Chakravarti Rajagopalachari asked Mahatma Gandhi, “Can you fast against the goondas?” Gandhi replied, “It is we who make goondas. Without our sympathy and passive support, the goondas would have no legs to stand upon. I want to touch the hearts of those who are behind the goondas.”
Many people might have asked Sonam Wangchuk a similar question: Whom is he fasting for? If the opposing side has no compassion, can such a fast achieve anything? Perhaps, like Gandhi, he believes that his opponents’ hearts can still be changed.
People nationwide have been deeply affected by Wangchuk’s hunger strike. Even those who oppose the Cockroach Party feel distressed. At the same time, an exercise in narrative-building is under way, with some people trying to dismiss his contributions. They want to create the impression that he has no major academic degree, that he is not a world-class innovator, and so on. The public, however, has rejected this narrative. Aamir Khan, too, failed to appreciate the relevance of time, place, and context. Instead of supporting Sonam, he said that Sonam was not a character in the film Three Idiots.
Sonam may not have chosen the right platform for this protest; that is open to debate. But it is surely no exaggeration to say that the ruling side’s prolonged failure to show any empathy has diminished and shamed our humanity.
Democracy does not mean merely pressing a button in an election. The freedom to disagree with those in power, the courage to speak against injustice, and the right to protest peacefully are also inseparable parts of democracy. Anna Hazare’s movement certainly contributed, to some extent, to the fall of the Congress government. Whether the change that followed was for better or worse is something the public can judge for itself.
Why did Mahatma Gandhi fast? Between 1918 and 1939, Gandhi repeatedly used fasting as a form of moral and political intervention. He believed that a fast could purify the body, discipline the mind, awaken the conscience, and exert moral pressure on the parties involved in a conflict. His critics—especially British officials—often regarded these fasts as political tactics designed to influence public opinion, just as questions are now being raised about Sonam Wangchuk’s moral position.
Nevertheless, several important episodes show that Gandhi’s fasts were generally connected to specific crises and efforts to reach nonviolent solutions. Gandhi’s first major public fast took place in March 1918 during the Ahmedabad textile workers’ dispute. The mill workers demanded better wages, but negotiations between them and the mill owners reached a deadlock. The workers became discouraged. Gandhi believed that the immediate cause of the conflict was the mill owners’ refusal to accept a fair settlement. At the same time, he wanted the workers to remain disciplined and nonviolent. To strengthen their resolve and exert moral pressure on the mill owners, Gandhi began a three-day fast. The fast drew public attention to the dispute and increased pressure on both sides to negotiate. Eventually, the mill owners agreed to arbitration, and the workers secured fair wages.
Gandhi’s second significant public fast began after communal and political violence erupted in Bombay during the Prince of Wales’s visit in November 1921. He wanted the public to stop the violence and return to nonviolent discipline. The fast helped calm the situation and reminded his followers that political resistance could not be separated from moral responsibility.
In September 1924, Gandhi began a 21-day fast in response to Hindu–Muslim violence in Delhi, Lucknow, Allahabad, and other cities. Communal relations had deteriorated severely, producing fear, bitterness, and mutual distrust. Although the fast could not permanently end communal conflict, it became one of Gandhi’s most powerful symbolic acts in support of interfaith harmony. He undertook several more fasts afterward. Each time, Gandhi identified a moral failure at the heart of a contemporary crisis. His response was to fast in order to awaken the public conscience, discipline his followers, and compel dialogue. Yet the effectiveness of this method depended largely on Gandhi’s extraordinary public influence. Whether Wangchuk possesses comparable influence is a relevant question.
Why did Gandhi not fast to prevent the partition of India? This is a relevant question that has been discussed by scholars. Is Wangchuk also making a mistake by undertaking this hunger strike? Arvind Sharma examines this issue in his article “Why Gandhi Did Not Fast over Partition.” Discussions of India’s partition often raise a question: why did Mahatma Gandhi, who frequently fasted to exert moral pressure, not undertake a fast unto death to prevent the division of the country?
According to B. R. Nanda, Gandhi’s fasts were generally directed at people who loved him, trusted him, and acknowledged his moral authority. Their purpose was to awaken those people’s consciences; the fasts were not directed at hostile adversaries. Gandhi’s moral pressure would not have worked on the British government or the Muslim League. Nanda argues: “To prevent partition, there would have been little point in Gandhi fasting or starting civil disobedience against the British, who were not susceptible to such moral pressure and were in any case leaving the country.”
Yet not all Gandhi’s fasts were aimed only at his followers. His 1932 fast placed pressure on Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, while his January 1948 fast placed pressure on Hindu and Sikh refugees. Some of them marched near his residence and shouted, “Let him die if he wants to die” and “We will take blood for blood.” Gandhi may not have fasted against partition because he understood both the moral and practical limits of fasting. A fast against the Muslim League might have been seen not as an appeal to conscience but as an attempt to deny Muslims their political rights. By 1947, political relations among Gandhi, the Muslim League, and the British had deteriorated so badly that there was no room left for moral dialogue.
This historical lesson is significant. Is Sonam Wangchuk fasting against an adversary whose conscience has yet to show any signs of awakening?
It was January 1948. Delhi appeared calm on the surface, but partition, the suffering of refugees, revenge, and communal hatred continued to burn beneath the surface. Many people had lost their homes and businesses. Many were afraid to return to their former neighbourhoods or to move freely through certain parts of the city.
On 12 January 1948, Gandhi announced an indefinite fast. The following day, at the age of 78, he stopped eating. His demand was not the victory or defeat of any religious community; he wanted communal peace.
As the days passed, Gandhi’s body weakened, but his moral influence over Delhi grew. Hundreds of people engaged in discussions, including Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh leaders, refugee organisations, and representatives of the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS. On 18 January, they came to Gandhi with a written pledge to restore communal peace, protect places of worship, and safeguard the lives and property of minority citizens. After prayers from different faiths were recited, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad offered Gandhi a glass of fruit juice. At noon on 18 January, Gandhi ended the final fast of his life.
After Gandhi, the tradition of nonviolent protest continued in movements across India and the world. During the Chipko movement of the 1970s, villagers in the Himalayan region—especially women—embraced trees to prevent deforestation. The word “Chipko” itself means “to embrace” or “to cling.” The movement brought an important truth to public attention: forests are not merely sources of timber; they are the foundation of water, soil, livelihoods, and local life.
In the United States, Martin Luther King Jr. drew on Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence to organise resistance against racial discrimination. More than 200,000 people took part in the 1963 March on Washington to demand civil and economic rights. These nonviolent movements played an important role in creating political pressure for civil rights legislation in the United States.
These examples show that nonviolent protest is not a sign of weakness. It is a disciplined and courageous method of questioning the legitimacy of power without resorting to violence. Nonviolent protest may be entirely legitimate—but is an indefinite hunger strike an effective weapon for awakening an opponent’s conscience?
Even if one does not support every political view or method adopted by Wangchuk, the ruling side should have listened by now to the questions he has raised. The government need not accept every one of his demands. But engaging in reasoned dialogue and responding to public concerns are the minimum responsibilities of a democratic government. Not even the faintest sign of this has been visible.
Society needs living thinkers, teachers, innovators, and critics more than it needs martyrs. May Sonam Wangchuk live—not merely because he is famous or an international award winner, but because in a democracy no citizen should have to reach death’s door simply to be heard.
Gandhi’s final fast ended on 18 January. Twelve days later, he was assassinated. Whether we should urge Sonam Wangchuk to end his fast is another question. Perhaps, like Gandhi, he believes that his opponents’ consciences will awaken one day. Only time can tell whether he is right or wrong.