THE EDITOR: According to a newspaper report, Justice Frank Seepersad said "the 'paradise' his indentured Indian ancestors found when they were brought to 'Chinidad' is in peril.'

Really, Justice Seepersad? Our indentured Indian ancestors found 'paradise' when they came to 'Chinidad?'

In this paradise indentured workers were denied the natural freedoms of human beings outside their hours of labour. They were confined to their estates.

Free Indians found it advisable to carry "Certificates of Exemption from Labour" which allowed them free movement; without it they could be jailed.

Indentured labourers could be fined if found off their estates. There were strict vagrancy laws with harsh penalties.

If a worker was absent from his estate for seven consecutive days he could be charged with desertion.

Wages were poor, absenteeism was a criminal offence and workers were fined for minor infractions, just as security officers are treated today. Living conditions were terrible and mortality was high.

These terms and conditions were applied to all indentureds and not just Indian indentureds. It may surprise many to know that, during the indentureship period, beside the 143,000 Indian indentureds there were 2,000 Madeirans (Portuguese), 8,000 Africans and 3,000 Chinese.

A brief review of the academic work done on the history of Indian indentureship should debunk this 'paradise' thesis. Anyway, one man's paradise is another man's purgatory.

GERRY KANGALEE

Rambert Village

The post What paradise, Seepersad? appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.