The history of Indian democracy is not merely the history of elections. It is equally a history of dissent, resistance and moral intervention. Among the many political instruments that have shaped this history, one acquired unparalleled moral legitimacy: the fast.

Mahatma Gandhi transformed fasting from a simple act of abstaining from food into a means of cultivating inner strength, exerting moral pressure and shaping public opinion. Gandhi believed that no matter how powerful a government might be, if it were confronted by an unwavering commitment to truth and moral conviction, it would ultimately have to yield.

Three decades into the 21st century, a question presents itself with renewed urgency: has fasting as a political instrument lost its effectiveness?

Sonam Wangchuk’s prolonged fast — first over Ladakh’s environmental concerns and constitutional rights and now seeking Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation — the farmers’ movement, sit-ins by various civil society organisations and numerous local protests have revived a fundamental question: is today’s political establishment less responsive to moral pressure? Or has the very nature of democracy changed?

The answer lies not merely in the conduct of any particular government but in the broader political and social landscape.

During Gandhi’s time, fasting was effective because it was embedded within extensive public engagement, dialogue and moral credibility. Every fast Gandhi undertook was more than an act of personal asceticism; it was an appeal to the conscience of society. News of his fasts reached villages across the country, dominated newspaper headlines and influenced the British government. The British were colonial rulers, but they were not entirely insulated from the pressures of global politics, parliamentary scrutiny, the press and democratic criticism. They still felt compelled to demonstrate a degree of political legitimacy.

Also Read: ‘I am not Gandhi, be your own hero’: Wangchuk urges citizens to lead the change

Today, the circumstances are markedly different. Democratic governments derive their legitimacy from........

© National Herald