We need to become more conversant with our history

Sep 28, 2017 Letters

Dear Editor,
I refer to Kingsley Williams’ letter, “A question for Ravi Dev” (KN (9-21-17) referencing my letter where I asked, “Can the Indian Guyanese speak for justice?” Mr Williams cited Preambles #4 and 8 of Ordinance 21 of 1850, which confirmed Indian indentured servants “ shall be entitled to a free passage back to India” after 5 years “service” and further, if “desirous to commute his right to a free passage for the value of land to the amount of the cost of such passage, and the Governor shall see fit to grant to such immigrant out of the Crown lands of the colony, a piece or parcel of land equal in value, at the upset price of Crown lands, to the amount of the cost of such return passage, such immigrant shall have the same in lieu of his right to a free passage.”
Mr Williams’ question was why, as I had written “Of the 163,964 Indian immigrants that remained in Guyana, a mere 2,653 (1.6%) exchanged their return passage for land”? I want to compliment Mr Williams for his query because I really believe if we become more conversant with our history, we can create a Guyanese reality and narrative that give each group an “equal place” in our land.
Firstly, Mr Williams’ citations debunk the claim by some that Indian immigrants were “pampered” by the planters and “given” free land. The minuscule acreage acquired by them via this route was in EXCHANGE for the cost of a passage back to India they were owed through the terms of their indentureship. As I demonstrated, the value of the land for the exchange was on the average half of what the passage would have cost.
It is important to note that the “exchange” clause was inserted after indentureship from India was suspended in 1848 after a mere three years. In 1847 however, the ex-slaves’ strike for higher wages after a 25% reduction, was broken by the 15,747 Portuguese, 12,898 West Indian (mainly Barbadians), 8,692 Indian and 6,957 African indentured brought in to work for the lower wages. The Planter-dominated legislature wanted to impress the Indian Government to re-open immigration and also to sweeten the recruiters’ inducement because the other sources were dwindling and uncertain.
Matters had become desperate for sugar interests, because by 1848, more than half of the 83,545 freed slaves had departed to the villages they formed, after purchasing abandoned estates. While these experienced workers could outperform the indentureds, they worked on their own schedule and sugar production had fallen by 40%. The planters, on the other hand, wanted a cheap labour force they could control totally because of the demands of sugar production. Indian indentureship resumed in 1851.
But the reality was always quite different from the promises on the indentured contract. On Mr Williams’ specific question, Mr Mohammed Shabudeen, in his book “From Plantocracy to Nationalisation” has this to say on exchanging return passages for land; “here the idea had been around since 1850, but its implementation started only in the 1860s, and then with the almost absurd suggestion that a portion of the somewhat “gelatinous territory” at Plantation Best, West Coast Demerara, be allocated in one-acre grants.”
In his footnote, Shabudeen noted, “…the provisions were not acted upon and were omitted from subsequent ordinances.” Carl Greenidge, in his book “Empowering a Peasantry in a Caribbean Context: the case of land settlement Schemes in Guyana (1865-1985)” agreed with Shahabudeen and suggested, “Presumably this was the case because it was not seen as being of any special benefit to sugar.”
In fact, Ordinance 22 of 1856 tried another tackle; it allowed the planters to reindenture the immigrant for a bounty payment. In 1863, Immigrant Agent-General James Crosby proposed villages be established for non-returning Indian immigrants but it was not until 1871, when the De Vouex Commission was inquiring into the conditions of India immigrants, that Plantation Nooten Zuil, ECD was identified. But as with Plantation Best, the condition of the land was deemed unsuitable and there were no takers. Between 1880 and 1903, the above-mentioned land was exchanged but by the following year all the settlements were dubbed as ‘failures’.
Ravi Dev

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News