The Gandhian Theory of Development presents an alternative vision of development based on human welfare, moral values, social justice, self-reliance and harmony between human beings and nature. Mahatma Gandhi developed his ideas in response to the exploitative economic and social structures of colonial India and the destructive effects of uncontrolled industrialisation. Unlike conventional development theories that primarily emphasise economic growth, industrial production and increasing national income, Gandhi placed the human being at the centre of development. For him, genuine development meant the improvement of the quality of life of every individual, particularly the poorest and most disadvantaged sections of society. The Gandhian approach does not regard economic growth as an end in itself. Wealth, technology and production are valuable only when they contribute to human welfare and social justice. Gandhi's concept of development was therefore closely connected with his ideas of Swaraj, Sarvodaya, trusteeship, Swadeshi, village self-government, non-violence and simple living. His development philosophy sought to create a society in which economic activities served social needs rather than merely generating private profit. A central principle of Gandhian development is the idea of Sarvodaya, meaning the welfare or upliftment of all. Gandhi believed that development should benefit the entire population rather than a small privileged group. The progress of society should be judged by the condition of its weakest members. His approach is reflected in the principle that the needs of the poor should receive the highest priority. Development, therefore, must address poverty, unemployment, inequality, hunger, illiteracy and social discrimination. Economic policies that increase national income while leaving large sections of society deprived cannot be considered genuine development from a Gandhian perspective. Another important principle is Swaraj, which literally means self-rule. For Gandhi, Swaraj was not simply political independence from colonial rule. It also meant economic, social and moral self-reliance. Individuals and communities should have the ability to manage their own affairs and participate actively in decisions affecting their lives. At the village level, Gandhi envisioned Gram Swaraj, where villages would function as relatively self-sufficient and democratic units. Local communities would participate in governance, manage local resources and address their own social and economic problems. This emphasis on decentralisation challenges highly centralised models of development. Gandhi strongly supported rural development because he considered villages the foundation of Indian society. He believed that development should not concentrate resources and employment opportunities in large cities. Instead, rural areas should be strengthened through agriculture, cottage industries, handicrafts and small-scale enterprises. Khadi and village industries were important components of this vision. Such activities could generate employment with relatively limited capital and technology and could reduce excessive migration from villages to cities. Gandhi's emphasis on labour-intensive production was particularly relevant to a country characterised by abundant labour and limited capital. The Gandhian approach also emphasises Swadeshi, or the preference for locally produced goods and services. Swadeshi was not simply a rejection of foreign products. It represented a broader commitment to local economic strength, self-reliance and responsible consumption. Gandhi believed that communities should use their own resources and skills wherever possible. Local production could create employment, strengthen rural economies and reduce dependence on external economic forces. In contemporary discussions, this idea can be connected with local entrepreneurship, decentralised production, community-based enterprises and sustainable local economies. The principle of trusteeship is another distinctive feature of Gandhian economic thought. Gandhi did not completely reject private property, but he argued that wealth should be treated as a social