A Tribute to Dr. Shardhanand Harinandansingh
In a world where the shadows of the past often weigh heavily upon us, one man stands unwavering, tirelessly fighting for recognition and justice: Dr. Harinandansingh. With dedication and passion, he has devoted himself to the Hindustani indentured laborers who suffered injustice and hardship under the Indentured Labour system on the plantations of Suriname. His struggle is not merely a personal mission; it is a collective call for justice for a forgotten chapter in our history.
Dr. Harinandansingh has raised his voice in the Netherlands, Suriname, India, and the Caribbean, and his message resonates as a powerful echo of hope and determination. He reminds us that the fight for human rights is never-ending and that acknowledging the past is the first step toward a brighter future. His commitment serves as an inspiration to many, and his unyielding spirit reminds us that together we can strive for what is just.
With this article, we pay tribute to this warrior, who reminds us of the strength of perseverance and the necessity of recognition. Dr. Harinandansingh, your dedication is a beacon of light in the darkness and a guiding star of hope for the generations yet to come.
Jai Ho!
Hindustani contract laborers in Suriname under the Indentured Labour system.
On March 20, 2024, descendants of Surinamese Hindustani contract laborers sent a heartfelt letter to the King and the Dutch government, demanding an apology for the human rights violations their ancestors endured during the Indentured Labor system on the plantations of Suriname. On May 1, 2024, the King, through his Cabinet, acknowledged his awareness of these violations, stating, “Lured by the promise of a better life, their circumstances were, in fact, hardly better than those of the enslaved before the abolition of slavery.” However, the Dutch government remains silent, refusing to take a stand on these serious human rights abuses. The descendants of the Surinamese Hindustani contract laborers continue to press for recognition of these violations, holding onto the hope that the government will eventually offer its apologies. This raises an urgent question: what specific human rights violations occurred during the contract period of the Surinamese Hindustani’s under the Indentured Labor system in Suriname? This article seeks to answer that question.
The Indentured Labor system was a form of labor institutionalized in 1872 by the Dutch king and the British queen. It was intended to replace the position of the enslaved in the colony of Suriname. The slavery of Africans was formally abolished on July 1, 1863, but while awaiting a suitable and inexpensive replacement, the emancipated enslaved were still required to work on the plantations for another ten years. The Surinamese planters, inspired by British Guiana, where slave labor was replaced by contract laborers from (British) India starting in 1834, sought workers from that region as well. With the institutionalization of the Indentured Labor system in 1872, the Netherlands was given the mandate to recruit laborers from India. For the recruitment activities, the Surinamese colonial authorities appointed an Emigration Agent (usually the Dutch consul), who was responsible for ensuring that the planters’ requests were met. This Emigration Agent appointed several Subagents, who in turn enlisted recruiters (arkatia’s) to carry out the recruitment practices. A premium was paid for each recruited worker.
The Indians, in general, were not inclined to venture into distant and unfamiliar lands for work. There existed a cultural barrier to crossing the so-called Kala Pani: the fear of losing their caste and, consequently, being rejected by their families and fellow villagers. To illustrate, Emile D. recounts that while in Calcutta, he encountered several hundred middle-class Indians who had worked on the sugar plantations in British Guiana. Deceived in their expectations, they decided to repatriate to their homeland in the northern part of the Madras Presidency. However, upon returning to their village, no one was willing to welcome them back: landowners and local dignitaries had ostracized them, the craftsmen of the community refused to work for them, and not a single villager would agree to give their child in marriage to them. Powerless against these prejudices, they contemplated, despite their unfortunate experiences abroad, returning to Guyana.
The recruitment of sufficient laborers came under immense pressure. To meet the demands of the planters, the Emigration Agent offered higher premiums for every recruited and approved labor migrant. This system of premiums led the recruiters (arkatias) to engage in the most reprehensible practices in their recruitment efforts. Deceit, misrepresentation, lies, false promises, coercion, and even kidnapping became daily occurrences.
