From Gram Swaraj to SEWA: Women’s Leadership in Rural Development through a Gandhian Lens

- By Kalpana Singh*

Abstract

The paper challenges the conventional portrayal of rural women as passive beneficiaries of development, highlighting their agency and leadership in transforming communities. Revisiting Mahatma Gandhi's vision of Gram Swaraj, it argues that principles of non-violence, self-reliance, decentralisation, and moral leadership remain relevant today. Through Ela Bhatt and the Self-Employed Women's Association (SEWA), the study presents a cooperative, inclusive, and non-violent model of grassroots transformation rooted in Gandhian ethics. Drawing on secondary sources, it critiques homogenizing development approaches and emphasises local knowledge, dignity, cultural identity, and women’s agency. SEWA demonstrates how rural women can lead community-driven, ethical, and inclusive development.

Introduction

When Mahatma Gandhi asserted that India’s national regeneration lay through its villages, he placed rural communities at the moral and political centre of development rather than at the margins of urban expansion (Gandhi, 1942). His vision challenged centralised models, arguing that sustainable transformation should emerge from self-reliant, ethically organised village life. However, contemporary rural India has become increasingly complex. The conventional image of the village as an agrarian, kinship-bound, and culturally distinct unit no longer adequately reflects realities shaped by transportation, digital communication, migration, consumer markets, and state welfare. Rurality is now better understood as a layered or hybrid social formation shaped by policy, mobility, and economic integration (Gupta, 2020). Yet these transformations remain uneven, with women continuing to perform largely informal, underpaid, and insufficiently recognised labour within rural economies (FAO, 2011).

Policy discourse has similarly tended to portray rural women as beneficiaries of welfare rather than agents of institutional change. Although welfare programmes have expanded access to credit, employment, and social security, empowerment is often assessed through programme outputs rather than sustained changes in agency and decision-making (Kabeer, 1999).

Against this background, Gandhi’s conception of Gram Swaraj warrants renewed examination. This paper uses the Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), founded by Ela Bhatt, as a contemporary institutional case for assessing the continuing relevance of Gram Swaraj. As one of India’s influential women-led grassroots organisations, SEWA demonstrates how Gandhian principles can be reinterpreted within contemporary rural development. Although present-day villages differ substantially from those of Gandhi’s time, local self-governance, cooperative organisation, and community-based leadership remain relevant to inclusive development.

Existing scholarship on Self-Help Groups (SHGs) and microfinance has largely emphasised economic outcomes, social capital, and financial inclusion, while studies of Gandhian thought often treat it primarily as a philosophical or historical framework. Less attention has been given to connecting Gandhian ethics with feminist models of grassroots leadership in contemporary rural development. This conceptual gap motivates the study.

The paper contributes in three ways. First, it interprets SEWA as a contemporary institutional expression of Gram Swaraj rather than simply as a successful women’s organisation. Second, it connects Gandhian political thought with feminist development theory by showing how ethical decentralisation can become institutional practice. Third, it conceptualises women’s leadership not merely through economic participation or welfare outcomes, but as ethical and democratic decentralisation that expands agency, collective decision-making, and local self-governance. SEWA thus represents a contemporary reinterpretation of Gram Swaraj, demonstrating the continuing relevance of decentralisation, dignity of labour, cooperative organisation, and ethical leadership to inclusive rural development.

Methodology

This study adopts a qualitative, conceptual research design to reinterpret Gandhian principles within contemporary rural development. Rather than generating new empirical data, it examines how concepts such as decentralisation, trusteeship, constructive work, dignity of labour, and moral leadership may be operationalised through an existing grassroots institution.

The analysis draws primarily on Gandhi’s writings, supplemented by scholarly literature on Gandhian thought, women’s empowerment, Self-Help Groups (SHGs), rural development, and published research on SEWA, including institutional reports and critical analyses. SEWA is selected as the central case because of its explicit grounding in Gandhian ethics, extensive geographical reach across Indian states, and federated structure combining trade unionism, cooperatives, and skill development within a decentralised framework. Its long-standing engagement with informal women workers and emphasis on locally rooted, collectively organised leadership make it particularly suitable for examining the contemporary relevance of Gram Swaraj.

The study employs thematic comparison, examining Gandhian concepts against SEWA’s organisational practices to assess whether SEWA represents a contemporary institutional reinterpretation of Gram Swaraj. Its principal limitation is reliance on secondary sources and the absence of interviews or participant observation, making findings interpretive rather than micro-level empirically verified. Future field research could examine implementation variations and members’ experiences across states. Nevertheless, the conceptual approach clarifies the relationship between Gandhian ethics and contemporary women-led rural development.

