Read Book Online : http://www.archive.org/stream/lawcustomofslave00adamrich#page/n5/mode/2up

Download pdf Book : http://ia700301.us.archive.org/1/items/lawcustomofslave00adamrich/lawcustomofslave00adamrich.pdf

Slavery was abolished in Britain a lot earlier than the British abolished in India.

Where exactly is this plaque?

Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton Director's House, Old Truman Brewery, Brick Lane, London E1 http://www.flickr.com/photos/steveumpire/5303520202/

Thanks, Brick Lane, now a centre of London's Bangla community.

There is a really nice marble statue of Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton inside Westminster Abbey. It is on the right hand side of the chancel as you go up the church from the entrance, just before the cross aisle. My 4 x gt uncle knew him well, and produced a lot of the evidence that Buxton used to fight slavery in India. Here's a letter that T Baber wrote to Sir J.C. Hobhouse in which he refers to the research. Indor 18 December 1838 Hon’ble Sir, In continuation of my account of the slave population in the Malabar, as contained in my replies to the questions referred to me by the late Secretary of the Right Honourable Commissioners for the Affairs of India on the 27th of August 1832, I have now the pleasure to submit to your honourable Board the accompanying Paper of Information I have obtained on the same subject, in reference to the native States of Travankore and Cochin, during a month’s residence there in – chiefly from Europeans at this station – who have had opportunities of acquiring a knowledge from personal observation, on the spot of the real conditions of the several castes of slaves inhabiting this part of the Western Coast – and partly from conversations with the few respectable natives I have yet had the good fortune to meet with – who have evinced the smallest disposition to communicate on the subject. I have To the Right Honourable Sir John Cam Hobhouse Bart. Page 2 A list of queries I am circulating to such other Europeans and East Indians as may be able, from their long residence and opportunities of knowing the state or condition of the slave population, to throw light upon the subject, and should I succeed in obtaining replies from them, I shall (give) myself the pleasure to again address your excellency, and also communicate such further information as I may acquire during my intercourse with the Principle Natives, tho’ from the reluctance shewn by them to communicate with me, evidently tho’ apprehension of the Cicar Officers, I cannot hold out a prospect of learning much from them. Having been written to by Sir Tho Fowell Buxton to bring home with me all the information and documents I can collect bearing on the subject, and as it is now very uncertain when I return, I shall be particularly obliged by you giving him, and any other gentleman who takes an interest in the question of slavery, the perusal of the accompanying memoranda, with permission to print them in the State Slavery reports, or in any other periodical set apart for discussing the universal abolition of slavery. My own decided opinion is that the British government could emancipate every slave in these benighted regions at a twentieth part of the expense that have done it at in other portions of the British Dominions – and surely humanity all calls aloud for the adoption of early, and most rigorous measures, to extend the blessings of freedom to thus most unclothed -- most degraded and most helpless portion of our Indian Subjects. I beg to Subscribe Myself – Honourable Sir Your Most Obedient And Faithful Servant T H Baber P.S. I shall probably remain in this part of the Coast until I (mail?) replies to my English Queries – after which I must return to Bombay or wherever the Home Authorities may order me after disposing of my memorial.

This obviously refers to the illegal slave trade as practiced by the British in India. There were no Indians who ran this trade as a matter of traditional trade practice.

Hello Shekhar While these particular papers refer to the British adoption of slavery in India, they were only following existing Indian custom and practise. In 1830 TH Baber published a small booklet of which a copy survives in the British Library. It makes it quite clear that the Teers in Malabar had been slaves in Malabar to the petty Rajah's for many centuries before the British arrived. This is one of the reasons that so many of the British community in Tellicherry, and quite possibly elsewhere in India could not see the reason behind Thomas Baber taking Murdoch Brown to court. This brought such strong feelings out that a duel was fought over this issue. In order to keep up the pepper trade in the face of Pazhassi Raja's rebellion and blockade the EIC established pepper plantations. To its surprise, it discovered that very few Malabar farmers would work for them. These local castes would not work on farms for fear of losing caste. They told Brown that the best way to get labourers was to buy Teers, just like they had always done. There are quite a lot more 19th Century accounts of slavery, or something very like it in many other parts of India that our officials discovered. By 1800 many of the younger officials arriving in India had been deeply influenced by the anti-slavery movements in Britain, and they worked hard to reform their districts. Nick Balmer

Calcutta slave market closed c 1839... frequent sales of persons abducted by pirates. Slavery of different kinds prevails, of course.

