CHAP. I. Introductory remarks — origin, nature, and evils of Slavery in India, from Book V: Slavery, Excerpt from "India’s Cries to British Humanity, Relative to Infanticide, British Connection with Idolatry, Ghaut Murders, Suttee, Slavery, and Colonization in India; to Which are Added, Humane Hints for the Melioration of the State of Society in British India"
by James Peggs
1832
p. 279-311
-- India’s Cries to British Humanity, Relative to Infanticide, British Connection with Idolatry, Ghaut Murders, Suttee, Slavery, and Colonization in India; to Which are Added, Humane Hints for the Melioration of the State of Society in British India, by James Peggs
-- Slavery in India: The Present State of East India Slavery; Chiefly Extracted From the Parliamentary Papers on the Subject, Printed March, 1828, August 1832, August 1838, by James Peggs, Third Edition, 1840
-- Slavery and the Slave Trade in British India; With Notices of the Existence of These Evils in the Islands of Ceylon, Malacca, and Penang, Drawn from Official Documents, by Thomas Ward and Col, And to Be Had At the Office of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, 1841
-- Slavery in the Bengal Presidency Under East India Company Rule, 1772-1843, by Amal Kumar Cattopadhyay, Thesis presented at the University of London for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 1963
CHAP. I. Introductory remarks — origin, nature, and evils of Slavery in India.
A LATE highly respected writer on India, has stated, relative to slavery in the East, — "Though no slavery legally exists in the British territories at this moment, yet the terms and gestures used by servants to their superiors, all imply that such a distinction was at no distant date very common. 'I am thy slave;' 'Thy slave hath no knowledge,' are continually used as expressions of submission and ignorance." From this extract, and others of a similar kind which might be made; from different writers, it is evident that the nature and extent of slavery in India are imperfectly understood.* [ See an article on East Indian Slavery, in the Friend of India, (Quar. Sor.) Dec. 1823.] A voluminous collection of Papers on this subject, containing nearly 1,000 folio pages, was 'ordered by the Hon. House of Commons to be printed, March 12th, 1828;' and it is important that their contents should be generally known. Of these papers it has been remarked, 'An attempt to digest such a mass of documents into a narrative, or to reduce them into any symmetrical shape, is hopeless;' the Author has not been thus discouraged in his investigation of them; but, being convinced that slavery in India is a subject of considerable interest, he has devoted much time to the perusal of these Papers, and hopes his labours may be beneficial to the interests of suffering humanity in India. While so many works are extant on West India Slavery, the Author is acquainted with but one on Slavery in India,†[East India Slavery by Saintsbury, 1829. See also East and West India Sugar, 1823. Hatchard.] and that a small pamphlet recently published. To bring the real state of India before the British public must be beneficial; and, under this conviction, the Author submits his humble labours to the candid attention of his readers.
J. Richardson, Esq., Judge and Magistrate of Zillah Bundlecund, in his valuable communication to the British Government in India, on the subject of slavery, in March 1808, very justly remarks, — "The humane abolition of the slave trade in England has added lustre to the enlightened wisdom of the British senate; and enrolled, to the latest posterity, the name of Wilberforce amongst the benefactors of mankind. That slavery should ever have been authorized, in any civilized community, is as astonishing to the mind, as disgraceful to human nature. The great Author of creation made all men equally free. By what act then can that freedom be forfeited or given up? Surely liberty can be forfeited by no act that does not militate against the general security and well-being of society. Nor has man more right to sell or give up the natural freedom of his person, than he has to lay down his natural life at pleasure; much less can he have any title to dispose of the liberty of another, even of his child. That slavery is an infringement of the law of nature cannot be disputed. The most respectable authority proves that, it is in its own nature invalid. Blackstone, speaking of the law of nature, says, 'this law of nature, coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding all over the globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their force and authority mediately or immediately from this original.' The most strenuous defenders, of this imposition of the powerful on the weaker part of mankind, pretend not to maintain its propriety but on ideas of political utility. Impartial and minute inquiry into its effects would at once remove this specious veil, by which the principle is sometimes hidden; and the system, decorated in the eye of sensible and virtuous men under mistaken notions of human expediency, proves the uniform tendency of slavery to be depressive of every emanation of the mind, and highly destructive to our species."* [Par. Papers on Slavery in India, 1828, p. 299. There is much truth in the observation — "He who loses his liberty, loses half his virtue."]
