One man's hunger strike changed India's map. Can it still change politics?
India has a long tradition of hunger strikes as political protests, from Potti Sriramulu's 58-day fast that led to the creation of Andhra state in 1952, to activist Sonam Wangchuk's ongoing 19-day fast in Delhi for education reforms. This method, popularized by Gandhi, remains powerful but controversial.
Hunger strikes as a political tool
India is a country where hunger strikes are deeply embedded in political culture. In 1952, Potti Sriramulu died after a 58-day fast demanding a separate state for Telugu speakers. His death sparked mass protests, and within days Prime Minister Nehru relented, creating Andhra state. Historian Ramachandra Guha called it a forgotten but significant event that changed the country's history and geography.
Mahatma Gandhi, leader of the independence movement, transformed the ancient practice of fasting into a modern political act. He undertook at least 15 major fasts, fighting religious violence, caste discrimination, and political discord. Gandhi argued that fasting was not blackmail but an act of suffering intended to awaken. After independence, India continued this tradition with strikes for farmers' rights, affirmative action, environmental protection, and anti-corruption.
Contemporary examples
Activist Irom Sharmila refused food for 16 years to protest the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act in northeast India, surviving only because authorities force-fed her. Anna Hazare's 13-day fast in 2011 gave momentum to an anti-corruption movement. Currently, education and climate activist Sonam Wangchuk has been on hunger strike for 19 days in Delhi, supporting a satirical movement demanding education reforms. He has lost over 9 kg, and the Delhi High Court ordered the government to monitor his health.
Criticism and controversy
Hunger strikes are not without critics. Statesman BR Ambedkar argued that once constitutional avenues exist, such methods should be abandoned, otherwise they become the "grammar of anarchy." Political philosopher Pratap Bhanu Mehta wrote in 2011 that fasting unto death can be "deeply coercive" and even "blackmail." Public skepticism has grown — social media mocks hunger strikes, and some are merely media spectacles.
However, as anthropologist Sayantan Saha Roy notes, hunger strikes are a global phenomenon but particularly potent in India because the government is often unresponsive. The protester's body becomes a demonstration of state cruelty, but success is not guaranteed — Sriramulu's death changed the map, but Sharmila's protest did not change the law. Whether Wangchuk's fast will change minds remains to be seen.
