Exploitation & Resistance
Exploitation: When Hope Turns to Hardship
The middle of The Empress is where Gupta shifts the play’s emotional register from hope to anger. The initial optimism of the opening gives way to a clear-eyed depiction of how the British Empire exploited Indian people. The ayahs discover they have been abandoned, Hari’s working conditions deteriorate further, and the shadow of the 1857 Indian rebellion looms over every interaction between Indian and British characters.
For the exam, this part of the play is crucial because it contains the play’s most powerful moments of dramatic injustice. Gupta wants the audience to feel outrage at the system, not just sympathy for individuals. Understanding how she builds this response is key to AO1 (personal response) and AO3 (context).
The Ayahs Abandoned
The central crisis of these scenes is the moment when the ayahs realise they have been abandoned by their British employers. They were promised return passages to India, but no tickets arrive. They have no money, no legal rights, and no way of getting home. Gupta dramatises this moment with devastating simplicity — the women slowly understand that the promises were lies.
The ayahs’ abandonment is based on real historical records. Hundreds of Indian women were stranded in London after being brought to England by British families. Gupta uses this historical reality to show that the exploitation was not accidental — it was built into the system. The British employers knew they could abandon Indian women with no legal consequences.
The abandonment scene is structurally important because it marks the turning point of the play. Before this moment, there is still hope. After it, the characters must confront the reality of their situation and decide how to respond — with resignation or resistance.
Hari’s Working Conditions
While the ayahs face abandonment, Hari faces a different kind of exploitation. As a lascar, he works in brutal conditions: long hours, dangerous cargo, racial abuse from white sailors, and pay that is a fraction of what British crew members receive. Gupta uses Hari’s story to show that exploitation was not just about neglect but about active, deliberate injustice.
Historically, lascars were paid roughly one-fifth of what white sailors earned for the same work. They were housed in the worst quarters on ships, given inferior food, and had no legal protection if they were injured or abandoned at port. By the early 1890s more than 24,000 lascars were working in the British merchant navy — they were essential to the Empire’s trade, yet treated as expendable. Gupta draws directly on these records to create Hari’s experiences, ensuring the play’s depiction of exploitation is grounded in historical fact.
The exploitation gap — the vast difference between what lascars contributed to the Empire’s wealth and what they received in return — is central to Gupta’s argument. The Empire could not function without Indian labour, yet Indian workers were treated as less than human.
The Shadow of 1857
Gupta weaves the 1857 Indian Mutiny into these scenes as a source of tension between Indian and British characters. British characters reference the rebellion to justify their suspicion and fear of Indians, arguing that they cannot be trusted with freedom or authority. Indian characters, by contrast, see 1857 as evidence that resistance is possible and necessary.
The 1857 Indian rebellion is never shown on stage, but it haunts the play as a contested memory. British characters use it to justify their suspicion of Indian people, while Indian characters see it as a moment of resistance against injustice. Gupta uses this historical event to show how the same history can be interpreted in opposing ways depending on who holds power.
Growing Political Awareness
The play now marks a crucial shift as characters begin to move from suffering to resistance. Hari becomes increasingly politicised, questioning not just his own treatment but the entire structure of the Empire. He begins to articulate the argument that Indian people deserve equal rights — not charity, not paternalism, but justice. Gupta uses Hari’s growing political consciousness to move the play from personal stories of suffering towards a broader political argument.
Gupta structures these scenes so that individual suffering leads naturally to collective action. The ayahs’ abandonment, Hari’s exploitation, and the memory of 1857 all converge to create a growing awareness that the problem is not individual cruelty but systemic injustice. This is a key dramatic choice: Gupta moves the play from melodrama (feeling sorry for victims) to political theatre (understanding and challenging the system that creates victims).
The transition from passive suffering to active resistance mirrors real historical patterns. Indian political movements in Britain grew from the shared experiences of workers, students, and intellectuals who recognised that their individual problems had structural causes. Gupta dramatises this awakening through Hari’s character arc.
By this point, the play has moved from hope through exploitation to the beginnings of resistance. Gupta has established that the characters’ suffering is not random but structural, and that the only response is collective political action.