The origin of slavery in India, as it exists among the Hindoos, is involved in considerable obscurity. Its rise among the Mahomedans is evidently to be traced to the triumph of their arms. The following extracts, from the Parliamentary Papers on slavery in India, afford some information upon a subject interesting to every humane mind. These Papers commence with the following Regulation for punishing decoits or robbers, and shew one source of slavery in the East. — "That whereas the peace of this country hath for some years past been greatly disturbed by bands of decoits, who not only infest the high roads, but often plunder whole villages, burning the houses and murdering the inhabitants: And whereas these abandoned outlaws have hitherto found means to elude every attempt which the vigilance of government hath put in force, for detecting and bringing such atrocious criminals to justice, by the secrecy of their haunts, and the wild state of the districts which are most subject to their incursions; it becomes the indispensable duty of government to try the most rigorous means, since experience has proved every lenient and ordinary remedy to be ineffectual: that it be therefore resolved, That every such criminal, on conviction, shall be carried to the village to which he belongs, and be there executed for a terror and example to others; and, for the further prevention of such abominable practices, that the village, of which he is an inhabitant, shall be fined according to the enormity of the crime, and each inhabitant according to his substance; and that, the family of the criminal shall become the slaves of the State, and be disposed of for the general benefit and convenience of the people, according to the discretion of the government. Aug. 1772."* [Par. Papers, p. 2.]
"If we may judge (says the Editor of the Asiatic Journal, in a review of the contents of the Papers on East India Slavery,) from a subsequent minute and regulation of the Bengal Government (1774), this proposal was not listened to; for therein, not only is the stealing of children or selling any Hindoo as a slave (without a regular deed) forbidden, but it is proposed to abolish slavery altogether, after the first generation then living, owing to 'the great increase of late years of this savage commerce, and in order to prevent hasty strides towards depopulation.' Further inquiry however seems to have convinced the Bengal Government, that there were districts where slavery was in general usage, and the abolition of which might impede cultivation. The Government observes, that the opinions, of the most creditable Mussulman and Hindoo inhabitants, condemn the usage of selling slaves, as repugnant to the particular precepts both of the Koran and the Shaster."* [Asi. Journ., Nov. 1828, p. 559.]
The Provincial Council of Patna, in Aug. 1771, address the Governor, Warren Hastings, Esq., on this subject as follows: — "We find that there are two kinds of slaves in this province, Mussulman and Hindoo; the former are properly called Mualazadeh, and the latter Kahaar. Slaves of either denomination are considered in the same light as any other property, and are transferrable by the owner, or descend at his demise to his heirs. They date the rise of the custom of Kahaar slavery from the first incursions of the Mahomedans when the captives were distributed by the general among the officers of his army, to whose posterity they remained. All other slaves have become so by occasional purchase, as in cases of famine, &c. The Kaboleh must be signed by the mother or grandmother, and not by the father. Children also born of slaves are the property of the owner of the woman, though married to a slave of a different family."† [Par. Papers on Slavery in India, p. 5.]
The Collector at Trichinopoly, in the Madras Presidency, in reply to the inquiries of the Government, addressed to a number of Collectors on the subject of slavery in their respective districts, describes the origin of pullers or agricultural slavery as follows: — "It is, I apprehend, indisputable, that in the earliest ages of Hindoo government, agricultural and domestic slavery existed to an indefinite extent. The practice was sanctioned by prescription, and upheld by law: but it will be found that the terms of bondage, and the nature of the services required from the slaves, differed essentially in almost every district. No distinct information can be obtained at what period agricultural slavery commenced. It is now impossible to trace, whether this establishment took its rise from the voluntary submission of the indigent to the wealthy, or whether the pullers were originally captives taken in war. But, as this species of bondage is generally the concomitant of barbarous governments, it must of necessity have been a very ancient institution of the Hindoos. Under their arbitrary government, the distinctions of cast were scrupulously maintained; and, adverting to the circumstance of the meerassidars in Trichinopoly being Brahmuns, it scarcely excites surprise that agricultural slavery should exist here unchanged and undiminished." ‡ [ Par. Papers, p. 892.]
The late Sir Stamford Raffles, Lieut. Governor of the Island of Java, in 1812, gives the following information, respecting the origin of slavery in the Eastern Isles: —
" Macassar and its neighbourhood may be considered as a principal source from which slaves have been exported; and without entering into any discussion of the origin and causes of this state of society, which, in a general point of view, must be referred to backwardness of civilization and prevalence of native authority, it must be observed that, in consequence of its being the favourite source of revenue among those chieftains, it will require much caution in attempting any measures to restrain, where argument could be of no avail, and force would be inconvenient. In my instructions to Captain Phillips, on his proceeding to Macassar, I directed his attention in a particular manner to this interesting subject; but I regret to find from his report, that at present there is little prospect of his favourable interference. In short, he seems decidedly of opinion that, 'as men-stealers are very common over the country, if he prohibited their selling their stolen property at Macassar, they would still carry on the trade in the Boui territory;' where, though so immediately under the eye of the Resident, the Rajah would no doubt maintain his right, equally with that which he exercises at pleasure, of life and death.
