Paper short abstract:

We will illustrate how the authoritarian government in India represses people's movements by curbing information and curtailing critical media and how the movements counter this by making use of digital and independent media platforms.

Paper long abstract:

India is becoming an increasingly authoritarian state. One of the significant markers of (as well as a tool to ascertain) its democratic backsliding has been the curbing of information and the spread of disinformation by the government. This has meant a takeover of mainstream communication media, curtailment of independent and counter media, and discrediting and gaging the institutions that collect and provide credible data in the public domain.

The curbing of information has also been a tool for repressing people’s movements, for instance, how the representation of people’s movements in dominant media remains either negligible or unsupportive and even hostile. To counter this, people’s movements have developed ways to reach out to the wider public and global platforms by using digital and independent media. Digital media, specifically social networking websites, remains a double-edged sword as it is controlled by big business corporations and extensively used by authoritarian powers. However, it has also proven to be the media of alternative information and ideas that has strengthened people’s movements.

In this paper, we will dwell on how the authoritarian government represses people’s movements by curbing information and spreading disinformation, and how people use digital media to counter this repression. We will illustrate how people’s movements have countered the disinformation tools of authoritarian repression to reach out to their supporters, by taking the examples of the farmers' movement against three farm laws (2020-21/ongoing) and the people’s struggle for rehabilitation after the 2022-2023 subsidence/sinking of the historical Joshimath town in Uttarakhand state, India.

Paper short abstract:

I would like to deliver an image of how grassroots mobilisation works in the coastal region of Thiruvananthapuram district, among unorganised fish workers. I intend to give an insight into how and what led the fish workers to mobilise and resist government-sponsored capitalist development.

Paper long abstract:

Since India’s liberalization in the 1990s, state-sponsored capitalist development has come to be accepted as the norm of the ‘development’ trajectory. Resource-rich areas, inhabited mainly by traditional livelihood-based groups, have been known to be exploited and appropriated by such norm. India’s post-independence “industrialization” phase, which included the “modernization” of fisheries, led to the formation of a complex power structure and power dynamics along the coasts of Kerala. This paper examines the coastal power structures and dynamics therein that facilitate and limit the participation of the various stakeholders, leading to resistance along the coasts. It navigates through the economic, political and social positionalities of the key social actors in the context of the Vizhinjam International Seaport in Thiruvananthapuram district of Kerala in India. In the process of exploring the invited and organic participatory spaces, we look into the ways in which government-sponsored capitalized development has led to resistance among the marginalized small-scale fish workers living along the coasts of Thiruvananthapuram. These complex power dynamics have led to the reproduction of social inequalities as well as the production of new opportunities for certain groups while the lives and livelihoods of the small-scale fish workers have been compromised. Such varied impacts of the port led to protests by small-scale marginalized fish workers facilitated by social action groups, environmentalists, activists, and most importantly, the Thiruvananthapuram Latin Catholic Diocese. The study emerges from the in-depth field study involving interviews, observations, dialogues among various stakeholders, and focus group discussions.

Paper short abstract:

The paper focuses on how the Gujarat model-of Development has increasingly led to polarisation and inequality. It looks at how this model is experienced and challenged from below to understand strategies for survival and resistance in the face of growing repression and dispossession.

Paper long abstract:

In the current expansion of authoritarian rule, India forms a paradigmatic case. Despite impressive ‘economic growth’, a particular kind of authoritarian developmentalism is intensifying processes of polarisation and growing inequalities with the State increasingly co-opting institutions and policies to the detriment of basic liberties and rights amidst consolidation of unbridled power. This paper looks at the Gujarat Model of Development which underpins these trends. This model is often attributed to the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, originating in his home state Gujarat where he was Chief Minister from 2002 – 2014, and expanding nationally after he came India’s Prime Minister in 2014. Taking the case of the controversial Sardar Sarovar (Narmada) dam, one of the earliest examples of this model, and other infrastructure projects in Gujarat, this paper examines how a capitalist intensive approach to addressing livelihood, water and food security has led to the manufacture of singular/ authoritarian solutions that have drowned out alternative perspectives. In doing so top-down infrastructure-led development is increasingly associated with ethno-nationalism, majoritarianism, masculinity, authoritarian populism, increasing inequality and a toxic state-capital nexus. These have legitimised ethno-religious agendas and the dispossession of minorities, Adivasis (Indigenous people) as well as poor resource users ( pastoralists, fishers, farmers) from their livelihood base and commons. I conclude by exploring how how these authoritarian practices and the Gujarat model are experienced and also challenged from below with an aim to understand strategies for survival and resistance in the face of increasing repression and dispossession.

