The growing moral argument for slavery and colonial reparations is hitting a significant practical wall: the question of who should pay, and to whom. A recent debate, highlighted in letters to the Guardian, underscores that the movement must move beyond theory to address the complex realities of historical injustice and modern economic disparity.
The Funding Dilemma: Targeting the True Beneficiaries
In a detailed letter, Graham Hadibi-Williams from London argues that while the case for reparations is strong, the conversation consistently underanalyses the massive hurdle of financing. He points out that the common retort that "no one alive today owned slaves" is tired, but the practical issue remains unresolved.
Using his own family as an example, Hadibi-Williams illustrates the complexity. His husband's family endured north African colonial injustices, while his own English ancestors were impoverished Lancashire miners and cotton mill workers. Their labour, though connected to the slave economy, did not translate into wealth. Today, as a nurse and social worker, they face London's high cost of living.
The primary beneficiaries of colonial wealth, he contends, were the landowning classes and those with inherited fortunes, often held offshore. He warns that asking the struggling modern working class to fund reparations through taxed income is a major barrier to public support. For the movement to succeed, it must specifically target the institutions and hidden wealth that profited, shifting the debate from moral theory to tangible economic justice.
India's Absence from the Reparations Narrative
Another letter, from Indian expat Abhishek Kalyankar, also based in London, expresses dismay at the omission of the Indian subcontinent from the reparations discussion. He notes that while focus on Caribbean and African legacies is essential, the "jewel in the crown" of the empire is frequently overlooked.
Kalyankar states that any call for restorative justice is incomplete without acknowledging the systematic extraction of wealth from India. This includes the millions of lives lost in manmade famines in Bengal and the displacement of cultural heritage. He powerfully symbolises this loss with the Koh-i-Noor diamond in the Queen Mother’s coronation crown and countless temple statues held in British institutions.
Furthermore, he highlights that while visa hurdles for other former colonies are noted, the significant bureaucracy and costs faced by Indian professionals in the UK are ignored. With 1.4 billion people whose history was fundamentally reshaped by British rule, he argues that colonial injustice cannot be addressed by selectively acknowledging only some victims.
A Path Forward for the Reparations Movement
The letters collectively point to two critical gaps in the current reparations discourse. First, there is a pressing need for a financially viable and publicly acceptable model that directs the burden towards the concentrated, inherited wealth derived from colonialism, rather than the general taxpayer.
Second, the geographic and historical scope of the conversation must broaden to fully encompass the scale of the British Empire's impact, particularly in South Asia. The debate must evolve from general principles to actionable plans that address specific claims, such as those symbolised by contested artefacts like the Koh-i-Noor, and the broader legacy of economic extraction.
Until these practical and inclusive steps are taken, the argument for reparations risks remaining in the realm of abstract moral theory, unable to achieve the concrete economic justice its advocates seek.
