What did he think of Marxism?
He took Marx seriously and rejected him carefully, which is different from ignoring him. He accepted part of the diagnosis: that economic exploitation is real, that property can be a form of power over other people, and that the point of philosophy is to change the world rather than only interpret it. He was himself, in his constitutional proposals, willing to put key industries and land under state ownership. Nobody who reads him can call him an apologist for unchecked wealth.
What he refused was the method and its price. He did not believe justice could be reached through violent revolution and the dictatorship of one class, because a dictatorship, once built, does not dissolve on schedule — it becomes a new tyranny with a new master. He set this out most fully in his late address contrasting the Buddha and Karl Marx, arguing that they sought some of the same ends but that the Buddha reached them by changing minds and conduct, without the concentration camp, while the communist road ran through force to more force.
He had a second, sharper quarrel with the Marxists of his own country: they treated class as the only real division and dismissed caste as a distraction, and he thought this blind. In India, he argued, a worker is divided from his fellow worker by caste before either is divided from the owner by class, so a politics that speaks only of class cannot even assemble the solidarity it needs. Economic equality that left caste standing would, on his account, not be equality at all.