Theoretical Framework: Integrating Gandhian Ethics and Feminist Development Theory

Gandhian Ethical Foundation

Gram Swaraj extends beyond economic self-sufficiency and local administration to an ethical vision of decentralised self-rule grounded in social justice, the dignity of labour, participatory decision-making, and the inclusion of the weakest in political, economic, and social life. Trusteeship situated economic activity within moral responsibility rather than individual accumulation, while constructive work fostered self-reliant communities through collective action. Decentralisation, thus, functioned not merely as an administrative arrangement but as an ethical principle of shared responsibility and participatory leadership.

Critics have argued that Gandhian thought is overly moralistic, insufficiently institutionalised, and inadequately equipped to address the structural realities of modern political economy (Parekh, 1989).

Yet this criticism reflects Gandhi's concern with articulating ethical principles rather than detailed institutional blueprints (Iyer, 1987).

Interpreted within contemporary socio-economic conditions, these principles acquire institutional expression. SEWA may thus be understood not as a replication of Gram Swaraj but as its contextual adaptation, translating decentralised self-rule, trusteeship, and non-violent cooperation into collective organisation, a cooperative enterprise, and democratic engagement with markets and the state.

Feminist Development Theory

Caroline Moser's distinction between Practical Gender Needs (PGNs) and Strategic Gender Needs (SGNs) (Moser, 2012) offers an important framework for assessing women's empowerment through Self-Help Groups (SHGs). While practical needs relate to immediate concerns such as income, credit, and basic economic security, strategic needs involve transforming unequal gender relations and institutional power structures. SHGs have substantially addressed women's access to financial resources, yet inequalities in decision-making authority, control over assets, and the unequal distribution of unpaid care work remain only partially resolved.

(Batliwala, 2011) extends this analysis by distinguishing feminist leadership from the mere presence of women in positions of authority. Women's participation alone does not necessarily transform unequal power relations. Her framework of "power over" (domination), "power to" (capacity to act), "power with" (collective strength), and "power within" (self-confidence and critical consciousness) highlights empowerment as a multidimensional process. Collective organisations such as SEWA strengthen both "power with," through collective action and "power within" by fostering confidence and critical consciousness, reflecting Gandhi's understanding of Swaraj as a shared ethical practice rather than individual authority.

Cornwall (2016) similarly cautions against equating empowerment with measurable outcomes such as participation rates or income enhancement. Meaningful empowerment requires changes in institutional practices and social power relations. This perspective complements the Gandhian insistence that participation derives its significance from ethical responsibility, collective agency, and local autonomy rather than numerical inclusion alone.

Limits of Economic Empowerment

Critical perspectives on microfinance further complicate optimistic accounts of women's economic empowerment. Karim (2011) argues that access to credit does not necessarily translate into control over financial resources and may, under certain conditions, intensify women's unpaid labour and repayment burdens. SEWA differs from conventional microfinance models by embedding financial services within unionisation, legal awareness, cooperative organisation, rights-based claims and institutional negotiation. In this sense, Gandhian decentralisation acquires institutional significance only when supported by a collective organisation and democratic participation rather than credit alone.

Empirical evidence also indicates that the outcome of SHGs remains uneven. Swain and Wallentin (2009) find that participation is generally associated with greater empowerment, although the extent of change depends upon broader social and institutional contexts. Material advancement may facilitate challenges to existing hierarchies, but structural transformation remains contingent upon wider political, economic, and cultural conditions.

Towards a Gandhian-Feminist Framework

This study brings Gandhian ethics into dialogue with feminist development theory to conceptualise empowerment as a layered process encompassing material improvement, collective agency, and institutional transformation. Gandhi's principles of Swaraj, Trusteeship, Non-violence, and community cooperation provide the ethical foundation, while feminist scholarship offers analytical tools for examining how power operates within everyday social relations.

Although feminist scholars caution against essentializing women's caregiving roles, development policy must engage with existing patterns of care responsibility. Flexible and localized livelihood opportunities created through SHGs enable many women to combine income generation with caregiving responsibilities, thereby reducing the tension between economic participation and family obligations. Recognising care as socially necessary labour shifts attention from moral idealisation to institutional design while avoiding biological determinism.

