Britain’s history of slavery and colonialism continues to fuel debate over race, inequality, reparations and historical responsibility.
While some call for full recognition of the suffering caused by its imperial past, others remain divided over the form accountability should take. Against this backdrop, the UK is considering a formal state apology for its role in the transatlantic slave trade, potentially signalling a shift in how it addresses this chapter of its history.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham is expected to invite countries affected by Britain’s role in slavery to help shape a proposed formal apology, with Downing Street saying their involvement is essential to making it meaningful.
At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Antigua and Barbuda, Burnham was expected to begin a “structured dialogue” on the form a possible apology could take. UK officials said the proposal had been positively received and could lead to wider discussions on trade and climate. King Charles III also attended, describing the transatlantic slave trade as a “shameful chapter of history”.
Burnham called the Commonwealth, representing a third of the world’s population, an important platform for cooperation amid global divisions. Writing in The Guardian, he said Britain must acknowledge its role in the slave trade.
While the government ruled out financial reparations, former prime minister Gordon Brown will lead a debt restructuring initiative for poorer Commonwealth nations, alongside UK support for their transition to cleaner energy.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch opposed revisiting a formal apology and reiterated her rejection of reparations, urging Commonwealth nations to look ahead and calling for an honest account of slavery’s history.
Buckingham Palace said King Charles has a non-political role and cannot issue a government apology, though he is expected to express “sincere sorrow” over slavery’s legacy at CHOGM. In 2006, then prime minister Tony Blair also expressed “deep sorrow” without issuing a formal apology.
Barbadian Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley welcomed Burnham’s remarks, although Barbados remains among the countries seeking reparations. The debate also raises wider questions about Britain’s colonial legacy, with historians calling for greater recognition of the exploitation caused by slavery and colonialism. They stressed the importance of historical awareness through education, while supporting an apology for slavery and highlighting development assistance as an alternative to financial reparations.
Historians weigh in on UK’s proposed slavery apology
As the UK considers a formal state apology for its role in the transatlantic slave trade, questions remain over whether it would adequately acknowledge the wider legacy of colonialism, including indentured labour and economic exploitation.
Asian Voice spoke to historians Shrabani Basu and Tripurdaman Singh about the significance of an apology, the lasting impact of Britain’s imperial past and the debate over reparatory justice.
Author and historian Shrabani Basu said a formal apology for slavery would be incomplete if it failed to acknowledge the wider exploitation under colonial rule. “There is a direct link between slavery, indentured labour and colonial exploitation, and any apology would have to address all of these. Slavery was replaced with indentured labour, which was equally exploitative,” she said.
Basu said reparations from the current generation of British taxpayers were not necessary, but stressed that other measures could address the lasting impact of slavery and colonialism. “Education is an important factor, and this needs to be included at the very earliest stages of the curriculum. There should be widespread awareness of how Britain grew into a wealthy country on the backs of the slave trade and its colonies,” she added.
Historian, Author and Associate Research Fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, Tripurdaman Singh said a formal apology for slavery that overlooks wider colonial exploitation would offer an incomplete historical reckoning. “Colonialism was not an exercise in strategic altruism – that much has to be stated loud and clear. No people likes to be ruled by another, and by that very nature, colonialism was an exercise in hierarchy and violence,” he said.
Addressing arguments about colonialism’s perceived benefits, Singh said that even where railways, codified laws, liberal ideas and democracy were introduced, the empire imposed a system that was “politically and ideationally unequal, extractive and violent”. He added that the British Empire was not built on a single blueprint, but shaped by “contradictory impulses and historical contingencies”. While many believed in the “civilising mission”, he said the empire was also sustained by cooperation from sections of the colonised population.
Singh described slavery as “an abhorrent crime” and said a formal apology was morally necessary. However, he remained sceptical about a broader apology for colonial exploitation, arguing that it could not capture the complexity of colonial experiences or “account for native agency”. “The colonial experience in Ceylon, for example, was very different from the Caribbean,” he said, adding that such a broad apology might not be “very meaningful”, though it would be welcome.
On reparations, Singh called the debate “a profound waste of time”, arguing that colonial rule could not be assessed through a simple ledger of gains and losses. “There is almost no way of quantifying colonial rule like negatives and positives in a ledger, no way of putting monetary sums on those values, no way of getting a consensus on the issue and no way of getting Britain to pay,” he said.
He questioned who would pay and who would receive compensation, calling it “a mathematical absurdity”. Singh said CARICOM’s demands for debt cancellation and technology transfer were worth considering, but should be treated as development finance rather than reparative justice. Framing them as reparations, he warned, was “counterproductive” and could offer “a convenient issue for ethnonationalists and fascists to exploit, both in Britain and abroad”.
King Charles expresses sorrow over slave trade
Addressing the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Antigua, King Charles III described the transatlantic slave trade as a “shameful chapter of history” that continues to cast a shadow over the Caribbean and wider Commonwealth.
Saying it filled him with “horror” and “profound personal sorrow”, he stressed the need to address past wrongs through future action, including better access to education and increased intra-Commonwealth trade.
He also highlighted global conflicts, rapid technological advances and climate change as major challenges, noting that island nations bear some of the greatest costs. He urged Commonwealth leaders to take responsibility for shaping its future and delivering meaningful change.
Concluding his speech, King Charles III urged Commonwealth leaders to use their collective influence to bring about meaningful change, stressing that the organisation’s future was “in your hands”. He called on them to build a Commonwealth where young people could look ahead with greater confidence and purpose. While he offered no direct apology or reparations, his remarks conveyed personal sorrow and an acknowledgement of the brutality of the slave trade. He also emphasised the importance of focusing on future opportunities for the next generation.
