Seeing them as objects
-
While reading chapter 2 of Rozina Visram’s work, I was asking myself if the situation of lascars and ayahs described in the chapter is more relatable to enslavement or objectification. It’s hard to think about something worse than submitting people to slavery but objectification (the way it’s presented in the text) can be another way of dehumanizing individuals and within that process, people are no longer considered as humans, they become objects. Objects don’t have emotions; they don’t have needs either, we take possession and buy objects and when we own an object, we can do whatever we want with it, when it’s no longer of use, we throw it away. In the title of the chapter, Visram uses the word ‘’chattel’’ to describe the position of ayahs and servants within the British empire. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one of the definitions is ‘’ an item of tangible or intangible personal property’’. Another definition given is ''an enslaved person that is considered property''. I think that by choosing to use the word chattel in the title of the chapter the author wanted us to notice the objectification that ‘’transformed’’ those South Asian migrants into objects and property.
Rozina Visram explains that there were many reasons why British people would bring back Natives when they returned to Britain. The example of William Hickey was shocking to me because he talks about a Bengali boy that he brought to England describing him as ‘’ ‘little pet boy … ‘’ (Visram, 12). Throughout the chapter South Asians and servants of African descent were described with words that would be more appropriate for animals and property.
Also, through my reading, I have noticed that this idea of utilitarianism that was presented by Sara Ahmed in The Promise of Happiness is present in Rozina Visram’s work even though she does not mention it explicitly. In Chapter 2 Ahmed explains that ‘’ Utilitarianism involves the ethical injunction to maximize happiness, as ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number.’ ‘’ (Ahmed, 123) Here I would say that the aim, clearly, was not to maximize the happiness of the greatest number of people but rather to maximize the happiness of the greatest number of white people. Bringing ayahs and servants to Britain was motivated by the wish ‘’ … to recreate the nostalgic splendour of Indian life in England; to minister to the needs of the family and children during the long and arduous sea voyage back ... ‘’ (Visram, 12). And of course, here from the perspective of white people ‘’Indian life’’ was a life where they were served by natives. Also, taking individuals as their ‘’property’’ became accessible for almost anyone and it became a trend ‘’ The trend of bringing servants home to Britain, begun in the time of the East India Company’s rule … and as communications became easier and more families travelled back and forth, so more Indian servants came to England. ‘’ (Visram, 12)
The thing with utilitarianism is that the needs/advantages/happiness of only one group is considered. On one side we have that white British people could live a luxurious life and on the other we have South Asians who were treated like animals and objects, left alone in a country they knew nothing about, without a job, away from their land and living in miserable conditions for that luxurious life to be accessible to white people ‘’ … these Asian servants and ayahs had no security; they were brought over entirely for the convenience of their masters and mistresses… in most cases no contract of employment existed and not even a provision for a return passage was made. Once in England they were discharged and left to fend for themselves … No one thought about what would happen to the Asian servants in the alien environment of Britain while they awaited a reengagement. ‘’ (Visram, 17) It’s not really that no one thought about what would happen to the Asian servants but rather that no one cared about what would happen to them, because they were not considered as humans, they were property to be used around.
Another clear example of utilitarianism is the one of Mrs. Warr of Surrey. She had a servant, and she enjoyed the ‘’services’’ so she proposed that it should be ‘’systematized’’ and asked the India Office to ‘’ send her ‘free of cost’ two or three young women who were willing to be taught domestic service. She would find them employment immediately on their arrival, and if the Indians were found to be capable, she would bring them over by ‘the score and by the hundred before three months elapsed’. The motive for this scheme, it would seem, was not merely hard cash, but philanthropy, as the lady was at pains to point out that ‘I can earn something not only for myself but set going something that will last while England stands and create good feeling as well.’ ‘’ (Visram, 18). Through that example we see that Mrs. Warr of Surrey justification for bringing hundreds of South Asian servants, was to act as a philanthropist and that it would allow England to ‘’save those poor Indians’’ and offer them means to earn their lives. She presents her ‘’project’’ as if she’s looking out for South Asian people out of kindness and generosity. But in reality, it's far from that, it’s about white people acting on their whiteness and thinking that the Other needs to be saved and that they need what England has to offer to live a decent life.