How the Descendants of Colonialism Obscure Their Moral Responsibility
Professor Dr. Shardhanand H. Singh, founder of Girmitiyalogy. © 2026 SH Singh Rotterdam.
Resume
It is striking that a recent resolution presents slavery as the gravest form of a crime against
humanity, yet gaps remain between recognition and enforcement. Article 4 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights prohibits slavery but lacks a criminal enforcement mechanism. By
contrast, the Rome Statute (1998/2002) clearly defines slavery as a crime against humanity
under binding international law.
Yet, as reported by the BBC on 7 April, Nigel Farage of Reform UK has proposed denying visas to
individuals from countries seeking slavery reparations from Britain. This highlights the tension
between legal principles and political action.
Within this context, the consideration examines the United Nations General Assembly resolution
on the transatlantic enslavement of Africans. While normatively important, the resolution
remains largely declaratory and lacks enforcement. It therefore reflects a fragmented
understanding of colonial labor systems—what may be called “naming without dismantling.”
Girmitiyalogy challenges this fragmentation by presenting indentured labor as a structural
continuation of similar forms of slavery-work rather than a separate post-abolition system. It
exposes how contractual labor functioned as a juridical fiction masking coercion,
dehumanization, and racialized exploitation within the same imperial order.
The analysis argues that the key issue is not retroactivity but continuity of harm. Persistent
inequalities and intergenerational trauma provide a basis for legal engagement through
concepts such as continuing harm and jus cogens norms.
Girmitiyalogy calls for a shift toward juridical transformation through strategic litigation to
recognize indentured labor as a crime against humanity as well, and emphasizes the need for a
unified struggle by descendants of both enslaved and indentured peoples against this problem.
Abstract
This essay examines how contemporary global powers—many of them direct beneficiaries of
colonial systems—continue to obscure their moral and legal responsibility for historical
injustices. While the recent United Nations resolution recognizing the transatlantic enslavement
of Africans as a grave crime against humanity represents an important symbolic step. It remains
limited in scope and effect. Drawing on Girmitiyalogy discourse, this article argues that
indentured labor must be understood as a continuation of a similar form of slave labor rather
than a distinct historical phenomenon. Girmitiyalogy critiques the selective recognition
embedded in international law and highlights how doctrines such as non-retroactivity are
deployed to evade accountability. By foregrounding the concept of continuing harm and the
enduring legacies of colonial exploitation, she proposes a shift from moral acknowledgment to
juridical transformation. Especially this advocates strategic litigation to secure recognition of
indentured labor as a crime against humanity under international human rights law. Such
recognition would not only expand the scope of reparatory justice but also challenge dominant
narratives that fragment colonial history. Ultimately, the essay contends that without legal
accountability, contemporary declarations risk perpetuating the very inequalities they claim to
address. The descendants of both systems can better fight this problem together.
Recognizing the transatlantic enslavement
The adoption of the recent United Nations General Assembly resolution recognizing the
transatlantic enslavement of Africans as a crime against humanity has been widely heralded as
a historic milestone.1 It signals a formal acknowledgment of one of the most profound injustices
in human history and gestures toward the possibility of reparatory justice. Yet, as critical
commentary and global responses reveal, this recognition is deeply constrained. It reflects not
only a moral awakening but also a carefully managed political gesture—one that allows the
descendants of colonial powers to appear responsive while continuing to evade substantive
responsibility.
At the heart of this contradiction lies what may be described as the politics of selective
recognition. As Kim Heller argues, naming slavery as a gravest crime against humanity without
committing to structural redress risks reducing justice to symbolism.2 The resolution, while
significant, remains non-binding and is accompanied by resistance from several Western states
that invoke legal doctrines such as non-retroactivity to justify their opposition or abstention.3
This reliance on formal legal principles obscures a deeper moral issue: the enduring benefits
that these states continue to derive from historical systems of exploitation.
Girmitiyalogy discourse
Girmitiyalogy discourse offers a critical lens through which to interrogate this dynamic. By
centering the experiences of indentured laborers—often marginalized in mainstream historical
narratives- it challenges the conventional periodization that separates slavery from subsequent
labor regimes. Instead, it posits that indentured labor was a structural continuation of a similar
kind of slavery labor adapted to new legal and economic conditions following formal abolition.4
The contract system, often presented as evidence of free labor, functioned in practice as a
mechanism of coercion, enabling the continued extraction of labor under conditions that
closely resembled enslavement.
This reconceptualization has profound implications for contemporary debates on justice and
accountability. If indentured labor is understood as part of the same continuum as slavery, then
its exclusion from current legal frameworks represents not an oversight but a deliberate
narrowing of responsibility. The United Nations resolution, by focusing exclusively on
transatlantic slavery, implicitly reinforces this fragmentation. It acknowledges one form of
historical injustice while leaving others unaddressed, thereby perpetuating an incomplete
narrative of colonial exploitation.