Beyond savings and credit, SHGs also function as spaces of dialogue, mutual support, and collective learning. Women share personal experiences, negotiate domestic challenges, and build relationships of trust that reduce social isolation and strengthen both "power within" and "power with". Such processes do not immediately dismantle entrenched patriarchal structures, but they create the relational and psychological conditions through which authority can gradually be renegotiated within households and communities.

Taken together, this framework moves beyond viewing SHGs as either instruments of economic inclusion or as inadequate vehicles of structural change. By integrating feminist distinctions between practical and strategic gender needs with Gandhian principles of decentralized self-rule, it understands empowerment as a contextual and cumulative process in which material resources, collective organisation, and ethical participation reinforce one another. SEWA illustrates how shifts in "power within" and "power with" may gradually mediate broader structural transformation. Empowerment, therefore, is neither automatic nor illusory; it is contextual, cumulative, and embedded in lived social relations.

Gandhi's Vision of Rural India and the Question of Women's Agency

Gandhi's conception of rural India was not simply an economic programme but an ethical and political vision of decentralised self-rule. Gram Swaraj envisaged the village as the foundational unit of democracy, where economic production, political participation, and social responsibility were integrated through non-violence, self-restraint, and local autonomy (Gandhi, 1946). Self-reliance, cooperative labour, and dignity of manual work were therefore ethical commitments intended to prevent exploitation and concentration of power (Gandhi, 1942).

Trusteeship formed a central pillar of this vision by seeking to moderate economic inequality through moral responsibility rather than coercive redistribution (Gandhi, 1933; Vidakoviæ, 2022). Wealth, Gandhi argued, should be held in trust for society, while bread labour affirmed the social value of productive work irrespective of status (Gandhi 1933; 1942; Iyer 1987). Likewise, the charkha and khadi symbolised decentralised production and community self-reliance in opposition to industrial concentration and unemployment (Brown, 1991).

Women occupied an important place within this vision. Gandhi encouraged their participation in constructive programmes, including education, sanitation, village reconstruction, and the nationalist movement, arguing that they possessed qualities of courage, compassion, and non-violence that were essential to public life (Gandhi 1929; 1942). His mobilisation of women challenged prevailing restrictions on their public participation and contributed to normalizing their visibility in collective protest (Kishwar, 1985).

Yet this inclusion was framed within a distinctive moral vocabulary that has attracted sustained feminist critique. Gandhi’s representation of women as embodiments of sacrifice and purity risked reinforcing gendered expectations that tied female agency to service rather than autonomy (Kishwar, 1985). By associating women’s strength primarily with moral influence rather than institutional authority, his thought left unresolved the question of women’s relationship to formal political power (Iyer, 1987). This position simultaneously opened and circumscribed women’s possibilities.

Feminist scholars have therefore interpreted Gandhi’s approach as ambivalent: emancipatory in practice, yet normatively restrictive in its idealisation of feminine virtue (Kishwar, 1985). On one hand, his mobilisation strategies created space for women’s participation in civil disobedience and local governance. On the other hand, the construction of women as inherently self-sacrificing risked naturalising care work and reinforcing expectations of moral self-denial. The tension between empowerment and idealisation remains central to evaluating the contemporary relevance of Gandhian thought for women’s leadership.

At the same time, dismissing Gandhi’s framework as merely paternalistic would overlook its radical departure from dominant patriarchal norms of his era. His insistence that men treat women as co-workers rather than subordinates, and his critique of customs that perpetuated inequality, marked a significant ethical intervention within early twentieth-century India (Gandhi, 1929; Iyer, 1987). The question, therefore, is not whether Gandhi was wholly liberatory or wholly restrictive, but how his ideas can be reinterpreted within contemporary feminist frameworks.

Such a reinterpretation requires extending Gram Swaraj beyond moral participation to institutional agency. If decentralised self-rule is understood as democratic participation rather than village romanticism, women must exercise decision-making authority, control over resources, and collective bargaining power alongside ethical leadership (Gandhi 1946). SEWA illustrates this transition by translating Gandhian ideals of decentralisation into organisational forms that combine economic participation with democratic representation and collective action. In this sense, Gandhi’s vision provides an ethical foundation for inclusive rural development, while feminist perspectives expand it by locating women’s empowerment in both moral responsibility and institutional power.

Women's Leadership in Rural Development: Contemporary Landscape

Self-Help Groups (SHGs) emerged as a pilot initiative in 1992 under the bank linkage programme promoted by NABARD (National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development), following which the Reserve Bank of India advised commercial banks to extend credit to SHGs.