I think one should differentiate between slavery and slave trade. The Indian caste system does denigrate shudras to the slave status but does not imply trade in slaves. Bonded labour as existed in Malabar and which was quite widespread on the farm lands till as recently as 50 years ago in many parts of the country but that did not mean that there was an organised trade in slaves. What I had in mind was the organised trade where people were captured, bundled and sold as slaves; special expeditions were undertaken for that purpose. Slavery was and is part and parcel of any class society which is not a civil society. I do agree that many a young men of privilege in Europe, the US and later in India were revulsed by oppression in any form. One did not have to be slave to fight against slavery.

there is no doubt that in india there was the concept of the 'dasa' - a person owned by another. lots of times a poor person would sell himself or herself to get rid of some debt etc. however, as shekhar said, there does not seem to be much evidence of enslaving entire populations or cultures or groups - no organized slave trade, etc. (of course, some of the effects of the caste system (as faced by the unprivileged parts of society) were probably almost as bad as slavery, and this is a bitter truth that indians must accept). otoh, isn't imperialism a distinct form of slavery as well?

Shekhar ~ I think that your point about differentiating between 'Slavery' and the 'Slave trade' is well made. In a British context, of course, the country was heavily involved in the 'trade' from the 16th century onwards though the practise was virtually unknown in Britain itself... if one was to accept Mr Sapkal's contention [above], however, that 'Imperialism was a form of slavery' then the point takes a new meaning... on those broad grounds you might as well argue that European feudalism or the Indian caste system were/are forms of slavery also. At root, the unpleasant truth is that slavery and the trade that fuels it has been around for thousands of years in all cultures and on all continents... on this matter I don't believe that any nation/ race can take to the moral high ground.

Slavery became more obnoxious when it acquired the racial colour when shiploads of Africans were captured and shipped to colonies for meeting the labour requirements. Such a trade could thrive where "freedom" or "democracy" was not extended to all. In this context, I recall a story in Indian mytholgy "Harishchandra and Taramati". The story speaks of selling and buying of slaves - I suppose, the idea must have some grounding in reality. There is no doubting about existence of slavery in that sense in all "civilised" societies of history. (I am excluding present times from it). The story of Harishchandra and Taramati is a tragic tale of the persecution of a shudra king by a brahman priest(some will object to calling him shudra- but that is another debate because I think, Shudras as a clan were originally part of Khsatriyas, in later history described as the fourth varna). The brahmans subsequently smartly claimed that they were merely testing the King's integrity, and eventually he and his family ascended to heaven.

...or perhaps the 'African' slave trade , being closer to our own times, is simply the best recorded and chronicled example of its type (and on a much larger scale) ? It is my understanding that slavery existed in indigenous African communities also... but, as we are all aware 'comparisons are odious'...

i find myself agreeing and disagreeing with bits of what both of you have to say. but what i concur with most is that nobody can take the high ground here. to quote heath ledger's joker - "i am not a monster - i am just ahead of the curve".

Thank you Pankaj. We could use your quote ..."i find myself agreeing and disagreeing with bits of what both of you have to say."... on almost every discussion on RBSI !! : )

to extract a further learning from caste and slavery, i find an interesting parallel. in the cotton plantation slavery days, the slave-owners typically appointed (one or more) foreman who was chosen from the same african slaves. what is interesting is that in this hierarchy, it was mostly the foreman who often attained heights of cruelty in treating his own. socially speaking, this is universally applicable to all cultures and communities. consider a situation where X has attained control over Y while Y has attained control over Z (X > Y > Z, in terms of political empowerment) the principle is that when X person/culture lords it over y person/culture, then Y person/culture (perhaps in an attempt to make cognitive sense of being suppressed) also begins to lord it over Z person/culture, finding gratification and self-worth in flaunting the superiority over Z. the abusee almost always becomes the abuser.

One of the enigmas I have been trying to understand is how come in history slaves came to wield power to become Kings. In Delhi there was a a slave dynasty. Elsehwere the rulers of Ghazni were Turkish slaves. Either we are missing something or the Ghulam has some other meaning also.

