Name landmarks after our heroes

Demerara rebellion of 1823 --- --- Slaves force the retreat of European soldiers led by Lt Brady. Date 18–20 August 1823 Location Demerara-Essequibo (Guyana) Caused by Poor treatment, (mistaken) belief that Parliament had emancipated the slaves Goals Emancipation Methods Largely non-violent Result Suppression Parties Rebel slaves British Empire Demerara-Essequibo Lead figures Quamina † Jack Gladstone (POW) John Murray Number 9,000 – 15,000 enslaved men and women Casualties and losses 200 to 500 killed in the revolt 27 executed Minimal losses The Demerara rebellion of 1823 was an uprising involving between 9,000 and 12,000 slaves that took place in the British colony of Demerara-Essequibo in what is now Guyana. It was led by Jack Gladstone and his father, Quamina. The exact number of how many took part in the uprising is a matter of debate. [1] The rebellion began on 18 August 1823 and lasted for two days. Their goal was full emancipation. The uprising was triggered by a widespread but mistaken belief that Parliament had passed a law that abolished slavery and that this was being withheld by the colonial rulers. Instigated chiefly by Jack Gladstone, an enslaved man from the "Success" plantation, the rebellion also involved his father, Quamina, and other senior members of their church group. Its English pastor, John Smith, was implicated. The largely nonviolent rebellion [2] was brutally crushed by the colonists under governor John Murray. They killed many slaves: estimates of the toll from fighting range from 200 to 500 men and women. After the insurrection was put down, the government sentenced another 45 men to death, and 27 were executed. The executed enslaved slaves' bodies were displayed in public for months afterwards as a deterrent to others. Jack may have been deported to the island of Saint Lucia after the uprising. John Smith, who had been sentenced to death and was awaiting news of his appeal against a death sentence, died in jail. News of Smith's death strengthened the abolitionist movement in Britain. ... Joe of "Le Reduit" had informed his master at approximately 6 am that morning of a coordinated uprising planned the night before at Bethel chapel which would take place that same day. Captain Simpson, the owner, immediately rode to see the Governor, but stopped to alert several estates on the way into town. The governor assembled the cavalry, which Simpson was a part of. [43] Although the rebellion leaders had hoped for mass action by all slaves, the actual unrest involved about 13,000 slaves over some 37 estates located on the east coast, between Georgetown and Mahaica. [34] Slaves entered estates, ransacked the houses for weapons and ammunition, tied up the whites, or put some into stocks. [5] [34] The very low number of white deaths is cited as proof that the uprising was largely free from violence from the slaves. [6] Accounts from witnesses indicate that the rebels exercised restraint, with only a very small number of white men were killed. [44] [6] Some slaves took revenge on their masters or overseers by putting them in stocks, like they themselves had been before. Slaves went in large groups, from plantation to plantation, seizing weapons and ammunition and locking up the whites, promising to release them in three days. However, according to Bryant, not all slaves were compliant with the rebels; some were loyal to their masters and held off against the rebels. [44] ... Smith's trial concluded one month later, on 24 November. Smith was found guilty of the principal charges, and was given the death sentence. Pending an appeal, Smith was transferred from Colony House to prison, where he died of consumption [34] in the early hours of 6 February 1824; [63] To minimise the risk of stirring up slave sentiment, the colonists interred him at 4 am. The grave went without markings to avoid it becoming a rallying point for slaves. [64] The Royal reprieve arrived on 30 March. [63] News of these events was published in British newspapers, provoked enormous outrage and garnered 200 petitions to Parliament. [64] Smith's death and the uprising by more than 9,000 enslaved men and women in Demerara provided major impetus to the campaign to abolish slavery in Britain. [65]

Abstract The tea garden labourers of Assam known as ‘Tea Tribes’ led a ghettoised life under colonial regime, almost without any protest, though some trivial instances of resistance are reported in the writings of the colonial era. This article describes in brief how the Adivasis from the neighbouring states settled in the Assam tea gardens and were subjected to various forms of torture and sufferings under the colonial regime. It would also trace how the Adivasis fought for the recognition of their rights and status leading to much politicization of their problem after independence. The Adivasi labourers who came to the Assam tea gardens after having faced a crisis in their life that threatened their survival back home responded to the employment opportunity that came their way with the expansion of tea industry in Assam. But after reaching at their new habitats they were subjected to various forms of torture and were kept under slave like conditions. In addition to various forms of exploitation that they were subjected to, the British planters, in collusion with administration, had systematically grabbed the lands of the indigenous tribal population in Assam almost throughout the colonial period. The unholy alliance between the colonial rulers and the planters ensured steady recruitment and corresponding tortures of the tea–garden labourers. The Government also supported the planters by introducing the ‘black law' of Workmen’s Breach of Contract Act, which sealed the workers’ fate from taking any recourse to avoid exploitation. However, having suffered injustices and oppression in colonial era, the tea-garden labourers have, in the post-colonial period, increasingly mobilized themselves at political level and