Typically consisting of 10 to 20 women residing within the same geographical area and sharing similar socio-cultural backgrounds, SHGs are formed as collective credit and savings organisations. The model is based on a “savings-first” approach, wherein members contribute small, regular savings that are pooled and circulated as loans among themselves, enabling women to gradually move out of the vicious cycle of poverty. Although initiated with a primary focus on financial inclusion, SHGs have expanded beyond economic objectives to influence social and political spheres through collective strength. They increasingly function as common interest groups rather than merely credit associations. At the organisational level, SHGs constitute the basic unit, with 15 to 50 groups forming a cluster or Village Organisation (VO), and multiple VOs together constituting apex bodies such as Mandal Samakhys, which are registered formal institutions (Reddy and Manak, 2005).

While the institutional design of SHGs reflects decentralized organisation, the function remains within state-supported financial and administrative systems. Their autonomy, therefore, depends not only on internal cohesion but also on the relationships with banks, government agencies, and livelihood missions. Decentralisation in the SHG model is consequently operational rather than absolute, combining community participation with institutional support. In this respect, SHGs represent a contemporary adaptation of decentralized governance rather than the fully autonomous village envisaged under Gram Swaraj.

The spread and performance of SHGs have varied considerably across India. Southern states such as Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu record higher enrolment of women in SHGs, while states characterised by higher poverty levels and lower per capita income exhibit greater participation of marginalised rural women. These differences reflect variations in financial infrastructure, the depth of poverty, and inconsistencies in policy implementation rather than the intrinsic effectiveness of the SHG model itself (Mukhopadhyay, 2023). These disparities underline the need for interventions rather than uniform policy prescriptions. Thus, the uneven experience of SHGs must be understood as context-dependent rather than universally replicable, raising important questions about prescriptions in diverse socio-economic settings.

Empirical studies on SHGs demonstrate that access to microfinance has enabled women to engage in entrepreneurial activities and contribute financially to household expenditure. This participation enhances women's economic independence, confidence, and involvement in household decisions relating to education, healthcare, and consumption. Additionally, SHG participation has strengthened women's communication skills and mobility, as they increasingly interact with formal institutions such as banks and hospitals—spaces that were previously perceived as inaccessible or intimidating (Pandhare et al., 2024). However, sustainable village enterprises require training and skill development. Women join SHGs for credit, financial independence, entrepreneurship, and skill development, all of which support sustainable women-led enterprises (Ajesh Palayi et al., 2023). However, improvements in income and participation do not automatically translate into structural transformation of gender relations. Access to credit may expand women's economic roles while leaving intra-household power dynamics largely intact. The distinction between functional participation and substantive authority, therefore, becomes critical in evaluating the depth of empowerment achieved through SHGs.

Evidence suggests a rise in women's income after joining SHGs, alongside the creation of employment opportunities within villages, enhanced savings capacity, and greater engagement with Panchayati Raj institutions, which play a crucial role in programme implementation. Studies from Uttarakhand highlight the need for flexible rules, increased awareness programmes, and targeted incentives to attract more women into SHGs, particularly in sectors such as dairy and agriculture where women's participation is most pronounced (Bhoj et al., 2013). The integration of SHGs with Panchayati Raj institutions suggests a convergence between participatory governance and women's collective organisation. Yet the effectiveness of this linkage depends on the degree of financial autonomy and decision-making authority granted to local bodies. Without substantive devolution of power, institutional participation risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative. SHGs have strengthened collective capacity, but comprehensive empowerment continues to require sustained institutional support (Saha, 2015).

Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) increasingly support women's micro-enterprises by improving market access and business management through mobile technologies. Despite this potential, effective utilisation of digital tools requires structured training and improved digital literacy among women entrepreneurs. Realising this potential requires digital literacy, affordable technologies, and targeted capacity-building initiatives (Malanga & Banda, 2021). In parallel, the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992 gave concrete shape to Gandhi's vision of decentralized governance by ensuring representation for women through reservations in Panchayati Raj Institutions. Women representatives in PRIs have contributed significantly to improved outcomes in healthcare, education, and community welfare, thereby strengthening local governance. PRIs also serve as an institutional bridge between the state and rural communities by implementing development programmes and supporting women's participation. However, to effectively promote women's leadership and good governance at the grassroots, PRIs require greater decision-making authority, enhanced financial autonomy, and sustained efforts to challenge patriarchal norms (Yakar, 2024).

