Discuss Gandhi’s approach to property in relation to trusteeship. (2026, 15 Marks)
For M. K. Gandhi, property was a moral question before it was a legal one. He asked what anyone may rightly keep while others go without. Trusteeship was his answer: a change in the owner’s relation to wealth, without the violence of expropriation.
Gandhi’s Theory of Property
- Non-possession. He drew on the Gita’s aparigraha and the Ishopanishad‘s opening verse (enjoy by renouncing). Possessions beyond need are a burden and a source of violence. In a 1916 speech on the ashram vows he likened keeping what one does not need to theft.
- Wealth is social. Every fortune rests on others’ labour, so the holder is a steward, not an absolute owner.
- Two violences rejected. Unlimited accumulation is slow violence against the poor. State confiscation is open violence and builds a coercive machine.
How Trusteeship Works
- The owner keeps possession and management, takes what a reasonable livelihood needs, and administers the surplus for the community, with workers as partners.
- It is not philanthropy. Philanthropy gives away part of what one still owns; trusteeship gives up the sense of ownership itself.
- Practice. In the 1918 Ahmedabad mill strike he led the workers against the owners headed by Ambalal Sarabhai, and the dispute went to arbitration. He held up Jamnalal Bajaj as a model trustee.
- Hardening. The Constructive Programme (1941) called economic equality the master key to non-violent independence. The practical trusteeship formula, drafted by Kishorlal Mashruwala and Narhari Parikh and amended by Gandhi (published in Harijan, 1952), set out six principles, among them:
| Clause | Content |
|---|---|
| Ownership | Private property only so far as society permits it for its welfare |
| Law | Legislative regulation of ownership not excluded |
| Income | A minimum wage and a maximum income, with the gap narrowing |
| Production | Governed by social necessity, not greed |
If owners refused, workers could withdraw cooperation. As a last resort, the state could act with minimum violence.
Perspectives
- Marxist. Manabendra Nath Roy and communist critics held that exploitation is structural, not moral. Appeals to conscience leave ownership, inheritance and hiring power intact while pacifying labour. His ties to the industrialist G. D. Birla sharpened the charge.
- Nehruvian. Jawaharlal Nehru saw no enforcement mechanism, so India chose land ceilings, nationalisation and taxation.
- Liberal. Without a clear test of “need”, any limit on holdings looks arbitrary.
- Gandhian test. Vinoba Bhave‘s Bhoodan tried voluntary transfer. Millions of acres were pledged, but much was barren or never distributed.
Trusteeship Today
Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 requires qualifying companies to spend 2% of average net profits on CSR. SEBI’s BRSR makes the top 1,000 listed firms report on stakeholders. Both echo stewardship, but they are a levy and a disclosure rule, not a ceiling on income or a dilution of ownership, which makes them closer to regulated philanthropy than to trusteeship.
Conclusion
Gandhi’s approach redefines property as a social trust bounded by need. It moved from moral appeal towards statutory limits on ownership and income. Enforcement is its weakness. Its lasting value is the idea, revived in stakeholder capitalism, that ownership carries obligations to those whose labour makes wealth possible.