Ahmedabad Mill Satyagraha: Gandhi’s Fast for Workers’ Rights

In February 1918, the textile mills of Ahmedabad became the stage for one of Gandhi’s most significant early experiments with Satyagraha in India. The Ahmedabad Mill Strike wasn’t just about wages-it was a pioneering demonstration of non-violent resistance in industrial disputes, and it marked Gandhi’s first use of the hunger strike as a tool for social justice on Indian soil.

The dispute over dearness allowance 🔗

The roots of this struggle lay in a plague epidemic that devastated Ahmedabad between 1917 and early 1918. To prevent workers from fleeing the city during the outbreak, mill owners introduced a “plague bonus” of up to 75% over regular wages. However, when the epidemic subsided in January 1918, mill owners announced their intention to withdraw this bonus.

The workers, already struggling with wartime inflation caused by Britain’s involvement in World War I, saw their cost of living nearly double. Food grains, cloth, and other necessities had become unaffordable on their meagre wages. In response, they demanded a 50% wage increase to compensate for the rising costs. The mill owners, however, were willing to offer only a 20% raise.

The frustrated workers turned to Anasuya Sarabhai, a social reformer who had already helped organize textile workers in a 1914 strike. Remarkably, she was the elder sister of Ambalal Sarabhai, the president of the Ahmedabad Mill Owners’ Association. This put her in the unique position of fighting against her own brother’s interests for the sake of workers’ rights.

Gandhi’s fair compromise 🔗

Anasuya urged Mohandas Gandhi, who was respected by both mill owners and workers, to intervene. Gandhi thoroughly investigated the conditions-analyzing textile industry economics, comparing wages with those in Bombay, and studying the living conditions of workers. He concluded that a 35% wage increase was both just and economically feasible for the mills, whose profits had doubled or tripled during the war years.

Gandhi proposed an arbitration board with three representatives from each side to resolve the dispute through dialogue. Both sides initially agreed and chose their representatives. However, when workers in a few mills preemptively went on strike, fearing an impending lockout, the mill owners considered this a violation of the agreement. On February 22, 1918, the mill owners staged a lockout, announcing they would only accept workers who agreed to the 20% increase.

Organizing a non-violent strike 🔗

With negotiations collapsed, Gandhi gave the call for a non-violent general strike. The next morning, over 100,000 textile labourers and their families peacefully picketed outside the mills. This was discipline on an unprecedented scale.

Before advising the workers to strike, Gandhi had laid down clear conditions. As he himself wrote, workers must “never resort to violence, never molest blacklegs, never depend upon alms, and remain firm no matter how long the strike continued.” Most importantly, they were to earn their bread during the strike through any other honest labour.

Self-reliance through constructive work 🔗

Gandhi didn’t just ask workers to stop working-he gave them something meaningful to do. Workers were employed building a weaving school at Gandhi’s Sabarmati Ashram, learning skills in construction and weaving that would make them self-sufficient. This constructive approach meant workers weren’t merely waiting for victory; they were actively improving their capabilities.

The strike’s communication strategy was remarkably sophisticated for its time. Peace marches, distributed leaflets, and songs composed by workers (many of whom were illiterate) helped mobilize disciplined mass action. The rallying cry was “Ek Tek”-meaning “United Resolve” or “One Pledge”-symbolizing the workers’ commitment to stand firm together.

Gandhi’s presence energized the workers and fostered solidarity that transcended caste, religion, and language barriers. The strike witnessed unprecedented unity between Hindus and Muslims, bridging communal distrust that typically divided working communities.

The power of the fast 🔗

For over two weeks, the massive strike continued with remarkable discipline. But by the third week, signs of flagging appeared. Some workers found tasks like carrying bricks demeaning, and growing numbers began returning to the mills. Gandhi noted with concern that as physical weakness manifested, attitudes towards strikebreakers became more menacing.

Sensing the weakening morale and fearing an outbreak of violence, Gandhi began his first fast unto death on March 15, 1918. This was not merely a protest tactic-it was a prayer for peace and a demonstration of moral commitment that would become one of his most powerful weapons.

