Born and brought up in Caernarfon (b. 31 July 1864),
Peter Fraser graduated as a doctor in Edinburgh. He served in Treorci,
Rhondda : Llangefni, Isle of Anglessy and then in Caernarfon as medical
officer. He was chosen to be an elder in his boyhood church- the Castle Square
Presbyterian Church, Caernarfon and ordained at Llangollen in June 1908. As a
young man, Fraser showed great interest in the activities of Christian youths
and was, in fact, one of the founding members of the YMCA in Caernarfon. As a
man, his main features were gentleness, purity of intention and exceptionally
strong determination which never turned him back from what he thought was
right.
Dr Peter Fraser accompanied by his wife Mary C. Fraser
and Watkin Roberts, once attended the annual Keswick Convention in London in
1905. Having experienced a great spiritual change at the Convention, Fraser
made a solemn decision to go to India as a missionary. The Welsh Calvinistic
Foreign Mission Society with its headquarters at Liverpool had deputed him to
join its missionary Rev. D.E. Jones at Aizawl, Mizoram as a medical missionary
in 1907.
Few missionaries dared to raise their fingers at the
British officials for the latter’s wrong-doings or for condoning certain evil
practices in native societies. Because almost
all the missionary societies got state endowment in terms of financial
grants which greatly curtailed their freedom in matters of religion and
conscience. Peter Fraser was, however, an exception. He had the guts to question the wisdom or unwisdom of the official policy
which he saw in operation around.
One such specific issue which Peter Fraser took up with
the local officials in Mizoram was what is popularly known as the bawi
system. The conflict arose over the interpretation of the term bawi which
was translated by J.H. Lorrain (the pioneer missionary of the Arthington
Aborigines Mission Society to Mizoram) in his Lushai Dictionary as slave or
retainer. Fraser was also of the same view that the bawis were real
slaves though slightly different from the slaves in other countries. Whereas
the local officials contended that the bawis were simply paupers or
criminals who took refuge in a chief’s house and lived as members, not
slaves, of the chief’s family. To understand the controversy better, a brief
review of the historical development of the institution of bawi with its
socio-economic base is necessary.
Broadly, bawis could be divided into two
categories : captive bawis who were taken as war captives during
inter-tribal war ; and voluntary bawis who were driven to take
refuge in a chief’s house because of poverty or those criminals like murderers or
adulterers who embraced the middle post of a chief’s house to avoid vengeance.
With the improvement of law and order situation in Northeast India as a result
of the stabilisation of British rule, there was no more inter-tribal war or
head-hunting and therefore there were no more captive bawis in tribal
societies. The controversy arose over the second category of the non-captive bawis.
The non-captive bawi had to work for his master (chief) according to his
capacity throughout his life. Of course he shared all the comforts and
perquisites common to most chief’s establishments .This is one side of the
picture. The other side is that there was a social stigma on bawis. Bawiship
was inheritable. Even after his separation from his master’s house he continued
to be known as his old master’s bawi and all the children born of such bawis
also became bawis automatically, a position which implied a sense of
physical surrender without choice, the acceptance of liability with no part in
its creation. At most a bawi could
change his master but his liability remained the same. In the past there was no
question of freeing the bawi because he had the additional value for his
master as it was believed that the service of a
bawi was extended to life after death. Fraser’s contention is
that the bawi in Mizo and other tribal societies in Northeast India was
not different from those slaves in other societies.
Prompted solely by conscience and moral courage, Fraser
assumed an uncompromising attitude of hostility towards the system of bawi.
The home directors of the Welsh mission in their circular 18 March 1910 also
wrote thus : « Do not condone slavery in any shape or form, as
we believe it to be contrary to the very essence of Christianity and British
law, and if it be proved that slavery is a part and parcel of the bawi
system, that part of it should, in our opinion, be abolished at the earliest
moment ». Since the bawi could not gain freedom, the only
possibility of the bawi being freed was to pay a ransom money of Rs.40/-
or one wild buffalo to his master concerned. Emboldened by the above circular,
Fraser thus spearheaded the campaign and began to put pressure on the local
officials for the abolition of the bawi system as soon as possible.