Tribal women's experiences further illustrate the diversity of pathways to leadership within rural contexts. In Jharkhand, women from different tribal identities, shaped by distinct socio-cultural practices, have demonstrated how cooperative formations oriented towards economic empowerment can facilitate broader social transformation. Participation in cooperatives has strengthened collective capacity and enabled women to assume leadership roles within their communities. While women do not constitute a homogeneous group, shared economic vulnerabilities often place them in marginal positions, making this a critical moment to recognise both "power within" and "power with." Contemporary shifts in leadership paradigms further reflect a movement away from exclusively masculine traits towards qualities such as care, empathy, collaboration, and consensus-building—traits increasingly associated with effective leadership (Bhaskar & Kaushik, 2022).

Kudumbashree in Kerala represents a well-established example of a decentralised, women-centred poverty alleviation programme built upon SHGs and neighbourhood-level collectives. Micro-level analyses demonstrate that the programme has enhanced women's economic participation in livelihood, while strengthening mobility, public participation, and household decision-making. Its effectiveness lies in close integration with local self-governance institutions, which enables women to emerge as community-level leaders rather than remaining passive recipients of welfare (Husain & Nair, 2006).

Within SHG networks, women's leadership manifests through locally selected group leaders who manage savings, credit, and collective decision-making. Operating within federated structures linked to formal banks and state livelihood missions, these women acquire organisational and financial authority while negotiating with financial institutions and coordinating collective livelihood activities. This form of leadership enhances economic agency and public visibility, yet remains structurally constrained. Control over credit often remains with financial institutions or male family members, while unpaid care work and market intermediaries continue to restrict women’s autonomy and control over production. While collective organisation enhances visibility and bargaining capacity, structural constraints—ranging from market mediation to entrenched patriarchy—continue to shape outcomes. A nuanced evaluation must therefore recognise both the transformative potential and the institutional limits of SHG-led development.

When viewed through a Gandhian lens, the SHG movement reflects both continuity and divergence from the principles of Gram Swaraj. The emphasis on collective savings, local decision-making, and mutual accountability resonates with Gandhi’s advocacy of decentralised economic organisation and cooperative labour (Gandhi, 1942; 1946). However, dependence on state-sponsored credit and external markets distinguishes contemporary SHGs from Gandhi’s ideal of self-reliant village economies. Nevertheless, their capacity to cultivate leadership among women at the grassroots level represents a significant realisation of participatory ethics, even if shaped by modern institutional constraints. Thus, SHGs may be understood not as direct replicas of Gandhian village autonomy but as adaptive institutional forms whose evolution reaches its most developed expression in SEWA.

Case Study: Ela Bhatt and the SEWA Movement

Ela Bhatt provides the crucial institutional link between Gandhian philosophy and contemporary women’s leadership. Through the establishment of the Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) in 1972, she transformed the ethical principles of Gram Swaraj into an organisational model centred on informal women workers. Ela Bhatt was an Indian lawyer, Gandhian activist, and the founder of the Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), whose work sought to realise Gandhian ideals of Purna Swaraj through the economic organisation of informal women workers. The origins of SEWA can be traced to Bhatt’s recognition of wage disparities and exploitation faced by women engaged in unorganised work. Beginning with a single meeting attended by fewer than one hundred women, SEWA emerged as a trade union representing self-employed women workers in the informal economy.

Educated in English literature and law, Bhatt effectively deployed her legal training to organise women workers and later expanded this engagement through the establishment of cooperative institutions, including SEWA Bank, as well as international advocacy networks (Right Livelihood, n.d.). She also served as a member of the Rajya Sabha, chaired national commissions on self-employed women, and received numerous national and international honours, including the Ramon Magsaysay Award, the Padma Shri, and the Padma Bhushan. Despite these formal recognitions, Bhatt's work remained deeply rooted in Gandhian principles of non-violence, self-reliance, and collective action, positioning her as a seminal figure in grassroots women's leadership and rural development (Harvard Mittal South Asia Institute, 2022).

SEWA articulated a distinctive framework for evaluating women's empowerment by developing a set of eleven interrelated indicators. These include employment opportunities, earnings, asset ownership, food security and nutrition, access to healthcare, childcare services, housing, water and sanitation, organisational strength, leadership positions, self-reliance, and women's education and skill development. Together, these indicators function as a practical yardstick for assessing progress and shortcomings in policies aimed at women's employment and empowerment (SEWA, n.d.). By grounding evaluation in lived realities rather than abstract targets, SEWA offers a model through which development outcomes can be meaningfully assessed.

