Although Mahatma Gandhi did not use contemporary terms such as “sustainable technology” or “sustainability,” these concepts were deeply imprinted in his holistic approach to the crises humanity faced during his lifetime. These ideas were ingrained in the principles that formed the foundation of his philosophy of life. The philosophical foundation of sustainable technology finds its most profound expression in Gandhi’s relational worldview, based on the unity and oneness of all life and its interconnectedness. Such a worldview rejects the fragmentation of human activity into isolated economic or technical spheres. Gandhi’s refusal to divide life into “watertight compartments” meant that a technical solution cannot be considered successful if it is economically viable but ethically or ecologically destructive.
The core tenet of sustainable technology is the principle of Advaita (non-dualism)—the essential unity of all life. Gandhi wrote, “I do not believe that an individual may gain spiritually and those that surround him suffer. I believe in Advaita. I believe in the essential unity of man and, for that matter, of all that lives. Therefore, I believe that if one man gains spiritually, the whole world gains with him; and if one man falls, the whole world falls to that extent.” According to Diwan and Bethea, “In surveying the beliefs of spiritually oriented cultures throughout time and across geographical boundaries, one single, common assertion emerges: the immutable unity or oneness of life, at all levels and in all manifestations.” Within the framework of this relational worldview, technology must be designed with the understanding that the “oneness of life” includes humans, animals, and plants. This is very much in tune with the systems-thinking approach—a holistic method of analysis that focuses on how various parts of a system interrelate and influence each other within the context of a larger whole.
In the framework of such an approach, a technological failure in one part of the globe causes the “whole world to fall.” Conversely, a spiritual or ethical gain in technological design benefits the entire global collective. This worldview recognizes that a technological impact on one part of the world—be it resource extraction or carbon emissions—affects the “essential unity” of the entire planet and ecosystem. Technology should be calibrated to satisfy human needs without fuelling the “unlimited wants” that drive environmental degradation. Sustainable technology advocates for the use of the bare minimum of nature’s resources to achieve a human end.
In the context of sustainable technology, Gandhi’s vision of a Sarvodaya society provides a blueprint for an innovative ecosystem free from the exploitation of nature. Through the lens of Gandhi’s philosophy, we find that “sustainable technology” is not just about “greener” machines; it refers to an alternative symbiotic paradigm where technology serves as a medium for human beings to lead a life in tune with nature, fulfilling their debt to the universe through acts of service and stewardship. In the Gandhian framework, technology should be measured by its contribution to the “welfare of all” (Sarvodaya) and not by GDP-based progress. In this integrated approach, technology should not be viewed as a “neutral tool” but as a direct extension of an individual’s spiritual and ethical life. The “spiritual” and the “technical” cannot be viewed in isolation because they act and react upon one another.
It is a gross misconception that Gandhi was against science and technology. In a speech delivered to the students of a college in Trivandrum in 1925, he said, “We cannot live without science, if we keep it in its right place.” He called Satyagraha “science in the making” and titled his autobiography The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Gandhi was aware of the significance of sustainable technology for building a just and nonviolent order. In fact, he viewed technical expertise as a vital component for the attainment of the Swaraj of his dreams. He believed that for India to achieve true independence, it needed a generation of individuals who combined a scientific temper and technical skill with a moral commitment to the welfare of the masses.
This was evident from his efforts to improve the spinning wheel. As early as 1920, Gandhi issued an open challenge to design a spinning wheel that was lightweight, durable, and more efficient. The spinning wheel (Charkha) was a central weapon in the movement, representing the dignity of labour, self-reliance, and a decentralized village economy. This led Jawaharlal Nehru to describe Khadi as the “livery of India’s freedom.”
On July 24, 1929, Mahatma Gandhi, on behalf of the Akhil Bharatiya Charkha Sangh (All India Spinners’ Association), announced a global design competition to modernize the traditional spinning wheel. He offered a prize of 1 Lakh Rupees (or 7,700 Pounds)—a massive fortune in those days—to incentivize inventors and engineers to create a Charkha or a Samyukta Yantra (composite machine) for making thread and cloth that satisfied the following criteria:
The Charkha must be lightweight, easy to move, and operable using either a hand or a leg in a natural way within the rural cottages of India.
It must be designed so that a woman can work with it for eight hours at a stretch without great effort.
The Charkha must either accommodate the use of a puni (carded cotton roll) or include a mechanism to produce handspun cloth.
Working for eight hours continuously should result in 12 to 20 units of 16,000 feet of yarn.
The machine should cost no more than Rs. 150 to produce in India.
The machine should be sturdy and well-made. With periodic servicing, it should be capable of running for at least 20 years. Maintenance should be affordable, costing no more than 5% of the machine’s value per year.
Through this competition, Gandhi sought to develop a machine that combined the benefits of traditional hand-spinning and industrial efficiency without requiring the centralization of the means of production. The goal was to increase the earning potential of rural workers without resorting to large-scale industrialization that leads to the exploitation of the working classes.