"The native laws, usages, and habits, regarding slavery, are in many instances so various and contradictory, and it is so difficult to trace them to any authentic source, that is universally admitted, that I am fearful very little light will be obtained from them. Prisoners of war are in many cases considered as the property of the conqueror, and consequently sold as slaves. The families of criminals, who may be executed for particular crimes become likewise a droit of the chief; and in many cases criminals are pardoned on condition of being sold into slavery. Throughout the whole of the Eastern Islands, debtors become responsible in their services to their creditors, and it does not appear, that there is any generally acknowledged law among them, to prevent the chief of a family selling his wife and children into slavery. The desperate manner in which the Bugguese prows are known to defend themselves at sea, is accounted for by the numerous crew, who are all separate adventurers on a borrowed capital, having left their families hypothecated for the debt, who become slaves to the creditor, in the event of the debtor parting with the property under any circumstances without his life.
"The Dutch law being blended with the Roman, and the colonial law founded on both, slavery has been fully recognised as legal by the European government; while the universal prevalence of Mahomedanism renders it legal with every native administration, and as such it appears, without any occasional difference of opinion, to have been always viewed. Slavery on the island of Java, is exclusively confined to domestic purposes, and may be considered rather as a regulated domestic servitude, than that detestable system which the legislature of Great Britain have, to the credit of humanity, so vigorously suppressed in the West Indies. Slavery, however, under any shape, or if it bears only the name, is so repugnant to every principle of enlightened administration, and so inconsistent with your Lordship's* [Lord Minto.] benevolent plans, that I fear I should not stand excused, in my defence of such a system, under any modifications or circumstances whatever."† [Par. Papers, p. 154-156. For an account of the Slave Trade at the Island of Nias, near Sumatra, see an interesting article from the Singapore Chronicle, in the Imp. Mag. Jan. 1830, pp. 18-51.]
The rise of slavery in Penang, or Prince of Wales' Island, is thus described in a letter from the Judge and Magistrate in Jan. 1802, to the Marquis of Wellesley, then Governor General of India: —
"My Lord Marquis: — In a case which lately came judicially before me a question arose, 'Whether civil slavery, that is, a right of one man over the person and fortune of another, was to be considered as established at Prince of Wales' Island.' I was not ignorant that slavery, limited and unlimited, had been tolerated. I know that emigrants, both from the Malay Peninsula and from the Eastern Island, who had become inhabitants of Prince of Wales' Island, have been permitted to retain in slavery, those whom they had brought as slaves to this place. Some of these, indeed, are in utter slavery, while others are only in limited servitude. The latter is the condition of those who are styled slave debtors, and these are people that voluntarily become slaves to their creditors till their debts are paid. But all this passed, sub silentio; for, after a careful search, I have not found any regulation of the local government, or any order from the Governor General in council, authorizing the establishment of slavery, limited or unlimited, at Prince of Wales' Island. This right, if any such in fact exists, rests therefore simply on a usage of fourteen years. Thus circumstanced, having no authority to guide my judgment, my delicacy increased in proportion to the interests on which I was called to determine; and, in this case, subordinate to the question of civil slavery, arose two other questions. The first a question of fact, 'Whether the father of A. ever had been a slave at Quiddah?' The second a question of law, 'What was to be the condition of A. now resident at Prince of Wales' Island, whether born of one parent who was free, and of another, who was enslaved, or born of parents who were both slaves, and now resident at Prince of Wales' Island.
"I was desirous of avoiding the determination of this case, and remitted it to the Lieutenant Governor; but, in deference to his particular request, I gave my opinion, that the evidence did not prove that the father ever had been a slave, but that it inclined to shew that the mother had been a slave at Quiddah, and I thought the son should follow the condition of his father. I was led to this opinion, from a consideration that it is the old law of villanage in England, and, although I know it was contrary to the maxim of the civilians, partes sequitur ventrem, yet the latter authority had no weight with me; first, because slavery had not yet been established by authority; next, because 1 could not see any local circumstance requiring its establishment; and, lastly, because a state of slavery is, in its own nature, bad, neither useful to the master nor to the slave, nor to the state under which they live. The Lieutenant Governor, on the contrary, was of opinion that the evidence proved both parents of A. were slaves, and under the regulations for the administration of justice on this island, ultimately decreed, that A., resident in this island, should be delivered up as a slave to Hakim Sullee, Captain Malay, resident also on this island.
"By this decree slavery is now recognised and established by the local government of this island; and therefore, in addition to the observations which I have had the honour of submitting to the consideration of your Excellency in council, I feel the necessity of representing that regulations are now requisite, in which the right that a master is to possess over the person and fortune of his slave, at Prince of Wales' Island, should be explicitly defined; and I hope that your Excellency in council will take into consideration the case of the offspring of slaves, and particularly of those, who are born of one parent who is free, while the other is a slave. Nothing can be presumed on the moderation or justice of Mahomedans who possess slaves. By their usages the virtue or honour of female slaves is at the mercy of their master! I could hope that the right of the master was by law expressly limited to the bounds of humanity. I have no other apology to offer, than my conviction, that the subject matter of my letter is of the first importance, to the interests and prosperity of this rising colony."* [Par. Papers on Slavery in India, pp. 429, 430.]