Excellent Pankaj...it is this kind of thought-process and perspectives which make the RBSI discussions interesting. Stereotyping, ill-informed biases and blanket generalizations are agonizingly tiresome to put it mildly... and we should try to cultivate the art of 'thinking aloud' and learn to give space to another point of view. Cliched it may sound...but history is the many shades of grey.

quite simple. slaves, including the ones kept for sexual gratification, some of who belonged to the castrati, were very close to their owner-kings, in more sense than one, and earned very high degree of trust. (you have to understand that pederasty was quite common, perhaps especially after alexander introduced it to all the places he conquered) these chaps eventually garnered power, being naturally aided by other slaves in their information gathering and iintrigue. I mean, imagine a intelligence network consisting of all the confidantes of royalty. one place where this did not work was in razia sultan's case, where her fondness for a slave was maligned - primarily because she was a woman.

as an adjunct example - the mamelukes were white slaves in egypt, who seized power - precisely by the same reason - they had all the intelligence networks covered, apart from being warriors.

well Delhi too was ruled by Mamluke Sultans (one who rules in the name of the Caliph).One of the reasons for the excellent network of espionage being run successfully by these castrati was beause they had access to harems/ seraglio and the mardana (male quaters) of the palaces. The eunnuchs were good confidantes of both the husband and wife and worked as excellent nannies too. (I'd say the worst hit after partition have been the eunnuchs and the courtesans who have had to turn to transvestites having to resort to black-mail and prostitutes respectively to survive in moden India) C'mon Shekhar pederasty cannot be attributed to Alexander. It is deviant behaviour but surely one cannot popularise it ! As for Razia the another reason for the opposition may have been because the slave was an Abbysinian.

alexander and his army were trained in the greek system of agoge. this system and the systems of pederasty was followed by the warriors of alexander. (kindly look at this link to see how highly systematized it was - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece) if you read it, you will realize that it is absolutely not a far-fetched suggestion that alexander and his troops spread the practice of pederasty in the cultures they ruled (perhaps spread it further, in case it was already practiced there). its a very well known fact how alexander had a young persian boy as his keep - there is a novel on this subject, too.

I still do not understand how a slave could become a King without the support of courtiers, army and certain sections of people. As for sexually deviant behavior, some of it is seen in today's society also. In the past when armies marched for years thousands of miles from home, sexual urges of virulent people may have expressed in all kinds of behaviour. If you look at Vatsayan's kamasutra, the revered Muni describes all kinds of vagrant sexual practices observed in people who were not marching in wars. It certainly not pure shringar rasa, most of it is bibhatsa.

The founder of the Slave dynasty in India, Qutubuddin Aibak was himself a slave purchased by Mohd. Ghori/Ghuri. Qutubuddin proved himself intelligent and brave in war and when Ghori left India after defeating P R Chauhan, he left behind Qutubuddin Aibek to look after the new-found territories. This slave was the one who perhaps sold himself and was not captured and enslaved (the slave trade as we have referred to above). Before being left behind in Delhi, Ghori signed his manumission papers, freeing Aibek. And on ghori's death, aibek declared himself as sultan of Delhi instead of swearing allegiance to Ghori's descendents. Similarly Iltutmish the 2nd of slave dynasty was a slave of Aibek and later also became the son-in-law of Aibek, and later named as successor of Aibek by Aibek himself. A dynasty whose 1st two Sultans started out as slaves got the name of Slave dynasty.

@Shekhar : Re. Slave trade in India - In (V. Shantaram's) Prabhat Films' "Ramshastri" (a film on Ramshastri Prabhune who presided over the Court in Peshwa's time and is acclaimed for sentencing Raghobadada Peshva to death for the murder of his ward Narayanrao Peshwa), there is a scene of a marketplace in Pune where slave auction is on and one of the maids (Hansa Wadkar) is "purchased" by a courtier of Peshwas. I am not sure what kind of system this was, though.

@Deepak Ingawale: I have ordered a copy of "Marathi Riyasat". Will check for any references there. For not very strange reasons, our understanding and grasp of history is mostly shaped by novels and cinema, religious views; not on reading and study of history.