The arkatia approached individuals he suspected were seeking work with the question: “Naukari logé?” If this question received any affirmative response, he would gradually steer the conversation towards his proposal: signing the contract. He usually emphasized high wages and good social provisions. However, no exact amount was mentioned, as he did not know it. Instead, he often cited figures that he believed would appeal to the candidate. Particularly skilled migrants, such as farmers, silversmiths, goldsmiths, priests, teachers, dentists, and so forth, were said by the arkatias to earn substantial money in Suriname. Moreover, they would be assured of free food during the first few months of their stay in the colony. They were also eligible for free housing, and medical treatment in case of illness was entirely free. After the contract ended, they had the right to a free return trip to their birthplace. Above all, the work was light and easy, and the wages were very high. Often, the arkatias told potential migrants that the workplace would not be far from Calcutta, making it necessary to travel by boat: “The coolies on the occasion in question thought that they were going down some two days journey to Calcutta, and had not the slightest idea that they were going to leave the country.”
The arkatias did everything in their power to quickly secure someone for a contract under the Indentured Labour system so they could receive their premium. It was irrelevant to them whether the potential migrant would be capable of performing plantation work in the colony. Many thousands of contract laborers fell victim to these deceptions and lies.
For the arkatia, recruiting women was a difficult and risky, yet lucrative endeavor. Generally, fewer women were willing to migrate to an overseas colony due to social and cultural barriers. This posed a significant dilemma for both the Surinamese agency and the arkatias. How could the Surinamese agency meet the requirement of the Indentured Labour system of 50 women for every 100 men? The answer to this question was: higher premiums. The arkatias were encouraged with even more and higher premiums to meet that demand. Despite the increased premiums, the arkatias struggled to satisfy the Surinamese agency’s requirements. Consequently, they were willing to resort to less scrupulous methods in their recruitment activities. Coercion, deception, fraud, violence, and even the kidnapping of women were not uncommon in the recruitment process: “The recruiter took a woman to the sub-depot on false pretences and detained her there against her will.”
One example of kidnapping involved the case of Golab. She was forcibly transported to Suriname on the ship Peshwa without being registered with the district magistrate. Golab proved to be a very brave woman: she loudly refused to perform plantation work and demanded to be sent back to India. The court was called upon to resolve this matter. The final judgment of the court was that Golab had been kidnapped and transported to Suriname against her will. Subsequently, the colonial government of Suriname decided to send her back to India.
Although the British Indian colonial authorities sometimes attempted to intervene to prevent the escalation of these malpractices, they could not eliminate the fraud of the recruiters from the system. For these reasons, the Grierson Commission labeled the recruitment as highly reprehensible. Major Pitcher described the recruitment activities as a despicable system. Some other researchers even regarded it as a form of substitute slavery.
The potential contract laborers gathered in the districts were often transported by train to the main depot in Calcutta. There, they were housed. To prevent the escape of these potential contract workers, the walls of the depot were raised and strictly guarded by durwans (guards armed with a stick). Upon arrival, the migrants underwent a medical examination, and on a predetermined date, in the presence of the Protector of Emigrants (an official appointed by the British Indian government to oversee proper proceedings), the official contract was signed. Before signing the contract, an interpreter read the general terms in Hindi. It was never mentioned that they were bound by the Labor Ordinance of 1861 and further subjected to the Penal Sanction. The Labor Ordinance specified the nature, type of work, and associated wages, while the Penal Sanction outlined the consequences of violations and the types of punishments. Those who refused to sign the contract at the last moment risked a fine of Rs 500, which had to be paid immediately. Otherwise, they faced a six-month prison sentence. When the Emigration Agent had gathered enough contract laborers, he organized their departure. For this, he chartered a ship at the colony’s expense. The date and time of departure were determined in consultation with the Protector of Emigrants. Before boarding, the contract laborers underwent a brief medical examination once more. During this check, the laborers lined up in rows of unmarried women, married couples, and single men, passing by the medical inspector. The depot physician usually assured the inspector that “everyone had been inspected and found healthy.” Those who appeared clearly ill were taken aside by the inspector for further examination. After the inspection, the Emigration Agent handed over the registration list, the sample roll, to the ship’s captain. This document contained all the details of the contract laborers. Then, the boarding began. First, the single women were boarded, followed by families, and then the single men. At the beginning and end of the dock stood a clerk from the depot and a sailor, who called the contract laborers in groups of ten. Although only approved and healthy contract laborers were allowed to board, many fell ill during the voyage, resulting in several deaths. Between 1873 and 1916, 34,455 contract laborers were transported to Suriname on 64 sailing and steam ships. (Note: this number represents the number of contract laborers calculated as adults. Two children under 10 years are counted as one adult). During the voyage, 680 contract laborers (about 2%) died from illnesses onboard.