The nature of slavery in India will appear from the following extracts. The Governor General, in 1775, transmitted to the Hon. Court of Directors, extracts from a translation of the Hindoo Laws, by N. B. Halhed, Esq. From this code it appears that slaves are divided into fifteen classes, viz. —
"1. Whoever is born of a female slave, and is called Gerhejat.
2. Whoever is purchased for a price, and is called Keereeut.
3. Whoever is found any where by chance and is called Lubdehee.
4. Whoever is a slave by descent from his ancestors, and his called Dayavanpakut.
5. Whoever hath been fed, and hath had his life preserved by another during a famine, and is called Enakal Behrut.
6. Whoever hath been delivered up as a pledge for money borrowed, and is called Abut.
7. Whoever, to free himself from the debt of one creditor, hath borrowed money from another person, and, having discharged the old debt gives himself up as a servant to the person with whom the present debt is contracted; or whoever, by way of terminating the importunities of a creditor, delivers himself up for a servant to that creditor, and is call Mookhud.
8. Whoever hath been enslaved by the fortune of battle, and is called Joodih Peeraput.
9. Whoever becomes a slave by a loss on the chances of dice, or other games, and is called Punjeet; according to the ordinations of Perkashkar and Pareejaut, and according to the ordination of Chendeesur, it is thus, that by whatever chance he is conquered, and becomes a slave, he is called Punjeet — approved.
10. Whoever of his own desire says to another,"I am become your slave," and is called Opookut.
11. When a Chebteree, or Bice, having become Sinassee, apostates from that way of life, the magistrate shall make him a slave, and is called Perberjabesheet.
12. Whoever voluntarily gives himself as a slave to another for a stipulated time, and is called Gheerut.
13. Whoever performs servitude for his subsistence, and is called Bheekut.
14. Whoever, from the desire of possessing a slave girl, becomes a slave, and is called Berbakrut.
15. Whoever of his own accord sells his liberty, and becomes a slave, and is called Bekreet."† [Par. Papers, pp. 7, 306.]
Sir R. Chambers, on the trial of the commander of a Danish trading vessel, for procuring native children, and exporting them as slaves, in 1789, stated the only cases in which slavery was lawful under the Mahomedan Government. — "Infidels, taken prisoners in war, fighting against Mussulmans, were considered the slaves of the captors; and the slavery extended to their children. In cases of famine, publicly declared, it was lawful for farmers to sell their children; and persons of more than fifteen years of age, might sell themselves to obtain a subsistence. But that in these four cases, (the only existing ones under the Mahomedan Government,) the condition of slavery was put under many legal restrictions, and that it was unlawful for a Mussulman to sell his slave. That the exportation of subjects of a Mussulman government to be sold to a state of slavery was unknown; and, he believed, that it was the first time such an offence had been committed under the British flag, and he trusted it would be the last. He wished it to be understood that, if a similar offence should ever unhappily be again tried before the court, the punishment would be more severe."* [Par. Papers on Slavery in India, p. 21.]
The nature of slavery, Hindoo and Mussulman, will appear by the following extract, from the valuable communications to the Bengal Government, of the Magistrate of Bundlecund. This gentleman observes, — "Previously to my submission of the draught of the Regulation directed to be submitted to the court of Nizamut Adawlut, I deem it of essential importance to the elucidation of the subject, to offer a few remarks, on the laws of slavery as they now exist in that part of Hindostan, which it has pleased God to allot to the government of the British nation. For the sake of perspicuity, I shall transcribe the questions put to the Mahomedan and Hindoo law officers officially, for the purpose of procuring a declaration of law on the subject of slavery, according to their respective codes, — insert their answers, and, — offer such remarks as present themselves to my judgment, or as seem applicable to the subject.
Questions put to the Muftee by the Nizamut Adawlut.
First Ques. "What description of slaves are authorized by the Mahomedan law?"
Ans. "All men are by nature free and independent, and no man can he a subject of property, except an infidel inhabiting a country not under the power and control of the faithful. This right of possession which the Moslems have over Hurbus (infidels fighting against the faith) is acquired by Isteela, which means, the entire subduement of any subject of property by force of arms. The original right of property, which one man may possess over another, is to be acquired solely by Isteela, and cannot be obtained in the first instance by purchase, donation, or heritage. When, therefore, an Imaum subdues, by force of arms, any one of the cities inhabited by infidels, such of them as may be taken prisoners become his rightful property, and he has the power of putting them to death or making them slaves, and distributing them as such among the ghazees (victorious soldiers), particularly when fighting against infidels; or he may set them at liberty in a Mussulman country, and levy the capitation tax; should he make them slaves, they become legal subjects of property, and are transferrable by sale, gift, or inheritance. But if, after captivity, they should become converts to the faith (Islam), the power of death over them is thereby barred, though they would continue slaves; for, slavery being the necessary consequence of original infidelity, the subsequent conversion to Islam does not affect the prior state of bondage to which the individual has been regularly rendered liable by Isteela, provided this be clearly established. From this it is evident that the same rules are applicable to the slaves of both sexes. If slaves are afterwards sold, or given away, by the Imaum, or by the ghazees, who shared at the distribution, or if they should become the property of another by inheritance, they then become slaves under the three different classes of purchase, donation, and inheritance.