A breakthrough through moral pressure 🔗

On the third day of the fast, Ambalal Sarabhai made an unexpected offer: he would meet the workers’ demands if Gandhi agreed to keep away from the labourers “for all time in future.” Gandhi firmly rejected this condition. He would not sacrifice the integrity of the struggle for a quick settlement.

Instead, Gandhi proposed a new resolution: settle the dispute through an impartial arbitrator, Professor Anandshanker Dhruva. On March 18, 1918, the mill owners accepted this proposal with mutual satisfaction, and Gandhi broke his fast.

The settlement was elegant: workers would receive a 35% increase on the first day back, 20% on the second, and 27.5% (the median) until the arbitrator made a final decision. The arbitrator ultimately ruled in favour of the workers, awarding the full 35% increase after reviewing the mills’ substantial profit increases during the war.

In a touching gesture of reconciliation, the mill owners offered sweets to their workers, and leaders from different labour sections delivered speeches of gratitude. The 25-day campaign had ended without a single act of violence.

Legacy: the Textile Labour Association 🔗

The struggle’s most enduring outcome was the establishment of the Ahmedabad Textile Labour Association (Majoor Mahajan Sangh), founded on February 25, 1920. Gandhi declared Anasuya Sarabhai its lifelong president. This organization became one of India’s oldest and largest trade unions.

What made this union distinctive was its adherence to Gandhian principles. Rather than adopting an adversarial approach, the TLA emphasized non-violence, self-reliance, and harmonious employer-employee relations. The focus wasn’t on antagonizing owners but on establishing open communication channels where both parties could work toward fair solutions.

By 1978, the union represented over 150,000 workers across Gujarat. Its influence extended beyond wages-the TLA provided legal assistance, organized welfare activities, and helped workers navigate the complexities of labour law during India’s industrialization. In 1972, this same foundation gave birth to SEWA (Self-Employed Women’s Association), which pioneered organizing informal women workers.

A lesson in employer-employee relations 🔗

The Ahmedabad Mill Satyagraha demonstrated something revolutionary: industrial disputes could be resolved without bitterness or bloodshed. Gandhi’s approach wasn’t about defeating the mill owners-it was about arriving at a solution that respected the dignity and interests of both workers and employers.

Throughout the strike, Gandhi maintained dialogue with the mill owners. Notably, he discussed the mill-owners’ viewpoint at Ambalal Sarabhai’s bungalow and the workers’ viewpoint at his sister Anasuya’s residence. This wasn’t hypocrisy-it was Gandhi’s commitment to understanding all sides of a dispute.

Principles that shaped future movements 🔗

The strike established several precedents that would characterize Gandhi’s approach to social change. First, arbitration proved its value as a mechanism for resolving disputes through mutual agreement rather than prolonged conflict. Second, constructive programmes-like skill-building during the strike-showed that protest could be paired with positive action. Third, fasting emerged as a tool to unite masses and compel settlement without bloodshed.

The Ahmedabad Mill Strike also marked the integration of the working class into India’s national movement. Just as the Champaran Satyagraha had brought peasants into the freedom struggle, this strike showed that organized labour could be mobilized for justice through disciplined, non-violent action.

For Gandhi, these early satyagrahas in Champaran, Kheda, and Ahmedabad were experiments-testing grounds for methods he would later deploy on a national scale. The lessons learned here informed his approach to the Non-Cooperation Movement, the Salt March, and the Quit India movement that followed.

What do you think? Could Gandhi’s model of cooperative labour relations-where unions focus on dialogue and mutual respect rather than confrontation-work in today’s industrial environment? What elements of his approach to the Ahmedabad strike might still be relevant for resolving workplace disputes in the modern era?

References

1. https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/ahmedabad-textile-laborers-win-strike-economic-justice-1918
2. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/ahmedabad-mill-strike/
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anasuya_Sarabhai
4. https://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/gandhian-philosophy/philosophy-satyagraha-millihands.html
5. https://edukemy.com/free-resources-for-upsc/prelims-notes/mass-nationalism-begins-1919-1939/ahmedabad-mill-strike-1918-first-hunger-strike/100766
6. https://www.sewa.org/about-us/history/
7. https://thebetterindia.com/73140/anasuya-sarabhai-labour-movement-ahmedabad/
8. https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/india/gandhi-rallied-both-owners-and-workers