Over-enthusiastic, Fraser actually did free about 40 bawis at his own
instance. But the moment a large number of bawis sought his help to
secure their freedom Fraser again felt incumbent upon him to ask the government
to direct that an enquiry be made into the whole matter with the object of
proclaiming all the bawis free, and of providing compensation to the
chiefs. It was at this stage that the controversy assumed a crucial dimension.
Acting
on Cole’s (Political Superintendent of Mizoram) report, B.C. Allen, secretary
to the government of Eastern Bengal and Assam, argued that Fraser’s propaganda
had been productive of the greatest discontent and that his course of action,
if not checked, might result in a general uprising in the hills. He further
emphatically observed that it was not for the missionary to dictate which
tribal customs should or should not be recognised, but it was for the
superintendent who was responsible for the peace of the hills to decide whether
the time was ripe for any change. The government had thus two options before
them : either to concede to the abolition of the bawi system or to
take the extreme step of restricting the movement of the missionary on the
pretext of preserving public peace in the hills. Obsessed with fear, Cole, the
superintendent thus pressurised Fraser either to undertake that during his
future presence in the hills he should confine himself entirely to religious work and medical works
and refer all secular matters to the officials failing which he had to leave
the hills for good. To this Fraser retorted : « ...when the
territory comes under the British flag, slavery has to be abolished and all
slaves set free. I cannot surrender the right to take action against an evil,
even though it be an established custom and policy ».
D.E. Jones, the colleague of Fraser, was also of the view
that the influence of Christian missionary throughout the world, not to speak
of Mizoram alone, was against the abuses whether permitted by government or
not. When threatened that if the Welsh
mission would not work conjointly with the government, Cole warned that he
would call another mission to take up the work in their stead, D.E. Jones
became nervous. In the meantime, R.J. Williams, secretary of the Welsh mission
at Liverpool, on the pressure of the governor of Eastern Bengal and Assam, then
appealed to Fraser that the latter should be agreeable to the government,
consult his colleagues and never take any independent action on such question
which might affect the relation between mission and government. But Fraser argued
that the great commission included suggestions for sound legislation for the
demolition of existing corrupted structures and for the advancement of
Christian civilisation. More resolute was his wife, Mary C. Fraser who took a
stand that « If my husband signed the proposed agreement he will be
betraying Jesus ». Ultimately Fraser was thus expelled from Mizoram.
Fraser did not, however, remain silent on the issue. He
decided to take personal action by mobilising the Anti-Slavery Society in
Britain and the British public against the bawi system in Mizoram and
other parts of Northeast India. He also submitted a memorandum signed by his
wife and Watkin Roberts to His Majesty King George V urging his immediate
intervention in the matter. In the meantime, he also got the issue raised
through his friend John Gardine, Member of Parliament, in the House of Commons
on 12 June 1913. In his reply to Gardine’s question, Montague, under secretary
of state for India, said that the government had endorsed the action taken by
the political superintendent in Mizoram in banishing P. Fraser whose
conduct, according to the local
officials, was likely to provoke an armed uprising with its punitive
consequences. W.E White in his article in <Indian Witness> on 4 September
1913 made a scathing attack on Fraser’s moral right to oppose the method
of a government. He further argued that even though the government were a very
indifferent one and acquiesced in real slavery and kept the people ignorant and
refused to make laws and roads for the better management and progress of the
people, he thought it to be a doubtful procedure for a religious teacher to
interfere in politics.