Non-retroactivity
The invocation of non-retroactivity by opposing states further illustrates how legal discourse can
be mobilized to obscure moral responsibility. While it is true that international criminal law
traditionally resists retroactive application, this principle is not absolute. The concept of crimes
against humanity, particularly in relation to slavery, is grounded in jus cogens norms—
fundamental principles from which no derogation is permitted.5 Moreover, the doctrine of
continuing harm provides a basis for addressing historical injustices whose effects persist into
the present.6 The socio-economic inequalities, racial hierarchies, and patterns of
underdevelopment produced by both slavery and indentured labour are not relics of the past;
they are active features of the contemporary global order.
Scholars such as Walter Rodney have long demonstrated how European colonialism
systematically underdeveloped Africa through the extraction of labor and resources.7 Similarly,
Omali Yeshitela highlights the central role of unpaid Black labor in the accumulation of Western
wealth.8 These analyses underscore the structural nature of colonial exploitation and its
enduring legacy. Girmitiyalogy extends this critique by emphasizing the role of indentured labor
in sustaining colonial economies after abolition, thereby linking disparate historical processes
into a unified framework of exploitation.
In this context, calls for reparations, while necessary, are insufficient if they remain confined to
political negotiation. Reparations must be grounded in legal recognition and enforceable rights.
The current reliance on voluntary commitments allows states to control the terms of
engagement, often resulting in symbolic gestures rather than substantive change. What is
required is a shift toward a juridical transformation process through which historical injustices
are formally recognized within international law and subjected to judicial scrutiny.
Proposal for an international tribunal
The proposal for an international tribunal on slavery and other colonial exploitation represents
one possible avenue for such transformation.9 By providing a for adjudicating claims and
establishing authoritative interpretations of crimes against humanity, such a tribunal could
bridge the gap between moral recognition and legal accountability. Within this framework, the
classification of indentured labor as a crime against humanity becomes both a logical and
necessary step.
Achieving this objective will require coordinated efforts across affected communities, scholars,
and policymakers. Strategic litigation, drawing on existing principles of international law, can
play a crucial role in advancing this agenda. By framing indentured labor as a system
characterized by coercion, racialization, dehumanization, and systematic exploitation, it is
possible to align it with established definitions of crimes against humanity, such as those
articulated in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Ultimately, the persistence of selective recognition reveals a deeper tension within the global
order. The descendants of colonialist states and institutions that continue to benefit from
historical injustices are confronted with a choice. They can either embrace a comprehensive
approach to justice that acknowledges the full scope of colonial exploitation, or they can
continue to obscure their responsibility through partial recognition and legal formalism.
Conclusion
This essay has argued that the latter path not only undermines the credibility of international
human rights discourse but also perpetuates the very inequalities it seeks to address.
Girmitiyalogy discourse offers an alternative by insisting on the continuity of exploitation and
juridical accountability. Recognizing indentured labor also as a crime against humanity is not
merely a matter of historical accuracy; it is a necessary step toward achieving genuine justice in
the present. This concerns all descendants, both the Enslaved and the Indentured.
Without such recognition, declarations will remain words—powerful, perhaps, but ultimately
insufficient. Justice requires more than acknowledgment; it demands transformation. This
means decolonizing the individual, colonized mind in both groups. Enslaved and Indentured.
By advocating a transition from symbolic recognition to juridical transformation. Specifically, it
calls for strategic litigation to secure recognition of indentured labor as a crime against humanity
under international law. Such recognition would broaden the scope of reparatory justice and
reframe colonial history as an interconnected system of exploitation rather than a series of
discrete episodes. Central to this approach is the imperative that the descendants of both
enslaved peoples and indentured laborers engage in a shared and coordinated struggle to
advance claims for justice and accountability.
Works Cited
Heller, Kim. “Why the UN Resolution on Slavery Needs Action, Not Just Words.” Sunday Tribune,
2026.
UN Calls for Reparations to Remedy the Historical Wrongs of Trafficking Enslaved Africans.”
WHRO, 26 Mar. 2026.
UK Explanation of Vote on the Declaration of the Trafficking of Enslaved Africans.” UK
Government, 2026.
Slavery Tribunal? Africa and Caribbean Unite on Reparations.” Reuters, 4 Apr. 2024.
Rodney, Walter. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Bogle-L’Ouverture Publications, 1972.
Yeshitela, Omali. Stolen Black Labour. Burning Spear Publications, 2015.
United Nations. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 1998.
Footnotes
1 United Nations General Assembly resolution, 2026.
2 Heller.
3 UK Government.
4 Rodney; Yeshitela.
5 United Nations, Rome Statute.
6 UN human rights jurisprudence on continuing harm.
7 Rodney.
8 Yeshitela.
9 Reuters.
Contact: Dr. Shardhanand H. Singh, Email address: singh@kpnmail.nl
Website: Girmitiyalogy.com
Lucknow / Rotterdam.