Through SEWA Bharat, the organisation has implemented a wide range of programmes across multiple states, focusing on entrepreneurship, skill development, digital interventions, land rights, and social security. Illustrative initiatives include the livestock-based Goat Project in Jharkhand and Bihar, the Pragati project for training in retail management, the Vahini project promoting women's participation as e-rickshaw drivers in Delhi and Haryana, the Unnati programme providing hospitality training in Mussoorie, Uttarakhand, and the Kushal Yuva skill development initiative in Katihar, Bihar (SEWA Bharat, n.d.). These programmes reflect SEWA's commitment to locally grounded, sector-specific interventions that expand women's economic opportunities while strengthening their collective capacity.

SEWA as a Gandhian Experiment in Rural Women's Leadership

SEWA represents a practical integration of Gandhian ethics and feminist ethics in action, translating moral philosophy into everyday organisational practice. Gandhian principles such as non-violence, self-reliance, trusteeship, and constructive work are embedded within SEWA's institutional structure, enabling women engaged in informal work to pursue economic security through collective and non-violent means. Simultaneously, feminist ethical perspectives shape SEWA's emphasis on care, relational responsibility, and the recognition of intersecting inequalities of gender and class. In this way, empowerment extends beyond income generation to encompass dignity, voice, and collective agency.

SEWA's participatory and decentralised leadership model functions as an ethical framework for grassroots democracy, allowing women to assume leadership roles within their own communities rather than relying on external intermediaries. This structure reflects the Gandhian vision of Gram Swaraj, where power is exercised at the lowest level, and leadership is rooted in lived experience. By emphasising consensus and collective deliberation, SEWA challenges hierarchical governance while reinforcing shared responsibility.

At the same time, SEWA's organisational philosophy aligns closely with feminist concerns for justice and inclusion. It recognises that economic vulnerability among women is shaped not only by class but also by caste, ethnicity, and social location. Recognising these intersecting inequalities, SEWA promotes context-specific and inclusive forms of leadership rather than treating women as a homogeneous category. As McLaren (2024) argues, SEWA demonstrates how Indian ethical traditions, when combined with feminist commitments to social justice, can generate sustainable and transformative models of development.

SEWA demonstrates that Gram Swaraj is not a historical ideal but an evolving institutional framework capable of responding to contemporary challenges through decentralised organisation, collective leadership, and ethical economic practice. Rather than reproducing Gandhi's ideas unchanged, SEWA adapts them to the realities of informal labour, gender inequality, and democratic governance and shows how ethical decentralisation can become an effective model of women's leadership and collective empowerment.

Policy Reflections and Future Directions

SEWA should not be viewed merely as a non-governmental organisation; rather, it can be understood as a policy lens through which national development strategies may be critically examined. These principles—decentralisation, collective women's leadership, dignity of labour, and ethical economic organisation—closely align with the foundational ideas underlying several major development programmes in India. Initiatives such as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), the National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM) and the SHG movement, SEWA Bank, and Direct Benefit Transfers, reflect these shared commitments. Together, they illustrate how Gandhian decentralisation can strengthen women's leadership at the local level.

Ethical, value-driven development must be prioritised over narrow measures of efficiency or scale. Principles such as dignity, transparency, safety, participation, and accountability, when woven together, create development outcomes that are both inclusive and sustainable.

MGNREGA represents a contemporary expression of Gandhi's vision of rural development. By guaranteeing at least one hundred days of wage employment to rural households engaged in unskilled manual work, the programme affirms the Gandhian principle of dignity of labour and the right to work. Its bottom-up design strengthens Panchayati Raj institutions and prioritises sustainable development through works related to water conservation, land improvement, and ecological regeneration. Women now constitute nearly half of the workforce, reflecting the programme's commitment to gender inclusion. The programme, therefore, addresses rural unemployment, gender inequality, and exclusion from local governance through a demand-driven approach.

The integration of technology through electronic fund management systems and Direct Benefit Transfers has enhanced transparency and reduced corruption by limiting discretionary human intervention.

Workplace safety initiatives such as the Government of India's SHe-Box further reinforce Gandhian commitments to dignity and justice (Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, n.d.).