"If a female should bear offspring, by any other than by her legal lord and master, whether the father be a freeman or a slave, and whether the slave of the said master, or of any other person, in any one of these cases, such offspring is subject to slavery, and these are called khanazad (born in the family); but, if the children be the acknowledged offspring of the right owner, they are then free, and the mother of them (being the parent of a child by her master) becomes, at his decease, free also; and this rule is applicable to all their descendants to the latest posterity. The practice among free men and women of selling their own offspring, during the time of famine, is exceedingly improper and unjustifiable, being in direct opposition to the principle above stated, viz. that no man can be a subject of property, except an infidel taken in the act of hostilities against the faith. In no case can a person, legally free, become a subject of property; and, children not being the property of their parents, all sales or purchases of them, as any other articles of illegal property, are consequently invalid. It is also illegal for any free man to sell his own person, either in time of famine or though he be oppressed by a debt which he is unable to discharge. For in the first of these cases a famished man may feed upon a dead body! or may rob another; and a distressed debtor is not liable to any fine or punishment.
"We are not acquainted with the principal or detailed circumstances, which led to the custom prevailing in most Mussulman countries of purchasing and selling the inhabitants of Zanguibar, Ethiopia, Nubia, and other Negroes: but the ostensible causes are, either that the Negroes sell their own offspring, or that Mussulman or other tribes of people take them prisoners by fraud, or seize them by stealth from the sea shores. In such cases, they are not legally slaves, and the sale and purchase of them are consequently invalid. But if a Mussulman army, by order of an Imaum, should invade their country, and make them prisoners of war by force of arms, they are then legal slaves; provided that such Negroes are inhabitants of a country under the government of Infidels, and in which a Mussulman is not entitled to receive the full benefit and protection of his own laws. With regard to the custom, prevailing in this country, of hiring children from their parents, for a very considerable period, such as for seventy or eighty years, and under this pretext making them slaves, as well as their produce also, under the denomination of kharazad (domestic slaves), the following laws are applicable; — It is lawful and proper for parents to hire out their children on service, but this contract of hire becomes null and void when the child arrives at the years of discretion, as the right of parentage then ceases. A free man, who has reached the years of discretion, may enter into a contract to serve another, but not for any great length of time, such as for seventy years; as this also is a mere pretext, and has the same object of slavery in view, whereas the said free man has the option of dissolving any contract of hire under either of the following circumstances: — It is the custom, in contracts of this nature, for a person hired on service to receive a compensation in money, clothes, and food, as the price of hire; any day therefore that a servant receives such a compensation, he is in duty bound to serve for that day, but not otherwise. The condition of contract of hire requires that the return of profit be equal to the price of hire, and this cannot be ascertained but by degrees, and in course of time. The contract of hire, therefore, becomes complete, or fulfilled according to the services or benefit actually rendered in return for the price of hire received, and the person hired has consequently the option of dissolving the contract at any moment of the period originally agreed for.
"It is unavoidable and actually necessary in contracts of a different nature, such as in rent of land, &c., that the lessee should not have this power; but reverting to contracts of hire for service for a long period, the nefarious practices of subjecting free men to a state of bondage, under this pretence, it appears expedient to provide against such abuses; and with this view to restrict the period for service in all contracts of hired freemen to a month, one year, or the utmost to three years, as in cases of Ijanawugh, a form of endowment. It is customary also among the Zanane Towaf, (women who keep sets of dancing girls,) to purchase female free children from their parents, or by engagements directly with the children themselves; exclusively of the illegality of such purchases, there is a further evil resulting from this practice, which is, the children are taught dancing and singing for others, and are also made prostitutes, which are extremely improper, and expressly forbidden by the law."
Remarks. — "From the reply it is evident that, by the Mussulman law, no man can have the right of property over another human being except a Mussulman, and even he can acquire that right over an infidel only, inhabiting a country not under the power and control of the faithful; and that this right, which Mussulmans have over infidels fighting against the faith, is acquirable by Isteela, which means the entire subduement of any subject of property by force of arms; the right of property, therefore, which one man may possess over another, is to be acquired, in the first instance, by Isteela. It follows that all persons in a state of bondage, over whom the right of property has not been obtained by Isteela, or the offspring of parents over whom the above right was not acquired, are, by the Mussulman law, free; and that it is the duty of the Hakim, respecting persons claiming their freedom, over whom the right of property derived from Isteela cannot be legally established or traced, to declare such persons of either sex free by a legal recorded decision, which shall secure to them the future enjoyment of that freedom.
