Indian Slavery Act, 1843
|Indian Slavery Act, 1843|
|Enacted by||Governor-General of India, Lord Ellenborough, in Council|
|Enacted||7 April 1843|
Implementation and effect
Some East India Company officials opposed the act, citing Hindu and Muslim customs and maintaining the fact that the act would be seen as interference in traditional social structures. Evangelical politicians who had led successful slavery abolition campaigns in the West Indies prevailed and the Act was implemented.
Historians are divided on whether the Act was able to exclude caste and slavery. The condition of workers in tea plantations in Tamil Nadu and Assam were compared to that of African, West Indian counterparts who worked in sugar plantations. Lack of alternatives meant tea plantation workers had become indentured labourers despite the Act, which historian Amalendu Guha maintained was a new form of slavery.
A 1996 Human Rights Watch report refers to Manjari Dingwaney's book, Unredeemed Promises: The Law and Servitude, and states -
Various forms of debt bondage co-existed with formal slavery, and while the British abolished slavery legislatively through the Anti-Slavery Act of 1843, large numbers of former slaves traded their status for that of perpetually bonded servitude. This was in part due to the fact that the British did not abolish debt-bondage; instead, they regulated it.
Text of the Act
- No public officer shall in execution of any decree or order of Court, or for the enforcement of any demand of rent or revenue, sell or cause to be sold any person, or the right to the compulsory labour or services of any person on the ground that such person is in a state of slavery.
- No rights arising out of an alleged property in the person and services of another as a slave shall be enforced by any Civil or Criminal Court or Magistrate within the territories of the East India Company.
- No person who may have acquired property by his own industry, or by the exercise of any art, calling or profession, or by inheritance, assignment, gift or bequest, shall be dispossessed of such property or prevented from taking possession thereof on the ground that such person or that the person from whom the property may have been derived was a slave.
- Any act which would be a penal offence if done to a free man shall be equally an offence if done to any person on the pretext of his being in a condition of slavery.
- Maharajan, M. (1 January 2010). Mahatma Gandhi and the New Millennium. Discovery Publishing House. p. 50. ISBN 9788171416035.
- Agnew, William Fischer (1898). The Indian penal code: and other acts of the Governor-general relating to offences, with notes. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink, and Co. Retrieved 5 September 2011.
- Cassels, Nancy Gardner (14 December 2010). Social Legislation of the East India Company: Public Justice versus Public Instruction. SAGE Publications India. p. 173. ISBN 9788132106661.
- Major, Andrea (1 January 2012). Slavery, Abolitionism and Empire in India, 1772–1843. Liverpool University Press. p. 222. ISBN 978-1-84631-758-3.
- Guha, A.; Indian Council of Historical Research (1977). Planter-raj to swaraj: freedom struggle and electoral politics in Assam, 1826–1947. Indian Council of Historical Research : distributor, People's Pub. House. Retrieved 16 July 2018.
- "India". Human Rights Watch. ISBN 1-56432-172-X. Retrieved 11 July 2016.
- Dingwaney, Manjari (1985). Unredeemed Promises: The Law and Servitude. pp. 312–313.
- India; Theobald, W. (1844). The Acts of the Legislative Council of India, with a Glossary; an Analytical Abstract Prefixed to Each Act, and Copious Indexes. By W. Theobald. p. 585. Retrieved 16 July 2018.
- Agnew 1898, pp. 325–326
- Major, A. (2012). Slavery, Abolitionism and Empire in India, 1772–1843. Liverpool Studies in International Slavery LUP. Liverpool University Press. ISBN 978-1-78138-903-4.