In the context of twenty-first-century governance, technology, welfare provisioning, and women's leadership must be integrated within Gandhian ethical foundations. Only through such integration can development move beyond material indicators to achieve a more holistic and humane transformation of society.

Conclusion

This paper has attempted to contribute to scholarship by reinterpreting Gandhian decentralisation through the lens of contemporary women's grassroots leadership. By placing SEWA and the broader SHG movement within a Gandhian ethical framework, the study demonstrates that women's collective economic organisation can be understood not only as a strategy of poverty alleviation but as a rewriting of Gram Swaraj in modern institutional contexts. In doing so, the paper bridges Gandhian political philosophy and feminist development practice, showing how decentralisation, trusteeship, and dignity of labour acquire renewed meaning when embodied through women-led cooperatives and associations.

SEWA demonstrates that economic security, collective organisation, and decision-making authority are mutually reinforcing dimensions of Purna Swaraj. Such autonomy cannot emerge in the absence of secure and dignified employment. Employment must be understood not only as income generation, but as a condition enabling access to food, shelter, clothing, safe drinking water, and social security in the form of healthcare, childcare, and pensions. Without these guarantees, human creativity and productive potential remain constrained.

SEWA and Self-Help Groups illustrate how women across diverse social backgrounds have organised collectively to translate moral participation into economic agency. Their contributions are visible not only in improved livelihoods, collective voice, bargaining power, and confidence within households and communities. At the same time, the analysis recognises that empowerment remains shaped by structural conditions, market linkages, and institutional frameworks. The Gandhian model, therefore, requires reinterpretation rather than romantic replication. Women's leadership must extend beyond symbolic moral authority toward sustained control over resources and decision-making structures.

Theoretically, this study suggests that Gandhian thought retains contemporary relevance when read through a feminist and institutional lens rather than as nostalgic village idealism. It invites scholars to reconsider decentralisation not merely as administrative devolution, but as ethical redistribution of power. From a policy perspective, the findings underline the need to move beyond welfare-based beneficiary frameworks toward sustained investment in skill development, collective enterprise, social security systems, and localised governance structures that enable women's long-term economic autonomy.

Future research may build upon this conceptual framework through empirical investigations across different states and institutional settings. Comparative field studies, interviews with women members, and longitudinal analyses of SHG and cooperative models could deepen understanding of the extent to which Gandhian decentralisation is realised in practice. Such research would help assess variations in empowerment outcomes, identify structural constraints, and refine policy strategies grounded in grassroots realities.

Today, SEWA, with nearly 3.2 million women members across eighteen states of India, stands as a living institutional expression of Gandhian ethics adapted to contemporary conditions. Empowering rural women leaders, therefore, is not merely a development intervention. It represents Swaraj in practice—anchored in dignity, collective responsibility, and participatory justice. The enduring significance of Gandhian philosophy lies not in its static preservation, but in its capacity to evolve through institutions that expand women’s economic and political agency within changing rural realities.

References:

