Hunger strikes are a non-violent form of protest where a prisoner or protester refuses to eat solid and/or liquid food to gain political or social leverage. The tactic has been used for centuries, but became famous during India’s fight for independence. While it can create problems for captors, there is no guarantee of success and hunger strikers can become too ill to resist force-feeding or suffer irreversible damage.
One of the few things that remains under the control of a prisoner or protester is their food intake. Voluntarily refusing to eat solid and/or liquid foods can sometimes provide much-needed political or social leverage for someone whose plight has captured the public’s attention. Such a drastic but effective form of protest is known as a hunger strike. The use of a hunger strike to express nonviolence is centuries old, although early hunger strikers were more likely to use the threat of starvation to embarrass or shame debtors in order to repay, not to effect radical social change.
A hunger strike generally begins with a prisoner or protester’s refusal to eat any solid food offered by a captor or any government authority. Some may even refuse to drink liquids, but most hunger strikers seem to prefer a longer starvation process to generate maximum political or social pressure on their oppressors. Without liquids, a person may only live a week at most, but without solid foods a hunger striker could conceivably hang on to life for 60 days or more. Meanwhile, the very possibility of a protester or prisoner dying in custody often creates real shame or embarrassment on the part of the government agency or other jailers.
Perhaps the most famous use of a hunger strike as nonviolent resistance occurred in British-occupied India during the mid-20th century. Mohandas Gandhi staged several protests against the oppressive British government, which resulted in several highly publicized arrests. Gandhi realized how much attention his calls for Indian independence had garnered in the rest of the world, so he decided to go on hunger strike regularly while in captivity. The thought of allowing a prominent figure like Gandhi to starve in one of their prisons was politically embarrassing enough to prompt British rulers to consider Gandhi’s demands.
A hunger strike or fasting is also a tactic used by prisoners to shame administrators into addressing a long-standing issue or providing more privileges. Refusing to eat solid food is simple enough for protesters, but it can create a variety of problems for their captors. It is not uncommon for a prison hunger strike to end in the force-feeding of protesters and the revocation of privileges until order is restored. Political prisoners, such as those held in Cuba as enemy combatants, may have a little more leverage during a hunger strike, as their actions are often witnessed by lawyers, journalists and civil rights activists.
There is never a guarantee that a hunger strike will produce the results desired by the striker. Many hunger strikers become too ill to resist force-feeding efforts or medical intervention. Some are irreversibly damaged when vital organs shut down and brain damage sets in. Sadly, some hunger strikers also die after their end-strike demands have been met. A hunger strike is a non-violent act in one sense, but in other ways it can be a very destructive tactic with limited chances of success.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
