3071-The political economy of new slavery

Krishna Upadhyaya 125
and remain indebted, as they scarcely manage to repay all that has been
borrowed. Some may achieve this, but this leaves them short of food
and cash for daily necessities. They are then forced back to peshgi –
working for masters. The cycle of debt-bondage continues.
The masters, not surprisingly, deny that their share-croppers are
bonded labourers. They argue that they are share-croppers and tenants.
They are not, therefore, labourers, and certainly not bonded labourers.
They argue that share-croppers take loans for their household needs,
pay with crops or cash and, therefore, are not ‘bonded’. One needs to
see how the loan works in such a situation and the way in which it ties
share-croppers to till the masters’ lands, paying by means of whatever
they produce.
The zamindars arbitrarily fix the price of the produce and decide which
loan is to be repaid. This system provides a continuous labour force
and indirectly compels them to work for the masters until the loan is
cleared. They remain in debt for an indefinite period. The only benefit
accrues to the masters: they do not need to manage the labourers and
the land, and receive the yield without any hassle.
The bonded labourers in share-cropping in lower Sindh, known as
haris, are minority Hindus and Bhills. Both are termed ‘Indians’ and
are not registered as tenants. This makes them more vulnerable to
exploitation, as they cannot claim tenancy over land. These bonded
labourers are in a worse bargaining position in relation to the zamindars
than Muslim share-croppers in other regions. In southern Punjab, sharecroppers
are mainly Muslim and the practice is not as abusive as in
Sindh. Since a debt applies to a whole family, children are heavily
involved in the work of share-cropping.
Agriculture in Nepal also involves bonded labour. Comparable to the
situation in Sindh, bonded labour in agriculture exists in the five districts
of western Nepal – Dang, Banke, Bardia, Kailali and Kanchanpur.
The origins are in the Tharu practice of kamaiya. For generations, the
traditional arrangement among rich and poor Tharu was a patron–client
relationship, which was relatively non-abusive. It is said that initially
this was practised among relations within Tharu households. The lender
would agree with the person receiving the loan that the latter would
repay the loan in the form of work. Often, the members of small landholding
families would enter into such a contract for a fixed period.
The change to that essentially social and non-abusive indigenous
practice developed after the influx of hill communities to the western
plains of Nepal during 1960s. More land was cleared, new settlements
were created, and agriculture became a profit-making enterprise, rather