Non-possession
Non-possession is a philosophy that holds that no one or anything possesses anything.[1] It is one of the principles of Satyagraha, a philosophy and practice of nonviolent resistance developed by Mahatma Gandhi.
Non-possession does not deny the existence of the concept of possession. The practical implications of non-possession can be clarified by defining another principle of Satyagraha, non-stealing.
Non-stealing
In the absence of possession and ownership, theft would be impossible. But theft is possible under this world view. Not everyone in the world practices non-possession. It is also difficult to put non-possession into practice under existing socio-economic systems. People have the right to, and likely have to define their boundaries. Some cultures prescribe laws regarding individuals' personal boundaries, or imply the limits of the individual through practices. The United States Constitution has provisions for rights to personal property, but no provisions for boundaries. Across cultures, the definition of these boundaries can be explicit, implicit, or entirely personal. Logically, the existence of theft would be invalid If there are no rules as to how one can and cannot define boundaries. Without the ability to define a boundary, there is no way to discern where one entity begins and the other ends, therefore, not possible to define possession. Without possession, there can be no theft. Persons can choose to confirm the concept of possession by defining boundaries under a certain set of rules. If the rules by which boundaries are defined were not mutually agreed upon or not fully understood by all parties involved, a dilemma arises when there is dispute regarding the possession of an object.
Hypothetical example: If some entity has the ability to lay claim to any object without contest, theft is still possible. One can steal from this entity if one is not part of this entity. Also, that the entity is empowered to lay claim necessitates that there are objects which the entity can lay claim upon, therefore, objects which this entity does not possess. Boundaries may exist between objects before the entity lays claim to them, (that is, if it intends to lay claim to them.) Breach of these boundaries constitute theft. A hypothetical entity empowered to lay claim upon any object can also approach a grey area between legitimate possession and theft if its possession of an object is not clearly defined, that is, if this entity itself has doubts as to whether it possesses the object in question.
Gandhi's view was that possession is more trouble than it is worth:
The possession of anything then became a troublesome thing and a burden. Exploring the cause of that joy, I found that if I kept anything as my own, I had to defend it against the whole world. . . . And I said to myself: if [other people] want it and would take it, they do so not from any malicious motive but . . because thers was a greater need than mine. [2]
Wealth and Poverty
Neither wealth nor poverty necessarily follow non-possession, however, wealth and poverty necessarily exist within the non-possession view. Non-possession is, by definition, concerned with defining (material) possession. As such, wealth and poverty (relative abundance and lack) closely relate to non-possession.
Mohandas Gandhi did not draw explicit distinctions between non-possession and poverty. Non-possession resolves the sense of injustice of groups which perceive distribution of wealth not in their favour; and it resolves the sense of entitlement of groups which perceived that they benefitted. It does so by removing quantitative material reward as benefit.
Colonial India
Under the caste system, class serves an integral role in the distribution of wealth. Gandhi, a Brahman, joined the untouchables in poverty in order to combat their condition as one who shared the condition. When examined along side British rule, which was based on physically remote interests, this clearly demonstrated leadership through participation, not shepherding for the sake of profit. Since poverty was an essential consequence of being an untouchable, the act of choosing to be in poverty as a Brahman reinforced the integrity of Gandhi's message to Indians of different castes. Under Ghandi's conditions, non-possession and the accompanying ideologies of Satyagraha both resulted in and were caused by poverty.
Applied to a different social environment, poverty may or may not result from the practice of non-possession. While fluctuations in ease of access to resources necessarily occur, in a non-possession economy, this does not prompt a policy of prioritizing access to resources to individual members of the top caste, then the next, and so forth. The assumption is that without the imposed hierarchy of distribution, resources will, by necessity, be put to use where they appear to be needed.[]
In Gandhi's time, since the dilemma was a socially imposed one, not a matter of perceived overall shortage of available production capacity and resources, the most needy sector would have been those who were stripped of the power to produce and right to receive: the Dalit. At present, considerations are somewhat different since international economic partnerships are now not based on colonialism.
Gandhi supported extensively practicing trusteeship in India.
A list of social and/ or economic strategies related to non-possession.