Social structure and its problems on the Girmit Plantations

Based on the life narratives, the individuals on the plantation can be categorized into four groups, within which would have been present further hierarchies. The plantation

authorities comprised of the sirdar, or the Indian foreman, and the overseer, owner, or

manager of the plantation, whom the Girmityas refer to as coolumbar. The Girmityas

carried out the directives of the plantation authorities. During Girmit, there were some who worked as house servants for the coolumbar, but the majority worked on the sugarcane plantation, as was the case for all the Girmityas in this study. On the plantation, it was the sirdar whom the Girmityas came into most contact with, and it is most probably the sirdar who provided Gabriel with his implements and rations in the excerpt above.

There were also the children of the Girmityas, who do not feature in Gabriel's life narrative. Children around the age of fifteen were assigned tasks to do. Those who were younger were often left with an old hand, who functioned as the dai or ‘nanny’ (Gillion, 1962: 108). The dai’s position on the plantation is ambiguous, and it is

difficult to place her in the plantation hierarchy. As her contact was largely with the mothers, this study views the dai’s position as below that of the plantation authorities, and above that of the women Girmityas, who left their children with her in the lines, while they went to work on the plantation.

As seen from the above hierarchy, the plantation social strata was dominated, and populated by men. This was helped by the desirability of more men than women Girmityas, with a ratio of 40 women to every 100 men enlisted (Lal, 2000: 130). In addition, despite the work being binary gendered, there were no women sirdars or overseers, which re-emphasized the patriarchal gendered system of organization of the indenture system. In fact, the women Girmityas were blamed for many of the social problems on the plantations (Lal, 2000: 54, 199).

On the Girmit plantation, the hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 2005) therefore, lay in the hands of the overseer and the sirdar. These were positions of authority endorsed by the plantation officials, and recognized by the Girmityas. As the sirdar on many plantations was chosen for his ‘bullying capabilities’ (Lal, 2000: 51), this hegemonic

masculinity was not about suppressing only women, but about suppressing all Girmityas. Hence, from the Girmityas’ point of view, these are not the heroes of Girmit, but the tyrants.

In order to fulfill the legal requirements of the indenture contract, the colonial

authorities were required to have a mediator between the plantation authorities and the Girmityas. In Fiji, the office of the Agent General of Immigrants (AGI) was established to carry out this role. The AGI, in turn, appointed the Inspectors of Immigrants to visit the plantations, and to listen to the planters and Girmityas’ complaints.

Ironically, it was the C.S.R. Company’s overseers who were appointed to the role of Inspector of Immigrants (Gillion, 1962: 111). These ex-overseers typically took the side of the plantation authorities, and the Girmityas’ complaints often went unheard. Moreover, in making complaints, the Girmityas risked increasing these authorities’ infliction of abuse. For these reasons, the labourers often felt embittered by the legal system, and on many occasions decided to take matters into their own hands. The Girmityas’ system of justice could often be quite vicious, resulting in serious injuries, and even the death of the overseer or sirdar.

Most of the Girmityas in this study depict living on the plantation environment as a brutal experience. In addition to the violence between the plantation authorities and the Girmityas, was the violence between the Girmityas. Moreover, Fiji had one of the highest suicide rates in all the indentured colonies (Lal, 1993: 187):

Gabriel Aiyappa

Tutek roz, hamlog jai ke wā utrā. Sab chīj diyā. Suk ke sabere māŋo kām par jao. To fin dusrā roz Sanichar bheyā. Ek admī amārā sāt rā. U admī Suk ka roz, ek roz, kām par geiyā. Sanichar ke sabere ame bole, "Tum jao, pīche ham aigā". To u latak geyā. Phāsī lagae liyā. Tab ham aiyā, palā khutkhutaiyā. To ek frī admī dek liya ou kuch latke he rum me. U hamrā sāt rā e lein me. Tab Sanichar ke roz he, bajār he. To hame jāne chār ānā peisā

On Thursday we arrived on the plantation. He gave us everything. Friday morning we had to begin work. The next day was Saturday. There was a man living with me. That man, on Friday, went to work, for one day. On Saturday morning, he said to me, “You go, I’ll come later”. He hanged himself. Then I returned, and knocked on the door. A free man had seen that something was hanging in the room. It was a Saturday, bazaar day. The free man

diyā, "Tum jao", u admī hamse bāttā. U nei bole ki admī eise gurug giyā kar ke. Chār ānā peisā diyā, "Tum jao bajār me, koi chi lei ke kao, kai ke tor derī me ānā". To ham giyā. To otnā me kuch ke le ke geyā apnā rum me. Otne me murdā nikaltā. Jai ke ham kulambar se bataiyā. To kulambar ke tār mārā he. To kulambar pulis steišan ke u kabar dek, u lei liyā.

gave me four pennies, saying, “You go”. He isn’t saying that the man has hanged himself. “You go to the bazaar, and buy yourself something to eat, then return after a while”. I went, bought things, and returned to the room. At that moment, he was taking the corpse out of the room. I rang for the coolumbar. The coolumbar told the police, who came and took away the corpse.

2.4 And after

The Girmit system was not without its critics. The missionary, J.W. Burton

(1910/1998) brought out a book on the abuses pervading the Indian indenture system. The book was used by parliamentarian G.K. Gokhale, who requested the British Indian government to immediately abolish the system. His request was denied. However, the government agreed to send a delegation to the colonies employing Indian labour for an assessment of the system. In its report, the delegation concluded that the system was beneficial to the labourers as they had exchanged the ‘grinding poverty’ of their homeland for economic prosperity in the colonies (Lal, 1993: 187). This did not convince the critics of Girmit, and C. F. Andrews and W. W. Pearson were sent to Fiji to investigate further.

In their 1918 report, C. F. Andrews and W. W. Pearson moved for the immediate abolishment of the sytem of Indian indenture. Their report condemned the physical conditions of the lines in which the Girmityas lived, the high mortality rate of the labourers and children, the poor medical care, the use of over-tasking by the authorities, and the excessively high conviction rate for minor offences. Social concerns were also outlined, such as the disproportion of the sexes, and the fragmentation of social and cultural values. In addition, an extremely high rate of suicide amongst the labourers, resulting through a combination of the above factors, was used to back up claims that the Indian indenture system was inhumane to those who laboured under it (Mayer, 1963: 21).

The final indenture ship, SS Sutlej, arrived in Fiji on November 11th 1916 with 888 Girmityas (Lal, 2008: 89). In that same year, Girmit was abolished, with all remaining contracts cancelled on 2nd January 1920. Of the 60, 965 Indians who went as Girmityas, sixty percent chose to settle in Fiji on completion of their Girmit, or in the case of those who went towards the end of Girmit, upon the termination of the system. This study is a representation of seven of these Girmityas, and their negotiation of their identities and agencies in their recollections of their Girmit experiences.