have become conscious about their various rights. ... facing serious problems already. Many among them had been uprooted from their community held land by the Permanent Settlement, 1793, which was enforced to ensure regular tax collection for the colonial government. Famine and epidemic during the year 1896–1900 and ‘tribal uprisings’ in the region (led by Sidu, Kanhu and Birsa Munda) and their consequences also prompted the Adivasis to shift to Assam (www.apps.cla.umn.edu/derectory). The agents lured and forced the inexperienced tribes to sign agreements. Catholic Mission Co-operative Society established in eastern India had also facilitated in recruiting labourers (Ekka 2003). In Sardari system, a labourer who already conceded himself went to different areas and brought more labourers. Vast majority of the ‘Adivasis’ recruited as labourers were brought from outside the province by Arkatis and Sirders as ‘free emigrants’, and then put on a longer Assam contract in Dhubri in Goalpara district—which interestingly was elevated to the status of a labour district, without actually indulging in any planting operations (There was a distinct trend of contracts being enforced for a longer period in this labour district, unlike plantations). The entire process led to a clear case of constrained and forced labour. The labourers, basically being ignorant and poor, were tricked by force and fraud to leave home and to register as labourers under contract in the tea gardens. Once this was done the labourers were in absolute clutches of the manager. There, far away from the public gaze, they lived virtually as slaves. Agents, induced by lucrative remunerations, often kidnapped them or persuaded them to leave their villages under false pretences and brought them to the recruiting depots (www.mcrg.ac.in/T C Conference/Subhas.doc). The aspirations of tea planters to include a greater proportion of labourers within the domain of the Assam contract had led to evading the corresponding rules and regulations. There is a sad incidence wherein seventeen workers had complained of having been forced to sign a five year contract, when they had originally agreed to a three year contract (Assam Labour Report, 1883: 23). Indeed, the bylaws of the 1863 Act were repressive. The contract explicitly empowered the plantation manager (under certain circumstances) to privately arrest the ‘deserting’ coolies. Such an ‘exceptional’ right was justified on the contention that the policing capability of the state in a ‘frontier’ province like Assam was superficial, tenuous and generally weak. (Kolsky 2007). The unholy alliance between the colonial rulers and planters ensured steady recruitment and subsequent tortures of tea-garden labourers. The Government also supported the planters by introducing the ‘black law' of Workmen’s Breach of Contract Act. The labourers were brought under legal provisions of ‘Workman’s Breach of Contract Act XII of 1859’ and its amended ‘Act of 1865’. Now, the workers could be punished for striking work and their minimum wage was also stipulated. The implementation of the 1882 Act further formulated the strategies and practices through which tea and coolies became parts of the Assam plantations. These acts ensured the coercion and allowed the planters a free hand in matters related to the workers’ welfare (Singh et al 2006: 47). Fact remains that in the initial decades from the 1850s until around the 1920s, the working conditions were akin to slavery, with flogging, rape, torture and even the throwing of dead workers in rivers (Toppo 1999). In 1858-59 a large number of labourers numbering nearly 84,915 came to Assam. Thus lakhs of people were brought to Assam. This number increased as the areas of tea plantation increased. During this time large number of Adivasis died due to diseases (Kurmi 1990: 22). Between 1871 and 1901, around 1, 80,000 individuals moved to Assam from the different corners. There are reports of multiple deaths of ... There are other Adivasi organizations like - Adivasi Sewa Samity (ASS), Adivasi Sahitya Sabha (including Sahitya Sabhas formed by Kharias, Mundas, Santalis, Uraons/Kuruxs, Saoras). Then there are Adivasi NGOs such as All Adivasi Women’s Association of Assam (AAWAA), All Assam Santali Students’ Union (AASSU). Some politically active militant organizations include Adivasi Cobra Militants of Assam (ACMA), Birsa Commando Force (BCF), Adivasi National Liberation of Assam (ANLA), Adivasi Peoples’ Army (APA), Adivasi Dragon Fighters (ADF). These militant outfits have been mainly fighting to get the ST status. Conclusion The tea garden labourers of Assam, called ‘coolies’ were brought from eastern India and placed to work under harsh conditions, sexual violence, imprisonment, and poor remuneration. Several scholars have discussed the mechanisms of economic and physical coercion, and the extra-legal authority exercised by the planters within the plantations (Behal 2014: 7). The ruthless British planters in collusion with colonial administration devised a mechanism of labour control that led to unprecedented profits. Not only that the tea labourers were brought to the Assam plantations almost by force and kept under slave-like conditions in ghettoized ‘Coolie-Lines’, the British planters, had systematically grabbed the lands belonging to the indigenous Ahom, Bodo, Mishing and Koch, during 1861 and the early 20th century, benefitting from wasteland policy. The indentured system of recruitment was carried out by using the ‘black law' (Workmen’s Breach of Contract Act). Brokers were employed to lure the poor labourers. Arkatti brokers, though unlicensed, recruited labourers from eastern and south eastern parts of India. In 1870 'Sardari' System was evolved so as to engage the previous labourers to lure ‘new labourers’. As the government experimented with different mechanisms of indentured recruitment (‘licensed contractor’, ‘arkati’, ‘sardari’, ‘de regulated’), numerous abuses, extralegal coercion, and covert