The New Language of Modern Slavery

Moreover, the government, non-governmental organizations and experts of these two countries are constantly trying to 'impose' and spread the term modern slavery in developing countries like Nepal and throughout the world.

Even in a developing country like Nepal, forced labor and debt bondage, forced marriage, slavery and human trafficking have started to be viewed under the same branch of modern slavery. Its definition is not relevant in Nepal. This issue is connected with the history of caste slavery in Nepal and it does not correspond at all with modern day slavery. But various international and Nepali non-governmental organizations working in Nepal, academicians and the media have also accepted the definition of modern slavery without looking critically.

In this article, stakeholders interested in labor mobility and labor rights argue why it is not appropriate to use this term. There are two main reasons behind this. First, anyone who uses this term in Nepal is unknowingly or unknowingly following or encouraging the anti-immigration racist policies of Western countries. Second, the main target group in Western countries' anti-slavery initiatives are countries like Nepal. Which is neither suitable for Nepal, nor for Nepali citizens.

The language of modern slavery is not blameless. In her book 'Margin of Freedom', Professor Julia O'Connell Davidson of the University of Bristol in the UK argues that the legacy of the transatlantic slave trade plays a role in forgetting apartheid/racist slavery in Western countries. Which is not fair in the context of the apartheid/racist distinction. Other experts, Professor Joel Quirk of WITS University, Johannesburg, in his book The Anti-Slavery Project, have suggested arming 'anti-immigration' countries with the debate on reparations over slavery. Many scholars have strongly criticized the 'anti-slavery business', saying that the 'modern slavery infrastructure' in Australia and Britain has collapsed. Similarly, the argument has been made clear that such infrastructures have failed to provide any support to sterilized migrant workers. To understand how complex the infrastructure of modern slavery is, the case of arresting and deporting gang-raped migrant workers has also been confirmed. Similarly, its complexity is also understood from the soft attitudes towards commercial corporations, related to 'anti-migration' and 'anti-sex work' stances.

As a result, the language of modern slavery has further undermined potential victims' access to justice. Tortured, vulnerable, and especially sexually abused and exploited migrant workers have found it difficult, if not impossible, to get justice. The sterilized personal data collected about them is being used to detain and deport them rather than being used to prosecute them. Various analytical studies conducted in Britain have criticized the modern anti-slavery project as not being designed to give justice to potential victims. The project has only supported the anti-immigration policies of countries like the UK and Australia.

In an investigative article published recently by the Guardian newspaper, the abuse and exploitation of Nepali workers in British agricultural farms has come to light. Instead of giving justice to the exploited Nepali workers through the infrastructure of modern slavery, the British company licensed to bring in agricultural workers on temporary visas has announced publicly that they will no longer hire Nepali citizens. This type of restriction has two important consequences. First, it increases the precariousness and insecurity of Nepalese workers, with many Nepalis forced to work in the highly exploitative British agricultural sector. Such a situation risks pushing them towards illegal recruitment channels. Second, it risks increasing uncertainty and insecurity by pushing them into illegal activities. Leads to possible raids, criminalization, detention and deportation. The UK government and other so-called destination countries try to shift their responsibility and blame to source countries like Nepal.

Such a strategy, on the one hand, advocates the voluntary return of immigrants from different countries to their countries, while on the other hand, the countries of migrant workers are imposing anti-slavery (anti-trafficking and forced labor) policies. As a result, investment is being made from Western countries to source nations for research, advocacy and policy making on modern slavery. Attempts are being made to stop their movement by proving them weak in their own country. They are investing in so-called 'awareness creation', weaponizing the uncertainty of the economic dependence of NGOs in developing countries. By providing financial resources, they are conducting raids, rescues, interceptions, resettlement centers, advocacy, reintegration efforts to enforce their anti-immigration policies.

By accepting the economic resources of Western countries, countries like Nepal are using the term modern slavery. Concerned organizations have also created obstacles in the mobility of socially and economically weakened citizens in the name of protection. Did anti-slavery advocates feel this way? What is clear from the 'Participatory Action Research' conducted by one of us at an undisclosed location in Sindhupalchok is that Nepali citizens are fleeing to avoid such protective barriers in the name of protection against the anti-slavery practices in Nepal's border areas. Thus it is their human right to flee and there is no sustainable employment opportunity for them, especially in Nepal. Forced restriction of their mobility by Nepalese NGOs is also a violation of human rights. The sad reality is that even the existing anti-trafficking policies have not been able to protect the labor and immigration rights of migrant workers.

For example, the government of Nepal has banned women from entering the Gulf countries. Various stakeholders are also helping to strengthen the ban. Therefore, the law focuses more on punishing those involved in human trafficking than on identifying the real victims and ensuring adequate compensation. As a result, despite the encouragement of non-governmental organizations, the trafficked cannot trust Nepal's justice system and continue to work abroad as domestic workers even after rehabilitation. Therefore, the use of the term modern slavery opens the way for these NGOs to attract Western attention and raise more funds in the name of their anti-trafficking work.

For example, a study by Brunel University London and Wits University South Africa found that since 2013, the UK alone has invested nearly £1 billion in modern slavery projects. Millions of pounds have also come to Nepal. But anti-slavery initiatives in Nepal have turned the country into a 'carceral protectionist territory', extending to Indian airports. Its impact has been the daily life experience of tribal and marginalized women who are considered poor lower castes of Nepal. So even historians have said that modern slavery is a politically constructed agenda. The use of which can prove to weaken the ground of the struggle against caste slavery and its historical legacy in Nepal.

Are there pro-immigration individuals or organizations, labor rights organizations, and anti-trafficking organizations in Nepal advocating compensation for victims of racial slavery and continuing to suffer from its legacy? If the answer is 'no', then the term modern slavery they use is an offshoot of Nepal's own historical struggle against ethnic slavery. This only serves to undermine efforts to address the remnants of Nepal's own struggle. Therefore, the term is completely meaningless in the context of Nepal. Westerners are selling this word. Non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders of Nepal are buying this word for their survival. They have not been able to think about the adverse impact on Nepali citizens who are in real danger.

Our conclusion is that, the continuous use of this word will cause more harm in the long run. Therefore, those with a genuine interest in the fields of labor and immigration rights should not use the term.

– Nyupane is an economic and political analyst, while Mademba writes about racial and gender marginalization. Bhagat is a professor at Brunel University London.