans, found themselves in an
intolerable situation for they were subject to laws of which they had no say and over the
application of which they had no control. As such, it was implied that indentureship shared some
features that characterized slavery and it exhibited many of the same reactions in the indentured
servants as slavery did in slaves. Tinker (1974) notes that indentureship incorporated many of
the repressive features of the slave system and induced in Indians, many of the responses of the
African brothers in bondage. Also, indentureship was compared to slavery since labour became
a commodity to be bought and sold, probably because the individual personification of the labour
was of little relevance to the plantocracy and the merchants, in very much the same way in which
the individual personification of slaves was immaterial to the masters (Kowlasar, 2009).
4

Anand Moteelal
2013030872
CAS 130
However, it must be emphasized that significant distinctions between indentureship and
slavery do exist such as the snatching of children from their mothers arms at birth, selling
individuals as chattels, the destruction and dispossession of their cultural and religious roots and
conditions/treatment on the plantations masters (Kowlasar, 2009). Slaves unlike indentured
Indians were forced to work and live a decaying lifestyle, were stripped of their identity and
forced to exist as property. Although the indentured Indians were exploited somewhat, faced
treatment, pay and accommodation far below what they expected, they had however made a
conscious decision to undertake a work contract. Indentured labourers on the most part preserved
a sense of dignity and self which, regardless of the decrepit living conditions and labour ship
exploitation, was a sense of identity stripped from slaves from the moment they became
possessed. As such, although the two are comparable, they will always be fundamentally
different.

Word Count - 1453