Indian here. The strikes are mostly useless. Such general strikes have been going on for decades with little to no gain. An excellent article posted in this thread correctly mentioned that these strikes are performative in nature.

Furthermore, as a Marxist, it's not scientific to think that peasants that revolutionary in nature. Most peasants want to keep working on their small plots. A rational and progressive society would seek to eliminate as many such small peasants as possible by consolidating farmland and mechanizing agriculture, even through privatization.

These strikes are political in nature. The trade unions are mostly controlled by the INC(the former dominant centrist party) and by "Left wing" parties(which are closer to social democracy than leftist, but in practice reactionary through their support of peasants). The trade unions have organized these strikes in such a way that actual production and economic activity hasnt been affected. This is because most of the strikes have occurred in government-designated protest places(yes such places exist in India).

Also, most of the strike-participants are from the unorganized informal sector i.e they are small traders, contract workers, . Actual proletariat in the Marxist sense(people working in the established organized capitalist sector) are not part of any trade unions and are actually heavily repressed. The people working in government corporations like Indian Railways or the major state banks have also not participated in strikes, lessening its effectiveness.

Mass general strikes are almost a ritual event in India, and their effectiveness has been historically shown to be lacking. The blame is on union leaders of course, but also to understand it in a Marxist sense, these are workers outside the capitalist mode of production, and therefore cannot be revolutionary.