and overt flouting of norms became routine in the Assam plantations. Labourers were forced to live in Coolie Lines which were overcrowded. In these barracks each tea garden labourer got hardly twenty five square feet of area. The labourers were not allowed to remain absent in their duty for a single day even when they were unwell. The labourers did not enjoy any personal freedom at all. Low wages, poor housing and lack of avenues for social mobility have been a recurring theme since the inception of the plantation in the early 19th century. By paying very low wages the tea planters forced the whole of family members to work in the tea garden. Under the Workmen's Breach of Contract Act (Act 3 of 1859) a labour was liable to prosecution, and even imprisonment for breach of contract. Inertia, refusal to work and desertion was equally punishable offence and for that they may be flogged physical torture and imprisoned under the various provision of this act. Flogging was common practice in the tea gardens. The then Chief Commissioner of Assam Fuller stated about the condition of labours, ‘...They were deprived of all their freedom and their derogatory conditions and atrocities remind one of the slave running in Africa and the global slave trade’. Thousands of Adivasi labours died annually due to non-availability of Medical care as the medical system was very poor in the tea gardens of Assam (www.revolvy.com/main/index). Collective resistance and individual protests were not infrequent in the tea estates in response to managerial violence, judicial discrimination, and sexual harassment, pervading under the exploitative indentured system. For the management, however, these were ‘desertions’, ‘abstentions’, ‘cheating’, ‘shirking’, or other forms of ‘criminal’ activity encouraged by outsiders. Behal has discussed the long history of labour ... strategy. ... The ... communities such as the ‘tea tribes’ and suitably revise the ‘unscientific’ approach it has adopted to define the tribes of India. Notes 1Robert Bruce learned from Maniram Datta Barua, a local resident, that a certain community of tribe known as Singhpo grew tea that was earlier unknown to the rest of the world. Bruce realized its quality and potential to offer competition to Chinese variety. In 1823, he met the Singhpo chief Bessa Gaum. He was allowed to take away sample plants and its seeds. He died in 1824, but opened Assam's doors to a great industry. He was buried in the cemetery in Tezpur ( Taknet 2002). 2 Historical narratives of tea plantations in India and especially in Assam are available in works of Griffiths (1967), Antrobus (1957), Bose (1954), Buchanan (1966), Guha (1977) and Borpujari (1963, 1977). These are specific theme based studies and hence are often disconnected. ... and Mahapatra have examined the working of the indenture system, through which thousands of tea workers were recruited in the period between 1840 and 1908, exposing its inhumanity and scant regard for human life (Behal and Mahapatra, 1992).

In conjunction with the pioneering British Guyana Labour Union (B.G.L.U.), the BGEIA he had managed to create solidarity among Indian and African workers, which led to a strike starting on the 1st of April in 1924. ... In 1931 he was elected to the Legis-lative Council, becoming the first Hindu to be elected to the colony’s Parliament. As a member of the Council, he sat on the Franchise Commission, where he advocated for universal adult suffrage. He was also “a pioneer of land settlement schemes for independent farmers at Vergenoegen and Cane Grove” (Dindayal, 2013). As head of the Sanatan Dharma movement, Dr. Singh fought constantly to have Hindu and Muslim institutions and rites legally recognised. Under the colonial government, only Christianity was awarded recognition, because “Hindu and Muslim priests, unlike Christian ministers, could not be state-registered marriage officers” (Dindayal, 2013). Dr. Singh, who personally had three marriage ceremonies with Alice Bhagwandy Singh – one civil marriage, one Christian Church blessing, one Hindu marriage, was at the forefront of the civil fight for Hindu and Muslim rights. In his 1931 essay, he talks about the successful co-existence of Hindu and Muslim religions in the Indo-Guyanese community. As a member of the Legislative Council, he introduced a bill to permit cremations, which resulted unsuccessful. However, at his death, the colonial authorities permitted his cremation, which took place on the beach of the Atlantic Ocean by Plantation Ogle. His funeral is regarded as a historic event, as a cornerstone for Hindu-Guyanese civil rights’ struggles. He was the first person to be cremated in the colonial country, an event that was witnessed by thousands of people. The Daily Argosy reported it to be “the largest funeral ever witnessed in the country” (Dindayal, 2013). Jung Bahadur Singh’s story narrates a particular context that should feed into broader studies on cross diaspora movement across the colonies. Colonial subjects were allowed and indeed encouraged to navigate the Empire in a manner that imitates freedom of movement. However, their movement was possible in as far as their existence could be integrated in the broader, internal mechanisms of imperial institutions and governance. Son of diaspora, Dr. Singh travelled the seas as a medical dispenser, a father, a husband, a Hindu Guyanese attempting to build himself, his family and his community, a space for self-governance and autonomy (financial, physical, social, political etc.). He was raised in a colony, travelled as a colonial labourer, graduated at the University of Edinburgh, and, largely unnoticed, returned to fight for the right of people to participate in governance, their right to have their non-Christian rites and institutions legally recognised, for workers to be better paid and represented, and against the seemingly unlimited imperial power of white settlers and officers. Dr. Singh fought for communities at large to decolonise.