• Batliwala, S. (2011) *Feminist Leadership for Social Transformation: Clearing the Conceptual Cloud*. New Delhi: CREA.
• Bhaskar, P. and Kaushik, M. (2022) ‘Women’s leadership trends in tribal enterprises: A study of cooperative-based tribal enterprises in Jharkhand, India’, *International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research*, 3(1), pp. 19–30.
• Bhatt, E. (2005) *We Are Poor but So Many: The Story of Self-Employed Women in India*. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
• Bhoj, S., Bardhan, D. and Kumar, A. (2013) ‘Determinants and implications of rural women’s participation in microfinance programmes: An analysis of dairy self-help groups in Uttarakhand’, *Livestock Research for Rural Development*, 25(10), pp. 1–11.
• Brown, J. M. (1991) *Gandhi: Prisoner of Hope*. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Cornwall, A. (2016) ‘Women’s empowerment: What works?’, *Journal of International Development*, 28(3), pp. 342–359.
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2011) *The State of Food and Agriculture 2010–11: Women in Agriculture—Closing the Gender Gap for Development*. Rome: FAO.
• Gandhi, M. K. (1929) *Women as Co-workers in Swaraj*. Young India.
• Gandhi, M. K. (1937) *Towards Basic Education*. Harijan.
• Gandhi, M. K. (1938) *Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule*. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House.
• Gandhi, M. K. (1942) *Constructive Programme: Its Meaning and Place*. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House.
• Gandhi, M. K. (1946) *Village Swaraj*. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House.
• Government of India. (1992) *The Constitution (Seventy-Third Amendment) Act, 1992*. New Delhi: Ministry of Law and Justice.
• Gupta, A. (2020) *Red Tape: Bureaucracy, Structural Violence, and Poverty in India*. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Harvard Mittal South Asia Institute. (2022) ‘Remembering Ela Bhatt: SEWA founder and women’s rights activist’. Available at: https://mittalsouthasiainstitute.harvard.edu/2022/11/remembering-ela-bhatt-sewa-founder-and-womens-rights-activist/. (Accessed 20 November 2025).
• Husain, A. S. and Nair, A. S. (2006) ‘Women empowerment through Kudumbashree projects of Kerala: A micro-level analysis’, MANAGE Extension Research Review, 7(2), pp. 23–43.
• Iyer, R. (1987) The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
• Kabeer, N. (1999) ‘Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment’, Development and Change, 30(3), pp. 435–464.
• Karim, L. (2011) Microfinance and Its Discontents: Women in Debt in Bangladesh. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Kishwar, M. (1985) ‘Gandhi on women’, Economic and Political Weekly, 20(40), pp. 1691–1702.
• Malanga, D. F. and Banda, M. (2021) ‘ICT use and livelihoods of women micro-enterprises’, Information Development, 37(3), pp. 447–459.
• McLaren, M. A. (2024) ‘The Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA): Gandhian ethics and feminist ethics in action’, in Editor(s) (eds) The Routledge Companion to Indian Ethics. Place: Routledge, pp. 489–497.
• Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India. (n.d.) SHe-Box. Available at: https://shebox.wcd.gov.in/. (Accessed 20 November 2025).
• Moser, C. (2012) Gender Planning and Development: Theory, Practice and Training. London: Routledge.
• Mukhopadhyay, D. (2023) ‘Exploring the role of self-help groups and social inclusion across Indian states: A microfinance perspective’, PRAGATI: Journal of Indian Economy, 10(1), pp. 95–109.
• Palayi, A., Kumar, P. and Padaria, R. N. (2018) ‘Determinants of Women’s Participation in Self-Help Group (SHG)-Led Microfinance Programme of Bihar Rural Livelihoods Promotion Society (JEEViKA)’, Indian Journal of Extension Education, 54(4), pp. 112–116.
• Pandhare, A., Bellampalli, P. N. and Yadava, N. (2024) ‘Transforming rural women’s lives in India: The impact of microfinance and entrepreneurship on empowerment in self-help groups’, Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 13(1), Article 62.
• Parekh, B. (1989) Gandhi’s Political Philosophy: A Critical Examination. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.
• Reddy, C. S. and Manak, S. (2005) Self-help Groups: A Keystone of Microfinance—Women Empowerment and Social Security. Hyderabad: Andhra Pradesh Mahila Abhivruddhi Society (APMAS).
• Right Livelihood Foundation. (n.d.) ‘Ela Bhatt: Laureate profile’. Available at: https://rightlivelihood.org/laureate/ela-bhatt/. (Accessed 20 November 2025).
• Saha, R. (2015) ‘Does microfinance through SHGs empower women? A study of select SHGs in Bankura district, West Bengal’, PRAGATI: Journal of Indian Economy, 2(2), pp. 80–95.
• Self-Employed Women’s Association. (n.d.) Self-Employed Women’s Association. Available at: https://www.sewa.org/. (Accessed 20 November 2025).
• Self-Employed Women’s Association Bharat. (n.d.) SEWA Bharat. Available at: https://sewabharat.org/. (Accessed 20 November 2025).
• Swain, R. B. and Wallentin, F. Y. (2009) ‘Does microfinance empower women? Evidence from self-help groups in India’, International Review of Applied Economics, 23(5), pp. 541–556.
• Vidakoviæ, M. (2022) 152 Gandhi: The non-violent socialist Is trusteeship the only viable sustainable economic model?, European Journal of Law and Political Science, 1(2), pp. 6–14.
• Yakar, B. (2024) ‘Role of Panchayati Raj institutions in empowering women: A study of rural areas in India’, ShodhKosh: Journal of Visual and Performing Arts, 5. doi: 10.29121/shodhkosh. v5.i6.2024.5425.

Courtesy: This article originally published in Gandhi Marg, Volume 48, Issue 2, July-September 2026

* Kalpana Singh is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Sociology at Dayanand Brajendra Swarup P.G. College, Kanpur. Email: kalpana.sengar10@gmail.com