Upon their arrival in Suriname, the contract laborers were first received at what was known as a “coolie depot.” Here, the Agent General, the head of the Immigration Department, determined which planter(s) would receive the laborers. In this allocation, the contract workers had no choice whatsoever. Subsequently, the planters could collect their “order” on a designated date using (tent) boats. On the plantation, the workers were housed in the old, dilapidated slave barracks. One contract laborer described these types of dwellings as follows: “Dihei isyas vaarkan!” (In such homes, pigs are raised). With the arrival of the contract laborers, these former slave barracks were referred to by the planters as the “coolie line.” The hygienic and living conditions in the coolie line were generally appalling. Many contract laborers fell ill and died as a result. The mortality rate among these laborers during the early period of the Indentured Labor system in Suriname was alarmingly high. On many plantations, the mortality rate varied between 10% and 40%, with some alarming spikes reaching 50%. These distressing death rates prompted the British Indian government to suspend the transport of contract laborers to Suriname. After the Surinamese colonial authorities promised to improve medical care, the British Indian government granted permission to resume the recruitment and transport of laborers to Suriname. During the Indentured Labor period, a total of 5,590 contract laborers (approximately 16% of the total number) died on the plantations in Suriname. Among this number, relatively more women than men perished. The average mortality rate among women was 1 in 44, while for men it was 1 in 50. These figures reveal that the mortality rate among contract laborers on the plantations in Suriname was five times greater than in India.
On the vast plantations, where the sun blazed mercilessly, the contract laborers were divided into ‘gangs’ or work teams. Every morning at six o’clock, the ‘coolie bell’ rang out, a cruel summons that called the workers from their humble shelters. At that moment, they had to stand at attention, their hearts heavy with fear and uncertainty, as the overseer informed them of the grueling tasks that lay ahead. Those who arrived late risked not only a reprimand but also severe punishment. Take, for instance, the story of Mahabir, who, due to circumstances beyond his control, was slightly delayed with his breakfast because the wood was still wet. When he finally arrived at the plantation, it was already six o’clock. The overseer, furious at his tardiness, struck him with a machete, leaving Mahabir covered in blood from head to toe. The blows were so fierce that he lost two teeth and injured his nose. But the cruelty did not end there; the overseer brought him before a judge, who sentenced him to eight months in prison. This was not an exception but rather the norm in a system that completely disregarded the humanity of the workers.
The contract laborers were categorized into two groups: the ‘able-bodied’, the strong men, and the ‘not able-bodied’, the weaker men and women. According to the contract terms, the first group was entitled to a minimum wage of Fl0.60 per day, while the second group would earn Fl0.40. In reality, however, most workers earned only a few cents a day. This was due to a system that tied their wages to the amount of work they completed. If a worker only finished half of their task, they would receive only half of their pay. And if they could not complete their task, even after more than ten hours of hard labor, the remaining work would be assigned to another worker, who would then be compensated. The first worker was left empty-handed, often accused of laziness and unwillingness to work. Many were thrown into prison as a result, where they faced even further torment.
A poignant example of this can be found in the Pro Justitia records of the Ommegaande Judges. A group of contract workers, including Bissumbhur, Balgobind, and Nobut, was tasked with weeding a piece of land measuring 103.6 meters long and 4.71 meters wide. When they inquired about their wages, they were told they had to work first before the amount would be revealed. The work was grueling and exhausting, yet they had no choice but to continue; otherwise, they would face imprisonment for ‘refusal to work.’ After five days of relentless toil, they finally received a mere 60 cents, which amounted to a scandalous 12 cents per day. To add insult to injury, they were charged with ‘refusal to work,’ resulting in a six-day prison sentence and a fine of Fl 8.20.