Paper short abstract:

Foregrounding the lived experiences of four women's movements and their communities, this paper contributes to understanding how feminist resistance navigates backlash at the intersections of gender, power, and identity within India’s authoritarian developmental framework.

Paper long abstract:

In the context of intensifying authoritarian developmentalism, rising religious and caste-based polarization under the guise of ethno-nationalism, and widening socio-economic inequalities in India, women’s movements face formidable backlash tactics rooted in processes of othering. This paper examines the strategies of resistance employed by women’s movements to counter such forms of othering and sustain their gains. Drawing from the five-year SuPWR project, funded by ESRC and conducted across South Asia, this study specifically explores insights from four Indian women’s movement: Adivasi Vikas Manch, Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, Gharelu Kaamgar Union, and Samarthan Mahila Sanghathan.

Using a multi methods qualitative methodology comprising oral histories, in-depth panel interviews, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and reflective workshops, the research captures both the structural and inter-subjective dimensions of women’s resistance. Movement partners contend with backlash that is taking place through mechanisms of inaction, co-optation, and vilification, manifesting as exclusion, cultural stereotyping, and direct violence.

The findings highlight the context-specific strategies women’s movements have deployed to counter this backlash, including processes of othering. These include fostering intersectional alliances that address the interplay of caste, religion, and class; building internal leadership through feminist training programs to strengthen local capacities; directly engaging with state institutions to demand accountability while resisting co-optation; and utilizing public campaigns, legal actions, and grassroots mobilizations to challenge dominant narratives. By creating alternative spaces for dialogue and action, these movements effectively navigate polarized environments, redefine community norms, and assert their agency in the face of systemic oppression.

Paper short abstract:

This study explores how alternative media—Maktoob, National Dastak, Mooknayak, and Khabar Lahariya—challenge authoritarian developmentalism and Hindutva brand ethno-nationalism in India by amplifying grassroots resistance and fostering counter narratives.

Paper long abstract:

India’s authoritarian developmentalism has deepened social polarisation and inequality, particularly when intertwined with the Hindutva brand ethno-nationalism. These forces have marginalised communities across caste, class, gender, and religion, exacerbating social crises. However, grassroots resistance has emerged as a counterforce, with community-based media platforms documenting and amplifying these struggles. This paper examines how alternative media outlets—Maktoob, National Dastak, Mooknayak, and Khabar Lahariya—challenge authoritarian developmentalism and ethno-nationalism through counter-narratives.

Using qualitative content analysis and interviews of journalists of these outlets, the study investigates specific incidents: Maktoob’s coverage of the CAA-NRC protests (2019–2020) and the Jahangirpuri demolitions (2022) in Delhi, highlighting resistance to discriminatory state policies targeting Muslim communities; National Dastak’s reporting on the Bhima Koregaon case (2018) in Maharashtra and manual scavenging deaths (2021) in Delhi, offering insights into caste-based oppression and Dalit activism; Mooknayak’s analysis of the Hathras rape case (2020) and Bhim Army protests in Saharanpur (2017) in UP, showcasing Dalit resistance to caste discrimination and authoritarian state responses; and Khabar Lahariya’s focus on water scarcity, farmer distress , and the Ken-Betwa linking project in Bundelkhand, exposing the socio-environmental impacts of state-led development in rural India.

The study integrates theoretical concepts such as Benedict Anderson and Anthony Smith’s perspectives on nationalism, Nancy Fraser’s notion of counter-publics, and Kimberlé Crenshaw’s intersectionality framework, to explore the intersections of caste, religion, gender, and class in shaping resistance from below. These platforms amplify marginalised voices, document grassroots struggles, and foster collective action, demonstrating transformative potential of alternative media in contesting exclusionary and authoritarian structures.