"Slaves sold or given away by the Imaum, or the ghazee (conquerors or victorious troops) who shared at the distribution, or if afterwards they become the property of another by inheritance, continue slaves under the different rights of purchase, donation, and heirship. It appears by the Mussulman law that the offspring of a female slave, whether by a free man or slave of any description, except by her master, such offsprings are slaves, and are called khanazad (born in the family). If, however, the offspring shall be acknowledged by the master, they shall be free, and the mother also, at the death of her owner, becomes free; and this also emancipates their descendants to the latest posterity. It may be inferred from the provision here noticed, &c., that, to entitle the child to freedom, and the mother to emancipation, on the death of her lord, his acknowledgement, and that he is the father, the offspring of the slave is necessary to give the law force. Here the principles pursued by European legislation are reversed, and there are many obvious motives that may induce the owner to deny his being the father of the child.
"It is declared by the Mussulman law, as here developed, that a free man cannot sell his own person. The law officer here states his unacquaintance with the circumstances which led to the prevalence of the custom in most Mussulman countries, of purchasing and selling the inhabitants of Zanguibar, Ethiopia, Nubia, and other Negroes: they are evidently not legally slaves by the Mussulman law.
"A free man arrived at the years of discretion, may contract to serve for a reasonable, not a great length of time, such as seventy years; but it is here stated, that the said free man, so contracting, is to receive a compensation, and is compelled to serve for that day for which he has received compensation, but not otherwise; the person hired has consequently the option of dissolving the contract at any moment of the period originally agreed for. It is observable, that this is contrary to the nature of all contracts, which are, or ought to be, specific and mutual; but the Mussulman law assigns reasons, in the subsequent paragraph of the answer on which I am remarking, explanatory of the causes which render this contract different from others, such as rents, &c., where the lessee has not this power, and those reasons are more enlightened, and shew a greater anxiety for the personal liberty of the individual, than is commonly to be found among the laws of Mahomed.
"Here is stated a custom existing amongst the Zanane Towaf, (women who keep sets of dancing girls,) of purchasing female free born children from their parents or others, or making engagements with the children themselves, to be taught the practice of dancing and singing for others, and also for the purpose of being made prostitutes, which are allowed to be extremely improper and expressly forbidden by the law. The extent of the above evil would be best ascertained by a few appropriate queries put to the several magistrates, but more especially to those of the large cities; the result would at once open the eyes of government to an evil which loudly calls for the interference of the Legislature, on every principle of humanity, morals, and policy."
Second Ques. "What legal powers are the owners of slaves allowed to exercise upon the persons of their slaves, and particularly of their female slaves?"
Ans. "The rightful proprietor of male and female slaves has a claim to the services of such slaves to the extent of their ability. He may employ them in baking, cooking, in making, dyeing, and washing clothes; as agents in mercantile transactions; in attending cattle, in tillage, or cultivation; as carpenters, ironmongers, and goldsmiths; in transcribing; as weavers, and in manufacturing woollen cloths; as shoemakers, boatmen, twisters of silk, water drawers; in shaving; in performing surgical operations, such as cupping, &c.; as farriers, bricklayers, and the like; and he may hire them out on service in any of the above capacities; he may also employ them himself, or for the use of his family in other duties of a domestic nature, such as in fetching water for washing on evazoo (religious purification), or anointing his body with oil, rubbing his feet, or attending his person while dressing, and in guarding the door of his house, &c. He may also have connexion with his legal female slave, provided she is arrived at the years of maturity, and the master or proprietor has not previously given her in marriage to another."
"There is nothing objectionable in the duties here stated to be lawfully demandable from slaves of both sexes. The obvious immorality, and the great impolicy and inhumanity of the licentious authority stated in this answer, requires no comment. The law officer, although he has stated in part the truth, has not embraced the whole truth: the Islamite has the power, by the Mussulman law, of exercising, with his female slaves, licentious intercourse, at the mention of which modesty recedes with blushes and humanity shrinks with horror!"
Third Ques. "What offences upon the persons of slaves, and particularly of female slaves, committed by their owners or by others, are legally punishable, and in what manner?"
Ans. "If a master oppress his slave by employing him on any duty beyond his ability, such as insisting upon his carrying a load which he is incapable of bearing, or climbing a tree which he cannot, the Hakim or ruling power may chastise him. It is also improper for a master to order his slave to do that which is forbidden by the law, such as putting an innocent person to death, setting fire to a house, tearing the clothes off another, or prostituting himself by adultery and fornication; to steal or drink spirits, or to slander and abuse the chaste and virtuous; and, if a master be guilty of such like oppressions, the Hakim may inflict exemplary punishment by Fazir and Ucqubut Shukool Allah, literally, the right of God, and meaning on principles of public justice.
"It is further unlawful for a master to punish his male or female slave for disrespectful conduct, and such like offences, further than by sadeeb (slight correction), as the power of passing sentence of tazeer and gizes is solely vested in the Hakim. If, therefore, the master should exceed the limits of his power of chastisement, above stated, he is liable to tazeer. If a master should have connexion with his female slave, before she has arrived at the years of maturity, and, if the female slave should in consequence be seriously injured, or should die, the ruling power may punish him by tazeer and Uqubut Hagool Jillah, as before defined."
