I had a feeling when I read they'd continued working, and waited 2-6 mos. for non-violent resolution of their wage/labor grievances before a Dharna (peaceful protest) was sanctioned, they were likely Hindu. This brings up some very interesting food for thought.
While the Indian Supreme Court states "Captital Punishment" (sanctioned, justfiable murder) should "only be used in the rarest of cases," the Hindi themselves subscribe to
"absolute non-violence." (Note: Had they been non-Hindi, Muslim or Christian, for example, the other two Indian faith groups, they likely wouldn't have waited then employed a Dharna).
Very much like Buddhist Law (Dhammapada 129-32), Hindu Law states: "He who commits murder must be considered as the worst offender, more wicked than a defamer, than a thief, and than he who injures with a staff." - Laws of Manu 8.345
Even the Islamic Qu'ran states: "If anyone killed a person not in retaliation for murder or to spread mischief in the land, it would be as if he killed all of mankind." - Surah Al-Maaida 5.32 (however, in Islam, the owner could have certainly been accused of "spreading mischief.").
By the workers using a Dharna, they were not only imposing a "sit-in" (cessation of work), a Dharna also includes a "fast," therefore, they were not eating any food of any kind during the protest period.
Hindi tradition is deeply ingrained in Indian culture for its adherents, and with reincarnation based on "good karma" and "bad karma" being the life's challenge, they literally put their current lives, their souls, and their "next" lifetime on the line to commit this murder. They were not even "Mahatmas," or Holy Men, just ordinary, dirt poor, low-caste workers who, according to Hindu, were already here to "work off bad karma" incurred in their previous lives; thus their poverty/position in life.
So, their families welfare aside, the question becomes, at what point (incl. the effects of physical starvation) do people become willing to give up their religion, their lives, their souls, and their next lifetimes in favor of the human instinct to survive? Is there *any* point in the human condition where what
we call murder might be warranted?
Edit: I was writing while others were posting. For the record, I understand exactly where
@Wolf_of_Mars is coming from.