Fasting as a weapon

Going on a fast until death was a strategy probably invented by Mahatma Gandhi. He used it effectively against the British to obtain concessions and meet his demands related to granting India its freedom. Although it has been used elsewhere--for example, Bobby Sands, a member of the Irish Republican Army, fasted to death in 1981--it is in India that it remains a popular way of achieving results.

The more contemporary examples are fasts conducted by Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev to raise the issue of corruption in India and make the government do something about it

It is a pretty effective strategy. As long as the adversaries have some moral value, they would not like to see someone starve to death because of their refusal to take some actions. Besides moral compunction, there is a political reason for the other side to act --such an event would provide a strong outrage from the population at large. Finally, they need to respond quickly---the other side has only a few days before the person dies.

However, it can also be considered to be a dangerous weapon.

While no one can argue that gaining independence or removing corruption are worthwhile causes, one can see it being used to gain action on causes of dubious nature. What if someone decides to go to fast until death unless laws are passed restricting what women can wear in public? Is that a justifiable cause? Who decides if it is justifiable?

Democracies, such as India, depend on laws enacted and actions taken that would be acceptable to the majority of population, as interpreted by their elected representatives. Doesn’t the use of fasting to make things happen bypass these democratic processes?

Also, even if the cause is “just” as decided by a majority of people, and there is clearly a need to take action, how can the adversary do something that is well thought out in such a short time span? How can a 20-30 day time limit, before the fasting person irreparably harms himself/herself, provide the time necessary to chart out a well reasoned and debated course of action? I suspect that what you would get is something half baked or without serious intentions for follow up once the said fast is broken and victory declared.

Finally, there is the issue of personality of people involved. Mahatma Gandhi was clearly a person whose intentions were beyond reproach, and Anna Hazare seems to be a similar person intent upon helping people. Baba Ramdev, I am not too sure. Does he really want to help people or is this a stunt to increase his market value?

Fasting is an effective but a dangerous weapon indeed.