"It will be allowed, that the spirit which enumerates and limits the employments which a master is hereby forbidden to extort from his slaves, under the penalty of being liable to exemplary punishment by the Hakim, on principles of public justice, is humane and proper, and might be sufficient for the purpose of good order and government, were it possible that the spirit of the law could be carried into effect. To any man acquainted with the manners and customs of the natives, no argument is necessary to prove that the reverse is the case. It is hardly necessary to remark on the degree of suffering that an illiterate, wretched, and desponding slave will submit to from his lord, whom, from infancy perhaps, be has been accustomed to look upon, with trembling anxiety, as the sole arbiter of his fate, upon whose pleasure all the little happiness, or rather the absence of misery, which he hopes to experience, entirely depends. Is it likely that a slave under such circumstances should dare to apply to the ruling power for redress?
"If a master, excited by lust, unrestrained by shame, or by habit, shall have connexion with a female slave before she has arrived at the years of maturity, if the female slave should in consequence be severely injured or die, what is the consequence? The ruling power may punish him as before defined. Shall a British government sanction so horrid a law?"
Fourth Ques. "Are slaves entitled to emancipation upon any and what maltreatment, and may the courts of justice adjudge their emancipation upon the proof of such maltreatment? In particular, may such judgment be passed upon proof that a female slave has, during her minority, been prostituted by her master or mistress, or that any attempt of violence has been made by her owner?"
Ans. "If the master of male or female slaves should tyrannize over them by treating them unjustly, stinting them in food, or imposing upon them duties of an oppressive nature; or if a master should have connexion with his slave girl before she has arrived at the years of maturity, or should give her in marriage to another, with permission to cohabit with her in this state, such master sins against the divine laws, and the ruling power may punish him; but, the commission of such crimes by the master does not authorize the manumission of the slave, nor has the Hakim any right or authority to grant emancipation. Adverting to the principle upon which the legality of slavery is originally established, viz. that the subject of property must be an infidel, and taken in the act of hostilities against the faith; and also to the several branches of legal slavery arising from this principle, as by purchase, donation, inheritance, and khanazadee; whenever a case of possession of an unlawful male or female slave should be referred to the Hakim for investigation, it is the duty of the Hakim to pass an order, according to the original right of freedom of such individual, to deprive the unjust proprietor of possession, and to grant immediate emancipation to the slave.
(Signed and sealed)
Soorajoddeen Ullee
Mahomed Rashed"
"The purport of this question is, whether on any and what maltreatment a slave is entitled to emancipation on proof, and whether the courts of justice are entitled to pass such judgment, particularly on females prostituted by their master or mistress during their minority, or on any attempt of violence being made. From the reply to this question, it appears that acts of oppression, and even violation of the person of a female slave, before she is at the years of maturity, by the master, or the crime of giving her at that age in marriage, are declared, as they truly are, crimes against the divine laws, and the ruling power may punish by stripes; but it is to be observed that, by the Mussulman law, the commission of these crimes by the owner does not entitle the wretched slave to manumission, nor has the ruling power a right to grant her emancipation!!
"Humanity, which is shocked at the idea of its being a question whether or not British legislation shall sanction so diabolic a law, under the impressions of horror which every humane mind must feel at the depravity of such inhuman laws, is relieved by the perusal of the next sentence. Adverting to the principle upon which the legality of slavery is originally established, viz. the subject of property must be an infidel, taken in the act of hostilities against the faith; and also to the several branches of legal slavery which shoot from this root or principle, — purchase, donation, inheritance, and khanazeed; whenever a case of possession of an unlawful male or female slave, that is to say, who is not himself or herself under the original description of an infidel taken in the act of hostilities against the faithful under an Imaum, or descended from a person of the above description, over whom the right of property has not been obtained by one of the modes described, shall come before the ruling power, to pass an order according to the original right of freedom of such individual, and to deprive the unjust proprietor of possession, and to grant an immediate emancipation."
Similar questions put to the Hindoo Pundit by the Nizamut Adawlut.
First Ques. Ans. "There are fifteen different sorts of male and female slaves." See p. 285, in this Volume.
Remarks. — "Of the injustice and unreasonableness of the whole of the description of slaves sanctioned by the Hindoo law on the acknowledged principles of natural freedom, or on principles of expediency and humanity, few I conceive will doubt; and to enter into argument to prove this self-evident perversion of the laws of nature and of God, written in the hearts of all enlightened men, would be a waste of intellect. I am confident such wide-spread degradation of the human race can never be authorized by an enlightened British Government."
