When we think about peaceful resistance, the image that often comes to mind is of individuals standing firm in their convictions without raising a fist. But how exactly did Gandhi envision this resistance? At the heart of his philosophy lay Satyagraha, a powerful method of nonviolent protest that took many forms, including strikes. Understanding strikes through a Gandhian lens reveals not just a tool of economic pressure, but a profound moral instrument rooted in truth and self-suffering.
Table of Contents
Satyagraha and its diverse forms
Satyagraha, meaning “holding firmly to truth,” was Gandhi’s unique contribution to the world of nonviolent resistance. The term combines “satya” (truth) and “agraha” (holding fast or insistence), representing a force born of truth and love rather than physical strength.
Scholar R.R. Diwakar categorized Satyagraha into three distinct forms. The first involves constructive work, focusing on building positive alternatives and strengthening communities from within. The second encompasses self-denying actions such as hartal (temporary strikes) and fasting, where resisters voluntarily accept suffering. The third form includes aggressive direct action that may involve suffering but remains firmly nonviolent in character.
This classification helps us understand that Satyagraha goes far beyond mere passive resistance. It represents active moral force where practitioners, called satyagrahis, seek to convert opponents through self-suffering rather than inflicting harm on others.
Hartal distinguished from Satyagraha
Gandhi made an important distinction between hartal and Satyagraha that often gets overlooked. A hartal is a temporary strike or cessation of work, typically announced in advance. However, not every hartal qualifies as Satyagraha.
In his 1920 statements, Gandhi explained that hartal serves a dual purpose: first, to capture public and government imagination about an issue, and second, to discipline participants for potential civil disobedience. When Gandhi called for a nationwide hartal on April 6, 1919, against the Rowlatt Act, rallies were organized, workers struck, and shops closed voluntarily.
The key difference lies in intention and execution. A hartal becomes satyagrahic only when it embodies the principles of truth, nonviolence, and moral purpose. A mere work stoppage driven by economic coercion or anger doesn’t meet Gandhi’s exacting standards for Satyagraha.
Strike as an instrument of Satyagraha
While some scholars like Joan Bondurant argued that strikes alone don’t constitute full Satyagraha, they undeniably serve as a key instrument within the broader satyagraha framework. In both political and labor contexts, a strike involves ceasing activity and withdrawing cooperation, making it a strategic form of resistance.
The distinction matters because strikes in the Gandhian tradition carry specific requirements. They must be nonviolent, avoid coercion of fellow workers, and serve a just cause. Gandhi believed strikes are “an inherent right of the working men for the purpose of securing justice,” but he also insisted they must be considered wrong the moment capitalists accept arbitration principles.
The Ahmedabad mill workers’ strike: a case study
The 1918 Ahmedabad mill strike perfectly illustrates how Gandhi applied satyagraha principles to labor disputes. When mill owners discontinued plague bonuses after an epidemic subsided, workers demanded better wages to cope with wartime inflation. The owners offered only 20 percent while workers sought 50 percent.
Before advising workers to strike, Gandhi established clear conditions: never resort to violence, never molest strikebreakers, never depend on charity, and remain firm while earning bread through honest labor during the strike. When negotiations stalled and workers’ morale weakened, Gandhi undertook his first fast unto death, pressuring both sides toward arbitration. The result was a 35 percent wage increase and improved working conditions.
This strike demonstrated that when conducted with satyagraha principles, a strike transforms from mere economic pressure into a moral appeal that can touch the conscience of even the strongest opponent.
Supporting methods: picketing and dharna
Picketing emerged as a crucial method to spread a strike’s message. During the Swadeshi movement, picketing of shops selling foreign goods became common in Bengal and major cities across India. The practice involved standing outside establishments to urge boycotts, particularly targeting British imports. When combined with strikes, picketing amplified the movement’s reach and visibility.
However, Gandhi insisted that picketing must remain peaceful and persuasive, never coercive. The goal was to appeal to conscience, not to intimidate.
Dharna, an ancient Indian practice, involves a sit-in protest at someone’s doorstep to compel agreement. Traditionally used by creditors to prove debt through fasting at a debtor’s door, dharna seeks to draw public attention and moral pressure to resolve disputes.
Despite its traditional roots, Gandhi often cautioned against dharna due to its potentially coercive elements. While the practitioner suffers voluntarily, the method can be manipulative, forcing the opponent’s hand through public shame rather than genuine conversion. This tension between traditional methods and pure satyagraha principles troubled Gandhi, who preferred methods that truly sought to transform rather than compel.
When to resort to strike: the principle of last resort
Perhaps the most critical question in Gandhian labor philosophy is: when should workers actually strike? The answer reveals the depth of Gandhi’s commitment to peaceful resolution.
A strike should only be considered a last resort. Before taking such action, legitimate preliminary steps must be exhausted. These include moral appeals to employers and voluntary arbitration through impartial panels. During the Ahmedabad strike, Gandhi repeatedly requested mill owners to accept arbitration before the workers proceeded with their stoppage.
The underlying principle is clear: conflict should be resolved through dialogue and mutual understanding whenever possible. Gandhi wrote that as labor becomes organized and mentally developed, “the principle of arbitration replaces the principle of strikes.” He envisioned a future where arbitration through panchayats (councils) would make strikes increasingly rare.
A strike becomes justified only when peaceful methods fail and urgency demands action. Even then, it must meet strict criteria: the cause must be just, workers must maintain absolute nonviolence, and participants must be willing to suffer hardship without retaliation. The goal remains conversion of the opponent, not their defeat or destruction.
What do you think? Can the Gandhian principles of strike as a last resort and emphasis on arbitration work in today’s fast-paced, globalized economy? How might modern labor movements balance the urgency of workers’ needs with Gandhi’s insistence on exhausting peaceful alternatives before resorting to strikes?
References
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha
- https://www.mkgandhi.org/ebks/Saga-of-Satyagraha.pdf
- https://www.sfr-21.org/sources/satyagraha.html
- https://testbook.com/question-answer/in-which-year-did-mahatma-gandhi-first-introduce-a–62f51bfc9627efd4baf35c31
- https://www.gandhiashramsevagram.org/voice-of-truth/gandhiji-on-strikes.php
- https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/ahmedabad-textile-laborers-win-strike-economic-justice-1918
- https://www.britannica.com/topic/satyagraha-philosophy
- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Swadeshi-Movement
- https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-asian-studies/article/gandhi-lawyers-and-the-courts-boycott-during-the-noncooperation-movement/C47A172A65733ED95161F7B2456FF006
- https://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/gandhian-philosophy/philosophy-satyagraha-millihands.html
Leave a Reply