When we think about Gandhi’s methods, we often imagine grand philosophical principles. But the real test of any theory comes when it faces the messy reality of human conflict. In 1918 and 1919, Gandhi led two movements that revealed both the power and the limitations of his approach to peaceful resistance. One succeeded through discipline and patience. The other spiraled into violence, forcing Gandhi to confront a painful truth about leadership and readiness.
Table of Contents
The Ahmedabad Mill Strike: When workers chose dignity over anger
In early 1918, textile workers in Ahmedabad faced a crisis. During the plague epidemic of 1917, mill owners had provided bonuses to prevent workers from fleeing the city. But when the plague subsided in January 1918, owners announced they would discontinue these bonuses just as wartime inflation was doubling the cost of food, clothing, and other necessities. Workers demanded a 50% wage increase to survive. The owners offered only 20%.
The dispute quickly deteriorated. Mill owners began dismissing striking workers and recruiting replacement weavers from Bombay. Desperate for support, workers turned to social reformer Anusuya Sarabhai, whose own brother Ambalal was president of the Ahmedabad Mill Owners Association. She approached Gandhi, who was respected by both sides, asking him to mediate.
Gandhi’s first experiment with the hunger strike
Gandhi advised workers to strike but suggested they demand a more modest 35% increase rather than 50%. More importantly, he insisted on strict conditions. Workers pledged to maintain non-violence, refrain from looting, and protect property. Gandhi organized daily meetings where he spoke about the principles of peaceful resistance and arranged lessons on hygiene and sanitation.
To keep workers engaged and self-sufficient during the strike, they were employed in construction work at Gandhi’s ashram, including building a weaving school. But as weeks passed, some workers found carrying bricks demeaning and morale began to weaken. Sensing this, Gandhi undertook his first fast unto death on March 15, 1918.
The fast created pressure on all sides. Mill owner Ambalal Sarabhai offered to meet worker demands if Gandhi would promise to stay away from labor issues in the future. Gandhi refused, unwilling to compromise the integrity of the struggle. Instead, he proposed arbitration by an impartial judge. On March 18, 1918, the mill owners agreed to this proposal and Gandhi broke his fast. Workers returned to work and eventually received a 35% wage increase through the arbitration process.
More than just wages
The Ahmedabad strike was significant beyond its immediate outcome. It demonstrated that workers could organize peacefully and win concessions through disciplined resistance rather than violence. The welfare activities conducted during the strike influenced the creation of the Ahmedabad Textile Labour Association in 1920. Gandhi had shown that ethical conduct in industrial disputes was not just idealistic, it could be practical.
The Rowlatt Satyagraha: When the nation wasn’t ready
Just one year later, Gandhi faced a far bigger challenge. On March 18, 1919, the British colonial government passed the Rowlatt Act, which authorized detention without trial for up to two years and suspended the right of habeas corpus. The Act allowed arrests without warrants, trials without juries, and gave authorities power to suppress any political activity they deemed threatening.
Indians across the political spectrum were outraged. This repressive law came just after World War I, when Indians had been promised democratic reforms as a reward for their wartime support. Instead, they received what seemed like a betrayal. Gandhi called the Rowlatt Act a “Black Act” and decided to launch a nationwide protest.
An unprecedented response
Gandhi founded the Satyagraha Sabha in February 1919 and called for a nationwide hartal (strike) on April 6, 1919. The response was overwhelming. Shops closed, workers struck, and people gathered for prayer meetings and public protests across major cities. This was the first time Gandhi had mobilized resistance on such a massive scale.
But the movement quickly spiraled beyond Gandhi’s control. When he was arrested on April 9 while trying to enter Punjab, violence erupted in several cities. In Ahmedabad, the very city where workers had shown such discipline the year before, mobs turned violent. At least 28 people were killed in clashes with authorities.
In Punjab, the situation became even more dire. British authorities arrested two Congress leaders, Dr. Satyapal and Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew, on April 10. Three days later, on April 13, 1919, thousands gathered at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar to celebrate the Baisakhi festival and protest the arrests. Brigadier General Reginald Dyer ordered his troops to fire on the unarmed crowd without warning, killing hundreds and wounding more than a thousand.
A Himalayan Miscalculation
Confronted with the violence his movement had unleashed, Gandhi made a remarkable admission. On April 18, 1919, he publicly declared that he had committed a “Himalayan Miscalculation” in calling for civil disobedience before people were truly prepared for it.
In his autobiography, Gandhi explained his error. He realized that before people can practice civil disobedience, they must first demonstrate willing and respectful obedience to laws in general. A true Satyagrahi obeys laws intelligently and of free will, considering it a sacred duty. Only then can they judge which laws are unjust and deserve to be disobeyed.
Gandhi suspended the Rowlatt Satyagraha and undertook a three-day penitential fast. His confession was ridiculed by some, but he never regretted it. The experience taught him that mass movements required extensive training and preparation. Gandhi later said he needed to create a corps of well-trained volunteers who thoroughly understood the strict conditions of Satyagraha before attempting civil disobedience again.
Two movements, one lesson
The contrast between these two movements is striking. In Ahmedabad, Gandhi worked with a limited group he could train directly. He held daily meetings, emphasized specific pledges, and ensured workers understood what non-violence truly meant. When morale wavered, he intervened personally with his fast. The result was a disciplined, successful strike.
In the Rowlatt Satyagraha, Gandhi attempted to scale up too quickly. He couldn’t provide the same level of training and supervision to millions across India. People responded enthusiastically to the call for resistance, but many didn’t understand the discipline required. When violence erupted, Gandhi recognized that enthusiasm alone wasn’t enough. The movement needed a foundation of genuine understanding and commitment to non-violence.
These events shaped Gandhi’s approach for decades to come. He became more cautious about launching mass movements, insisting on thorough preparation and training. The journals Young India and Navajivan became tools for educating people about the principles of Satyagraha. When he later launched the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1920, he did so with far more careful organization and training.
What do you think? Can mass movements truly be non-violent without extensive preparation, or was Gandhi’s “Himalayan Miscalculation” inevitable when trying to mobilize millions? How do leaders today balance the urgency of injustice against the need to prepare people for disciplined resistance?
References
- https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/ahmedabad-textile-laborers-win-strike-economic-justice-1918
- https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/ahmedabad-mill-strike/
- https://indianculture.gov.in/node/2838816
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowlatt_Act
- https://www.britannica.com/event/Rowlatt-Acts
- https://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/educational-resources/a-himalayan-miscalculation.html
- https://www.gandhiashramsevagram.org/autobiography/chapter-156.php
- https://wagingnonviolence.org/2019/10/can-we-celebrate-gandhis-achievements-while-also-learning-from-his-errors/
Leave a Reply