Second Ques. Ans. "The owner of a male or female slave may require of such slave the performance of impure work, such as plastering and sweeping the house, cleaning the door, gateway, and necessary; rubbing his master's naked body, bunudome nehanu, with oil, and clothing him; removing fragments of victuals left at his master's table, and eating them; removing urine and human ordure; rubbing his master's feet and other limbs, &c. In cases of disobedience or fault committed by the slave, the master has power to beat his slave with a thin stick, or to bind him with a rope: and, if he should consider the slave deserving of severe punishment, he may pull his hair or expose him upon an ass; but, if the master should exceed this extent of his authority, and inflict punishment upon his slave of a severer nature than above stated, he is liable to pay a fine to the Hakim or ruling power, of a thousand puns of khar mahozrens, eight thousand cowries. This is declared by Menu, according to Patnakar Behbad, Chinta, Munnie, and other authorities."
"The facility and impunity with which power can tyrannize over a wretch in a state of bondage and absolute dependence is evident; and what is the punishment if, against all chance or hope, the tyrant is brought to trial, and even to conviction? A pecuniary fine!
Third Ques. Ans. "A master has no right to command his male or female slave to perform any other duties besides those specified in the answer to the second question, or authority to punish his slave further than in the manner before stated; and if he should exceed this discretionary power, in either case, he is liable to the same penalty, viz. one thousand puns of cowries. This is declared by Menu and Beshie."
Fourth Ques. Ans. "The commission of offences, of the above nature by the master, does not affect the state of the slave; and the ruling power has not the right of granting his manumission; but if it should be established in evidence, before the Hakim, that any person having stolen or inveigled away, a child or slave, had afterwards sold him to another, or that any person had compelled another into a state of slavery by violence, the ruling power may then order the emancipation of such child or slave; and if a master, or any other person by permission of the master, should cohabit with a slave girl before she has arrived at the years of maturity, and this fact be proved, the ruling power may sentence such offender to pay a fine of fifty puns of cowries, but cannot emancipate the slave girl!
"Whenever a slave girl has borne a child by her master, such slave, together with the child, becomes free, and the ruling power should sanction their emancipation.
"This is the law declared by Jak Bulk Mannoo and Kutoobun, according to Mittuchora and other authorities.
(Signed) Chattoor Bhooj Necarutun
Chiterput Oapadhea"
"It does not appear that the commission of any, or all of the offences supposed in the fourth question, affect the state of bondage in the sufferings of the wretched slave, nor by the Hindoo law has the ruling power the authority of emancipating the injured bondsman, even under all the above maltreatment; but a treacherous inveigling away of a child and selling it as a slave, or subjecting to slavery by violence, are declared illegal, and the ruling power may emancipate such child or slave. Should however a master, or any other by permission of the owner, cohabit with a slave girl before she has arrived at the years of maturity, and the fact be proved, the ruling power may sentence the offender to fifty puns of cowries. Here a crime, most monstrous, by which the laws of nature are outraged, is punishable by a pecuniary fine! I suppose for the benefit of the ruling power."
"The foregoing being the Mussulman law, as expounded by the law officers, and the Mussulman law being that by which we govern in cases of life and limb, surely it ought to be extended to personal freedom; for from personal freedom alone can life or limb, the first gifts of nature, acquire their due value. The foregoing, I think, will be admitted, and investigation will render it evident, that at the present moment, of the many thousands male and female slaves held in bondage in the Company's dominions, and subject to the grossest usage, prostitution, and every other depravity, under the pretence of slavery being sanctioned by the Mussulman law, not a single man or woman exists, to whom the right of property, on the principle laid down by that law, can possibly be established! The mode, therefore, of remedying the gross evils that exist, is as easy as it is obvious. Enforce the spirit and letter of the Mussulman law as it applies to slaves, and as far as that portion of the inhabitants of our Indian possessions are concerned, you remedy the evil, and give the blessing of liberty to thousands, without infringing a particle of the Mahomedan religion; on the contrary, so far as this regulation is connected with the Mussulman religion, you only check a licentious deviation from the principles of law and religion on the point in question."* [Par. Papers on Slavery in India, pp. 309-317.]
The practice of kidnapping children, for the purpose of selling them as slaves, appears to have been very prevalent in various parts of India. Respecting a case of this kind at Midnapore, on the borders of Orissa, in 1794, the Magistrate. R. Bathurst, Esq., thus expressed his indignation of the crime. — "To that part of the futwa which respects Shazaddee, equity and humanity alike prompt me to object in the strongest terms. Her crime is of a nature to break asunder the tenderest ties, and to consign its innocent victims, either rudely torn, or cruelly seduced front their parents' home, to hopeless slavery, to experience in the course of it, too probably, no wages but stripes, no relief but death. Such is the complexion of her guilt. What says the futwa, which, regulated by Mussulman justice, weighs, it would seem, in the same scale of moral turpitude, the stealing of a cur dog and the kidnapping of a child? Thirty-five strokes with a rattan and four months confinement, which if changed to hard labour and imprisonment for life, although still disproportioned to the extent of her offence, might, perhaps, operate to deter others from the practice of similar enormities."* [Par. Papers, p. 52. Sec also pp. 242, 243.]