Skip to main content

  • HOME
  • CURRENT CONTENT
  • ALL CONTENT
  • SUBMIT
  • ABOUT
    • Journal
    • Editorial
  • INFO FOR
    • Librarians
    • Authors
    • Reprints and Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Subscriptions and Single Issues
  • MORE
    • Alerts
    • Contact Us

  • Login

  • Advanced search

  • Login
Advanced Search
  • HOME
  • CURRENT CONTENT
  • ALL CONTENT
  • SUBMIT
  • ABOUT
    • Journal
    • Editorial
  • INFO FOR
    • Librarians
    • Authors
    • Reprints and Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Subscriptions and Single Issues
  • MORE
    • Alerts
    • Contact Us
Pacific Historical Review

  • Articles
The Protector, Plantocracy, and Indentured Labour in Natal, 1860–1911
Goolam Vahed
Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 87 No. 1, Winter 2018; (pp. 101-127) DOI: 10.1525/phr.2018.87.1.101
Goolam Vahed
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • View author's works on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Between 1860 and 1911, a total of 152,641 Indian indentured workers arrived in the then British Colony of Natal. The first group of workers who returned home in 1871 complained of ill-treatment and abuse by employers and the Indian government refused to sanction further allotments of labourers until the Natal government investigated their complaints. The ensuing Coolie Commission of 1872 called for the appointment of a Protector of Indian Immigrants, as one of several recommendations. The Natal Government duly complied as the Colony was desperate for labour. Such officials were also appointed in other colonial contexts around this time. Instances of worker abuse, however, continued throughout the period of indenture in Natal, notwithstanding some observers’ claim that the appointment of a Protector was a watershed moment for bonded labour. It appears that the vastness of the area under the Protector’s jurisdiction and the enormous power of planters made it difficult for Protectors to balance the needs of workers and employers. But workers found creative ways to use the office of the Protector to resist the system; and, on occasion, the abuse was so great that the Protector was forced to intervene publicly to safeguard the rights of workers and the integrity of his office. In focusing on the Protector, this article makes a contribution to the emerging literature on empire that focuses on connections and networks across colonies and the agency and actions of ordinary people.

Keywords:
  • Indenture
  • Coolies
  • Wragg Commission
  • Indian Diaspora
  • Protector
  • Shepstone
  • © 2018 by the Pacific Coast Branch, American Historical Association

Log in using your username and password

Enter your Pacific Historical Review username.
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
Forgot your user name or password?

Log in through your institution

You may be able to gain access using your login credentials for your institution. Contact your library if you do not have a username and password.
If your organization uses OpenAthens, you can log in using your OpenAthens username and password. To check if your institution is supported, please see this list. Contact your library for more details.

PreviousNext
Back to top

Vol. 87 No. 1, Winter 2018

Pacific Historical Review: 87 (1)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
eTOC Alert

RSSRSS Icon

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Pacific Historical Review.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Protector, Plantocracy, and Indentured Labour in Natal, 1860–1911
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Pacific Historical Review
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Pacific Historical Review web site.
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
The Protector, Plantocracy, and Indentured Labour in Natal, 1860–1911
Goolam Vahed
Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 87 No. 1, Winter 2018; (pp. 101-127) DOI: 10.1525/phr.2018.87.1.101
Goolam Vahed
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • View author's works on this site

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
The Protector, Plantocracy, and Indentured Labour in Natal, 1860–1911
Goolam Vahed
Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 87 No. 1, Winter 2018; (pp. 101-127) DOI: 10.1525/phr.2018.87.1.101
Goolam Vahed
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • View author's works on this site
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
View Full Page PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Top
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • “A Cross-Fire between Minorities”
  • Unquestionable Geographies
  • Imagining Women’s Suffrage
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

FIND US Facebook Account LinkRSS Feeds LinkTwitter Account LinkInstagram Account LinkLinkedin Account LinkYoutube Account LinkEmail Link

Customer Service

  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Contact

UC Press

  • About UC Press

Navigate

  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • Editorial
  • Contact

Content

  • Current Issue
  • All Content

Info For

  • Librarians
  • Authors
  • Advertisers
  • Subscriptions and Single Issues

Copyright © 2019 by the Regents of the University of California  Privacy   Accessibility