Abolishing Slavery in INdia

1844 Words4 Pages

Slavery has been depicted as the major form of human exploitation. However, the historical meaning of the concept is less clear. Since the early nineteenth century the British abolitionist discourse has had the quasi-monopoly in the comprehension of slavery as institution, its characteristics and its wickedness. The main goal of this paper is to analyze the process of abolition of slavery in India within the framework of the colonial discourse. In the first part, it will be discussed different forms of historical slavery, besides the slavery implanted by Europe in America. In the second part, it will be analyzed the abolition discourse and its relationship with the construction of the slavery as antithesis of freedom. In the last part, I will try to explain the process of abolition or 'delegalization'1 of slavery in India and its aftermaths, as part of the colonialist representation of the Indian society.
According to Miers “Non definition of slavery can be separated from the definition of its antithesis -freedom. This is as difficult to define as slavery, since freedom has meant different things to different peoples and even to the same people at different times in their history.”2 The dichotomy slavery-freedom had blurry borders in other slavery systems different than the Caribbean or North American models, in which the common view is a society where the master had all the power and the enslaved no power to decide its own destiny or the future of his offspring. The slave was chattel, he could be sold and bought, and his rights belonged entirely to other person.3 And even this image of the slavery in the Americas is quite simplistic. The division between slaves and free people obscures the diversity of complex arrangements ...

... middle of paper ...

...he most inhumanity institution, and the anti-thesis of the freedom. In 1869 Ahmed Midhat, quoted by Toledano argued: “Europeans who do not know the manners and customs of the East think that slaves in Istambul are like American slaves.”20 The Ottoman intellectuals could argue than their slavery was benign, even when those same intellectuals spoken the language of the political freedom, the democratic reform and the human rights. The dichotomy between the Ottoman slave and the slavery elsewhere was the frame to depict the humanity of the slave condition under the Ottoman rule, and to denounce the Western attempts of 'cultural interference.' Despite the insistence on the human character of the slavery, many of the slaves suffered the grueling conditions of the menial and agricultural labor, the cultural resistance against the foreign intervention was a process where:

Open Document