Key facts
- Potti Sriramulu's 58-day hunger strike in 1952 led to the creation of Andhra state, reshaping India's geography.
- Mahatma Gandhi employed fasting as a political instrument, undertaking at least 15 major fasts.
- Educationist Sonam Wangchuk is currently on an indefinite hunger strike in Delhi, protesting for education reforms.
- Wangchuk has been fasting for 19 days on salt water, with his health deteriorating.
- Critics argue that hunger strikes can be coercive and amount to blackmail in a democratic system.
The article explores the historical and contemporary use of hunger strikes as a political tool in India, drawing parallels between the successful protest of Potti Sriramulu in 1952 and the current fast by activist Sonam Wangchuk.
Potti Sriramulu's 58-day hunger strike in 1952, demanding a separate state for Telugu speakers, ultimately led to his death and the subsequent creation of Andhra state, significantly altering India's map. This event is highlighted as a rare instance where an individual's self-sacrifice profoundly impacted the nation's geography and politics.
Mahatma Gandhi is credited with transforming fasting from a religious practice into a potent political instrument during India's independence movement. He used fasting repeatedly to protest against religious violence, caste discrimination, and political discord, turning the empty plate into a symbol of resistance.
In contemporary India, the hunger strike continues to be a method of protest. Educationist and climate activist Sonam Wangchuk is currently on an indefinite hunger strike in Delhi, demanding education reforms. After 19 days on salt water alone, his health has deteriorated, prompting the Delhi High Court to order monitoring and potential treatment.
While hunger strikes are a global protest method, their prevalence and moral weight in India are linked to Gandhi's legacy. Anthropologist Sayantan Saha Roy notes that in a context of unresponsive governments, fasting is seen as a last resort, a performative act of self-sacrifice designed to pressure authorities by appealing to public conscience.
However, the efficacy and ethics of hunger strikes in a constitutional democracy remain debated. Figures like B.R. Ambedkar have argued that such methods should be replaced by democratic processes once constitutional avenues are available, warning against them becoming 'the grammar of anarchy.' Others, like philosopher Pratap Bhanu Mehta, have described them as 'deeply coercive' and a form of blackmail when tied to exceptional moral authority. The article suggests that public skepticism has grown, with some protests staged for media spectacle rather than genuine sacrifice.