1st February 2008 marks the 173rd anniversary of the abolition of slavery in Mauritius. It is a day of deep reflection on important universal values such as individual freedom, human rights and equality for all human beings. It is also a special day when the resistance of the slaves against oppression and their struggle for freedom is being commemorated by Mauritians. Until recently in Mauritian historiography, an important aspect of their struggle has been largely ignored, specifically the acts of collective resistance by the Mauritian slaves during the last six years of colonial slavery in our country.

<B>The Protector of Slaves </B>

The existence of collective resistance or ?group resistance? by Mauritian slaves can clearly be seen in the records emanating from the 1820s and 1830s which are located at the Mauritius Archives. In 1829, Roger Thomas arrived in British Mauritius as the newly appointed Protector of Slaves as part of the British amelioration measures to reform slavery in the colony. Some of the major functions of this new colonial official were to record the complaints lodged by the slaves against their masters and safeguard the interests and rights of the Mauritian slaves.

Between March 1829 and September 1831, the reports and complaint books of the Protector of Slaves and his assistants indicate that there were 18 cases where groups of slaves filed complaints against their masters, estate managers and commandeurs. In April 1831, while reviewing some of the cases of group resistance or collective resistance by Mauritian slaves from the first three reports of the Protector of Slaves for the period between March 1829 and June 1830, Lord Viscount Goderich, the Secretary of State for the Colonies in London, observed: ?The Protector indeed has asserted in his Reports that a conspiracy and spirit insubordination existed among some of the rural slaves.?

<B>Collective Resistance </B>

In September 1831, some of the leading Franco-Mauritian sugar planters and slave owners sent a common letter to Governor Colville in which they stated that there was a proliferation in violent acts of resistance such as arson by large groups of slaves as well as non-violent acts of collective resistance such as work stoppage, go-slows and filing complaints with the Protector of Slaves against their masters and estate managers. Most of these acts were committed by field slaves who worked on the large sugar plantations.

This fact is clearly seen in the slave complaints which were meticulously recorded by the office of the Protector of Slaves in Port Louis. After all, between March 1829 and January 1835, there were a total of 42 cases of collective resistance each one involving anywhere from 3 to 69 slaves. These cases represent around 4% of the more than 1,060 cases which were recorded and dealt with by Protector and his assistants.

It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of these cases involved slaves or field labourers who worked and lived on some of the sugar estates of Mauritius. These bonded servile workers frequently lodged complaints with the Protector of Slaves against their owners, the estate managers and their commandeurs. Some of the case-studies from the Mauritius Archives present credible historical evidence of this important type of struggle by the Mauritian slaves.

<B>A Case-Study</B>

The case of the slaves from Wolmar Sugar Estate highlights this fact. In November 1829, a large group of 69 slaves belonging to Mr. Brue, the owner of Wolmar Sugar Estate in Black River district, showed up at the office of Protector Thomas to lodge a complaint against their master and two estate managers, Mr. Osurghren and Mr. Porte. Due to the fact that the slaves were in an agitated state, Thomas explained to them, through the intervention of his free coloured translator, that only seven slaves would remain behind to provide details about their complaints while the rest would have to return to their master?s estate under police escort.

The slaves unanimously chose Egisse and Porphire, the two slave commandeurs of Wolmar Estate, as well as Suzanne, Berenice, Francoeur, Cololas, and Clement. Unfortunately, shortly after cross-examining the slaves and a brief visit to the sugar estate, the Protector of Slaves dismissed the case and the seven slaves who stayed behind to speak on behalf of their comrades were punished.

During the last week of December 1829, in his second report as Protector of Slaves, while commenting on five cases of collective resistance by plantation slaves in some of the colony?s rural districts, in particular the one on Wolmar Sugar Estate, Thomas observed:

?...in the Wolmar case, the spirit of collective insubordination and conspiracy that existed among the plantation slaves could not be overlooked.?

<B> The Significance of Resistance</B>

Between 1829 and 1835, when large groups of rural slaves deserted the sugar estates of their owners to lodge complaints with the Protector of Slaves, especially during the sugar harvest season, sugar production came to a halt for more two days on those plantations. After all, through their acts of collective resistance, the Mauritian slaves temporarily removed themselves from the production process of the sugar estates and as a result, denied their masters their valuable labour as well as time and money.

It becomes obvious that during the last years of slavery, collective resistance by Mauritian slaves was a direct and open challenge by those in bondage which was directed at their oppressors who formed part of the elite of the local colonial society such as the sugar planters and estate managers. This fact is echoed by Anthony J. Barker, an Australian slave historian, who emphasized that during the last six years of colonial slavery in Mauritius: ?Insolence and resistance to work demands became more challenging when several slaves were involved, rather than isolated individuals? The challenges in these cases were not simply to individual owners but to the whole society.?

It is evident that the Mauritian slaves understood the importance of organized resistance against oppression, freedom, individual rights and respect for human dignity. Therefore, each 1st February, it is their noble struggle and determined resistance against an inhumane and racist system which is being remembered and honored by the citizens of our country.

<B> Satyendra PEERTHUM</B>