But because of Fraser’s consistent pressure both upon
British government and the government of British India, the local officials
were finally instructed to arrive at
some basic principles in regard to the bawi system : first, the use
of the bawi should, as far as possible, be discontinued ; secondly,
claims for bawi-man (ransom-money) should be treated exactly like the
claims which any Mizo, not a chief, might advance against any persons to whom
he had given board and lodging ; thirdly, claims against any one family of
bawi should not exceed Rs.40/- ; fourthly, it should be widely made
known that it was not open to a chief to take back forcibly any bawi who
had left his service, the only admissible course being for him to apply to the
courts, and ask to have his claim for compensation decreed. It was also laid
down that any bawi discontented with his lot was free either to leave
the service of his master or to appeal to the courts to record an order that he
was no longer a bawi ; and
fifthly, no distinction be made between the chiefs and ordinary people.
Reiterating these principles, Austen Chamberland, secretary of state for India,
in his letter to the governor-in-council, 29 October 1915 made it clear that
the policy of British government could no longer countenance the existence of
slavery within its borders and stressed that the sole purpose of the government
of India and of the local governments was to ensure speedy termination of all
practices that in varying degrees approximate to slavery. What Austin
Chamberland wanted to convey, in short, was the effectual suppression of
slavery, wherever they existed within the frontiers of India.
In the light of these
instructions, the government of Assam began to examine the general question of
suppression of customs approximating to slavery not only in Mizoram but also in
other regions of the frontier of Assam. B.C. Allen’s findings confirmed beyond
doubt that there were practices or customs which had the tinge of slavery in
the regularly administered as well as the unadministered areas of the province
of Assam. He then assured the government of India that he would do everything
in his power to discourage the practice even to the extent of paying
compensation to the concerned slave-owners.
As regards to Mizoram, W.Z.
Scott who succeeded Cole as the political superintendent, also had completed
the census of bawis. According to him, the number of families indwelling
bawis was recorded at 316, comprising 476 bawis of whom 119 were
males between the ages of 16 and 60 ; and 357 were women and children. As
regards to outdwelling bawis, the number of houses was 1110 and the
number of heads of families or youngest sons (who inherited their father’s bawiship)
was 1123 of whom 1061 were between the ages 16 and 60. The total number of
families or houses was thus 1426. As a result, the total number of cases in
which the redemption price to be paid was 1626. The figures were of course only
approximate, but were sufficiently accurate to justify an estimate that the
initial expenditure in redeeming all the bawis in the district would be
about sixty five thousand rupees only.
In order to take further action on the issue, the
government of India instructed the government of Assam to submit a deficit
budget to their legislative council in spite of retrenchment and of the
omission of provision for many schemes which were more urgent than this reform
in Mizo hills. In these circumstances, the government of Assam was compelled to
ask the central government to finance the scheme. It should also be noted that
under the influence of Christian teachings, the tendency of chiefs who became Christians
was either to release the bawis altogether or at the worst, to treat
them on an entirely different footing. In freeing his slaves, one Christian
chief wrote thus ; « In the name of Lord Jesus Christ, I free
you from your slavery. In like manner as you are free from me, be freed from
the slavery of sin and believe in Jesus, then you will have eternal
life ». Other Christian chiefs freed their slaves either in the name of
Jesus Christ or King George V.
Overwhelmed and inspired so much by the good news of the
liberation of the slaves, Mizo students studying in Shillong, then capital of
Assam under British rule, sent telegrams to Peter Fraser congratulating him on
his victory. One senior student, Pu Thanga, by the spontaneous inspiration of
the Holy Spirit, composed the following revival hymn to celebrate the historic
event :
WE PRAISE THEE, O LORD
1. We praise thee, indeed, O Lord in the
highest,
Thou
art a Living God and all-powerful Being,
A
friend of despised, helpless slaves and sinners,
And
Lord of the orphans (3), downtrodden and poor.
2. Thou being the Lord who answers all
our prayers,
Thou
providest the needs Thy people ask
for ;
Listen
to Thy childrens’ woeful moans and cries,
And
reward truth seekers (3), doers of good deeds.
3.
Lord, proclaim this truth to the high and lowly,
Let
people and even Thine enemies ask-
« What
should we do now to be saved from
our sin ? »
Let
them all say this, yes,(3), we beseech Thee, Amen.
