Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Enslaving spaces

2009; SAGE Publishing; Volume: 46; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1177/001946460904600303

0973-0893

Andrea Major,

Colonial History and Postcolonial Studies

This article explores British attitudes to domestic slavery in the Princely States of Rajputana and Malwa in the nineteenth-century. Working primarily from colonial archives, it analyses British conceptions of the nature of slavery and slave-trading in Rajputana, making compari-sons between this and their perception of slavery in its wider Indian and transatlantic contexts in order to analyse British understandings of Rajput identity, family and gender relations, as well as their conception of the nature and limits of their political and moral influence. It argues that British constructions of ‘benign’ domestic slavery were juxtaposed against concerns about the implications of slave-trading for crime, stability and the integrity of territorial borders, in British and princely India. The article discusses British attempts to persuade Rajput rulers to prohibit and prevent slave-trading and slave-holding in their territories, representing this debate as a point of intersection between ideological imperatives (in this case anti-slavery ideals) and political concerns about the nature and limits of acceptable British intervention in the internal affairs of the ‘independent’ states, and demonstrating the degree to which ‘moral’ and practical concerns intertwined in the formation of political dis-course on the limits of British ‘authority’. British attempts to regulate slave-trading on the ground are also explored, and cases brought before the British for the restitution of illegally procured slaves, contained in British Parliamentary Papers and East India Company's Board's Collections and Foreign Department Records, are used to demonstrate the fluid manner in which individuals could move (or be moved) between British and Indian controlled spaces, physically and metaphorically, demonstrating the extent to which the British capacity to both control and even observe was in practice limited, both spatially and ideologically.