The disposable jewel in the crown of the British Empire
-
The imperial project above all was an economic project, so much is obvious. However, when we think about imperialism and colonialism, we tend to imagine the idea of resource extraction in which the colonizer extracts whatever resources (taxes, agricultural or other raw products etc.) from the colonized (land or people) and uses it for its own benefit/enrichment in whatever way possible. The case of ayahs and lascars is pretty much the same.
However, when labour (instead of other resources) is transposed away from the colonized land, it tends to manifest something else. It When contented with the dog-eat-dog world of the capitalistic imperial project, ayahs and lascars became disposable just like a piece of machinery in a factory. So, when their utility ran its course, they were to be disposed. But once transplanted in a strange environment where they lacked connections of patronage and kinship, ayahs and lascars would obviously find it difficult to get by. So far this only tells us about the capitalistic nature of the imperial project and, by extension, of the industrializing world. By the way, same fate of disposability would apply to the any British worker too.
However, what to do when the disposable people become a burden on the society and, even worse, on the Company? The Company was reluctant to use its profits for the re-patriation of these destitute Indians (Visram, 20). On the other hand, Sir. Gerald Fitzgerald argued that it was a zero-sum game to shelter these Indians since they couldn’t get by themselves, but also wouldn’t be returned home (26). I am not sure how helpless and unenterprising these Indians were, but this attitude still shows the burden that was felt by the British. Therefore, the game of passing the buck ensued between different authorities. Who ought to take responsibility of these Indians who had served their purpose? Perhaps the most outrageous part is that while the Company or the India office was unwilling to use its revenue from India to repatriate the Indians, it was much more willing repatriate British men using Indian taxpayers’ money (26-27).
So, when the matter of disposability of this labour (or any labour) came into play along with the element of race, results were different. Gilliat, Ray and Mellor mention that once the War ended and Welsh men returned back home, the disposability of labour based on race became much more visible (455). So as much as one’s race would determine one’s disposability as labour, one’s position at the bottom of labour hierarchy was also informed by the racial characterizations such as being able to tolerate heat better and thus, confined to the coal room on ships. This also meant that once the developments like the Suez Canal, better steam engines and better British naval control happened, the first ones to be disposed of were the lascars (Seddon, 64).
Once again, I want to point out that in the grand scheme of the capitalist project, any labour that could be cut out would have been cut out. However, the position of the lascars and ayahs as un-protected, under-valued and racialized labour meant that they were the first and the easiest to be disposed of. Perhaps that was premonitory what was to happen after the Second World war…. the Crown Jewel of the British Empire was to be disposed of unceremoniously and without a sense of responsibility. Although, they never gave back Koh-i-Noor.