4. Let the nation rejoice at setting
slaves free,
Give
glory and honour to the Almighty ;
Let
peace descend on whom the good Lord is pleased,
Let them sing Hosanna (3) and sing Hosanna.
5. Let Thy name be honoured amongst all
nations,
Let
Thy kingdom come to us in great glory,
Let
on earth Thy will be done as in heaven,
And
I will say Amen (3) and Thy will be done.
On any joyful occasion,
thanksgiving or revival meetings, the hymn inspires and lifts every believer’s
soul to such sudden spiritual illumination and it may be concluded that Dr
Peter Fraser was indeed a great liberator. As a medical missionary, he
liberated innumerable people from their physical sickness and diseases.
Secondly, because of his ceaseless campaign both in India and Britain,
thousands of slaves had been liberated in Northeast India. Most important,
Fraser had liberated many lost souls from the slavery of sin. On the secular
side, as a result of his bold initiative, Christian missionaries as a whole
dared to assert their rights and influences as citizens of enlightened
communities and formed their own convictions unhindered on government policies
and actions. On the other hand, as government officials began to feel more and
more insecure because of the gradual emergence of national consciousness among
the subject people, they made frantic efforts to enter into closer relationship
with the missionaries.This was so
because they found in no other agency a more helpful partner than in Christian
missionaries. Finally, the last lesson we could perhaps draw from the life and mission of Dr Peter Fraser is that
one individual can change a corrupted
society provided he is ready to make maximum sacrifice. We have been called the
salt of the earth and in the process of
salting the earth and society, we have
to give maximum price without counting the cost.
References :
1. Foreign Department, External Affairs Proceedings,
September,1911 Nos.5-21.
2.
Rochunga Pudaite,
The Education of the Hmar People, Sielmat, Churachandpur, Manipur, 1963.
3.
A.G. McCall,
Superintendent, Lushai Hills, to E.L.Mendus, Aizawl, 3 January,1934.
4.
B.C.Allen,
Secretary to the government of Eastern Bengal and Assam to the secretary of the
government of India, Foreign Department, No.335, Dacca, 4 January,1911.
5.
P.Fraser, Mary C.
Fraser and Watkin Roberts’ joint memorandum to H.M. King George V, 10
September,1910.
6.
R.J.Williams’
letter, secretary WCMFM, Liverpool to B.C.Allen, Officiating secretary to the
government of Eastern Bengal and Assam, 16 March,1911.
7.
B.C.Allen’s letter
to the secretary to the government of India, Foreign Department, 4
February,1911.
8.
Letter from the
government of Eastern Bengal and Assam, No.45, Foreign Department,1911.
9.
Fraser’s letter
to Cole,23 February,1911.
10.
D.E.Jones to R.J.Williams, Aizawl, 24 September,1910.
11.
R.J.Williams to Fraser, 16 March,1911.
12.
P.Fraser to R.J Williams, 27 April, 1911.
13.
Mary C. Fraser’s letter, Shillong, 28 June,1911.
14.
P.Fraser to R.J.Williams, London,26 May,1913.
15.
Parliamentary question on slavery (Lushai). Answer to Sir John Gardine’s
question, No.101, 12 June,1913.
16.W.E.White, The relation of missionaries to the government and to
their own mission councils in Indian Witness, 4 September,1913.
17.W.J. Reid, chief secretary to the chief commissioner of Assam to the
secretary to the government of India, Foreign and Political Department,
Shillong, 2 February,1914.
18.Foreign and Political Department, Secret E. Pros.December,1915,
Nos.14-16.
19.Foreign and Political Department, F.No.522, External,1923.
20.Letter from the chief secretary to the government of Assam,
Political.No.1142-2609, Shillong, 28 May,1928.
21.Fraser to R.J.Williams,Aizawl, 11 July, 1910.
22.Rough translation of Pu
Thanga’s (Mizo) « Aw Lalpa chungnung ber, kan fak hle a che » by
L.Keivom, former Indian High Commissioner to Male, Maldive.
No comments:
Post a Comment