Similarly, Gandhi’s close associates sent a total of nine people to MIT during the freedom struggle. Bal Kalelkar, son of Kaka Kalelkar and a participant in the 1930 Salt March, was encouraged by Gandhi and later accepted to MIT to study mechanical engineering. Gandhi took a personal interest in him and hand-edited his letter to industrialist G.D. Birla to request financial assistance for his studies.
Gandhi’s close associate Kaka Kalelkar’s efforts to modernize the Nagari script align closely with Gandhi’s approach to technology: that tools must be refined to serve the masses, foster national self-reliance, and bridge the gap between different linguistic groups. Gandhi believed that for India to achieve true independence, it needed its own systems of communication rather than a reliance on English. He supported Kalelkar’s research because he feared that if Nagari remained “backward” in printing and telegraphy, the English language would maintain a permanent stronghold on Indian administration and thought. By streamlining the script—such as using halants to remove complex joint letters—Gandhi and Kalelkar aimed to ensure that Nagari would not fall behind in the area of technology.
Gandhi often advocated for the simplification of complex processes to make them accessible to the common person. He even used the modified script in his weekly publication, Harijan. Just as Gandhi promoted the spinning wheel (Charkha) as a perfected piece of human-centric technology, he viewed “user-friendly Nagari shorthand” and modified typewriters as essential tools for India. He wanted a script that was easy for non-Hindi speakers to learn, thereby using the “technology” of writing to weave the nation together.
Pandurang Burke and Gajanand Dabke, young associates of Kalelkar, were partners in this mission. They developed the first Hindi keyboards and telegraph codes, adapting modern mechanical efficiency—such as typing and shorthand—to preserve and promote an indigenous language that represented the nation’s cultural ethos.
As the world heads toward the rapid expansion of Artificial Intelligence, Gandhi’s 1946 reflections in Harijan provide a precise philosophical critique of machinery and technology. He did not oppose technology itself but scrutinized its ethical implications, particularly its tendency to dominate rather than serve. He wrote:
“Ours has been described as the machine age because the machine dominates our economy. ‘Now, what is a machine?’ one may ask. In a sense, man is the most wonderful machine in creation. It can neither be duplicated nor copied. I have, however, used the word not in its wider sense, but in the sense of an appliance that tends to displace human or animal labour instead of supplementing it or merely increasing its efficiency. This is the first differential characteristic of the machine. The second characteristic is that there is no limit to its growth or evolution. This cannot be said of human labour… It seems to be possessed of a will or genius of its own. It is antagonistic to man’s labour. Thus, it tends more to displace man, one machine doing the work of hundred, if not a thousand, who go to swell the army of the unemployed and the under-employed, not because it is desirable but because that is its law.”
While his 1909 work, Hind Swaraj, featured a stark opposition to machinery, his later “intelligent exceptions”—such as his praise for the Singer sewing machine—reveal a nuanced philosophical foundation for sustainable technology. Gandhi’s characterization of the machine as “satanic” was not a rejection of mechanics, but a critique of power dynamics. He argued that technology becomes destructive when it is used as a “means of suppression and exploitation.”
In the current AI age, Gandhi’s fear that the machine would “disrupt” rather than “serve” the world is reflected in contemporary debates over algorithmic exploitation. When AI is used to surveil workers or concentrate wealth in the hands of a few “techno-giants,” Gandhi’s warning seems prophetic.
Gandhi welcomed the sewing machine because it saved individuals from “unnecessary labour” or drudgery without destroying their autonomy. This provides a clear rule for sustainable technology: it is sustainable only if it enhances human capability and empowerment. Technology becomes harmful if it creates an “army of the unemployed” simply because its “law” of growth is limitless.
Just as Gandhi referred to the “Machine Age” because machines dominated the economy of 1946, modern society is defined by the centrality of Artificial Intelligence in every walk of life—politics, economics, and even social and cultural realms. Gandhi’s observation that the machine seems “possessed of a will or genius of its own” is a precursor to modern concerns about AI. Without an ethical “brake,” the AI machine follows its own internal logic—often prioritizing efficiency over human well-being.
Therefore, technological advancements, including AI, should be used to empower local communities rather than fuel mass displacement. Technology must be a tool for Swaraj (self-rule). It must foster Sarvodaya (the welfare of all), ensuring that even the “last person” (Antyodaya) benefits from technological progress. Ultimately, Gandhi’s philosophy suggests that the AI age can only be sustainable if we treat the human being as “the most wonderful machine in creation,” ensuring that all other appliances remain secondary to human dignity and ecological harmony.
Note:
This reflection was prepared for the first session on Philosophical and Scientific Foundations of Sustainable Technology of three days International Conclave on Sustainable Technology:Fundamentals, Principles and Ethics organised by JNEC and FIDS, MGM University, Chh Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra, India from January 23-25, 2026. The author reflected and moderated the session.
About the Author
Dr. Siby K. Joseph is Director of Sri Jamnalal Bajaj Memorial Library and Research Centre for Gandhian Studies, Sevagram Ashram Pratishthan, Wardha, Maharashtra, India
Email: directorjbmlrc@gmail.com
https://sevagramashram.org.in/index.php/library-and-research-centre/
https://nonvpi.in/
