- Home
- Hunger Strikes & Political Prisoners
Plate 11 — Prison Protest
The last argument available to a person with nothing left to withhold
A prisoner has no vote, no press, no platform and no freedom of movement. The hunger strike was what remained — and colonial India’s political prisoners used it as a deliberate, collective, strategic instrument.
This page examines hunger striking as a subject in political history. It gives no guidance on fasting, refusing food, or any form of self-harm, and it does not treat physical suffering as inspirational. The people described here were making a political calculation under conditions of extreme constraint, and they are recorded here as political actors rather than as objects of pity or of admiration for their endurance.
Plate 11.1 — Mechanism
Why refusing food became a political method
A prison exists to control what a person can do. The hunger strike works by identifying the one thing the institution cannot compel without exposing itself, and then withholding it.
Its logic has three parts. The first is that it transfers responsibility. Once a prisoner stops eating, any deterioration becomes something happening in the state’s custody, under the state’s supervision, on the state’s record. The authorities are forced either to concede, to intervene physically, or to allow a death for which they will be publicly accountable.
The second is that it is legible. A strike requires no printing press, no meeting and no organisation the authorities can dismantle. It can be reported in a single sentence and understood immediately by people with no knowledge of the underlying dispute.
The third is that it converts isolation into visibility. This is why the method mattered so much to prisoners in remote settlements. A person cut off from all political activity could still generate a national news story from inside a cell.
The demands were deliberately concrete and unromantic. They concerned the treatment of Indian political prisoners relative to European convicts:
- Adequate and edible food
- Proper clothing and bedding
- Access to books, writing materials and newspapers
- An end to degrading and punitive prison labour
- Recognition as political prisoners rather than classification with those convicted of ordinary crime
The demand for recognition carried the largest implication: to concede it was to concede that the offence was political, and therefore that a political conflict existed.
Plate 11.2 — The 1929 strike
June to October 1929
On 12 June 1929 Batukeshwar Dutt and Bhagat Singh were sentenced to transportation for life. They were held separately — Singh at Mianwali Jail, Dutt at Lahore Central Jail — and on 15 June 1929, three days after conviction, both began refusing food.
The strike spread. Prisoners held in connection with the Lahore Conspiracy Case joined, and the action became a sustained national story through the summer of 1929, reported in the nationalist press and raised in the Central Legislative Assembly. Authorities responded with forcible feeding.
On 13 September 1929, Jatindra Nath Das died in Lahore Central Jail on the sixty-third day of his fast. He was twenty-four. His body was carried in procession, and the funeral became one of the largest political demonstrations of the period.
The strike was called off in October 1929 after partial concessions. Batukeshwar Dutt’s own fast is recorded as having lasted some sixty-three days, and accounts describe harsh treatment by the prison authorities throughout.
What it achieved, and what it did not
The material concessions were partial and, in the manner of such concessions, unevenly implemented afterwards. Judged narrowly by its stated demands, the 1929 strike was at best a qualified success.
Judged politically, it did something the demands did not describe. It moved the question of how India’s political prisoners were treated from an administrative matter to a national argument, and it established prison conditions as a legitimate front in the independence struggle. That framing held for the following two decades, and the collective hunger strikes at the Cellular Jail in May 1933 and July 1937 belong to the same lineage.
It should also be said plainly that a young man died, and that the concessions obtained did not amount to what had been asked for. Both statements are true at once, and the second is not cancelled by the first.
Plate 11.3 — The response
The state’s dilemma
Concede
Grant the demands, and in doing so accept that the prisoners are political prisoners — conceding the existence of a political conflict, and establishing that refusing food is an effective way to extract concessions from the administration.
Intervene
Feed prisoners by force. This keeps them alive and generates, in the process, a body of medical and eyewitness testimony that is politically damaging when it reaches the press — as it repeatedly did.
Refuse
Hold the line and accept the consequences. The death of Jatindra Nath Das in September 1929 demonstrated what that produced: a funeral procession that became a mass demonstration, and a martyr the movement could name.
None of the three options was good for the administration. That was the design. A hunger strike is effective precisely when the institution holding a person has no response that does not cost it something.