Complaining about the harsh working conditions was futile; the Ommegaande Judges often sided with the planters. Their priority was to protect the interests of the plantation owners, and they viewed it as a disgrace if contract workers were not punished with shackles and lashes. The penalties were intended to serve as a deterrent, ensuring that the workers would deliver maximum labor output and show deference to the white planters and colonial authorities. Official documents reveal that over 95% of the complaints from planters against contract workers were upheld by the judges, leading to prison sentences and forced labor.
The District Commissioners, who also acted ruthlessly against the contract workers, were granted the authority to torture them in various ways. The British consuls in Suriname were appalled by the cruelty of these officials, who tortured the workers every night by locking them in stocks and shackling them. The descriptions of the tortures are heart-wrenching: the worker’s legs were painfully pulled apart while his hands were fastened to an iron beam. In this inhumane position, they were forced to remain for hours, with the promise that they would have to return to work after a brief pause. The British consul describes this form of torture as follows.” ‘His or her – as het case may be- legs are stretched out right and left to a most painful extent, then both hands are attached – on iron bar lying over the wooden stocks – to one foot- or one hand to each foot, so that the head of the Cooly touches the ground. In this painful position he is kept from 6 p.m. until 5.30 a.m. when he is released in order ‘to strech’ himself for half an hour. At 6 o’çlock he has to begin his work again, and if he has not completed his heavy task in the evening- which of course after the nights torture is still more impossible than it was the day before- he is again put into the stocks for the night’. During the entire period of the Indentured Labour system, thousands of Hindustani contract workers were subjected to horrific torture in the prisons of Suriname. The shortest duration of torment lasted a staggering three hours, while the majority endured between six to twelve hours of relentless suffering each day. This brutal reality highlights the inhumane conditions faced by these individuals, stripped of their dignity and subjected to unimaginable pain. It is a dark chapter in history that demands recognition and accountability, reminding us of the resilience of the human spirit in the face of such cruelty.
A Call to Acknowledge the Injustice of Indentured Labor
The horrors of indentured labor are not merely historical footnotes; they are a testament to the resilience of the human spirit in the face of unimaginable cruelty. The brutal treatment of contract laborers, both men and women, is a stain on our collective conscience. The stories of individuals like Ramdaia and Kamanee, who bore the physical and emotional scars of their torment, remind us that the suffering was widespread and relentless. Torture lasting between six to twelve hours was not an isolated incident; it was a systematic approach to instill fear and maintain control over these workers. The endless list of names of the tortured is a chilling reminder of the lives shattered by this oppressive system.
Despite the British government’s expressed concerns regarding the ongoing brutality and harsh punishments, the planters and colonial government in Suriname turned a blind eye. This negligence is not just a failure of governance; it is a moral failing that allowed the systematic oppression of vulnerable individuals to continue unchecked. The exploitation, grueling labor, and torture pushed many laborers to the brink of despair. In their desperation, some took matters into their own hands, resorting to acts of resistance such as arson and assaults on overseers. This was not mere rebellion; it was a cry for justice in a world that had denied them their basic human rights.
Collective resistance emerged as a powerful force, with laborers organizing strikes and confronting their oppressors. Yet, their courageous efforts were met with brutal suppression by police and military forces. The fact that these workers engaged in collective action 43 times speaks volumes about their determination to fight against the injustices they faced. They were misled during the recruitment process, kept in the dark about the true nature of the indentured labor system, and treated as prey, with no means of escape.
From the moment they boarded those ships, contract laborers were subjected to appalling conditions, leading to high rates of illness and death during the journey. Their daily reality was one of structural exploitation: backbreaking labor, meager wages, unpaid hours, malnutrition, exorbitant fines, imprisonment, and physical torture. Their struggle was not merely for better working conditions; it was a fight to reclaim their stolen rights and to combat the discrimination, racism, and injustice that permeated their existence.
The fight against the indentured labor system continued until its abolition in 1916, but the scars of that struggle remain. Many were punished severely, tortured, and some were even murdered in their quest for dignity and justice. It is our responsibility to remember their sacrifices and to ensure that such atrocities are never repeated. We must acknowledge the past, honor the memory of those who suffered, and commit ourselves to a future where justice prevails for all. Let us stand together against oppression in all its forms and strive for a world where every individual is treated with the respect and dignity they deserve.
