CIVICUS discusses civil society challenges in India with Smarinita Shetty and Devanshi Vaid, co-founders of India Development Review (IDR), a knowledge platform that documents social impact and development across Asia.

In recent years, the Indian government has drastically restricted the space for independent voices. Devanshi and Smarinita discuss how civil society organisations (CSOs) and media outlets are navigating this difficult landscape, what strategies are emerging on the ground and why global knowledge flows need to become more equitable.

What’s the state of civic space in India?

Civic space has become increasingly complex and uneven. CSOs form a crucial bridge between people and the state. Over half of CSOs in India work in rural areas, supporting access to education, health, livelihoods, nutrition, sanitation and water, so attacks on them are attacks on development. And independent journalism is essential to keep people informed and hold authorities to account, particularly in an environment of targeted disinformation. When civil society and the media are constrained, they cannot challenge power, amplify excluded voices and advocate for inclusive policymaking.

In the eight years we’ve run IDR, we’ve seen an unprecedented increase in restrictions on civil society and the media. Regulatory measures – particularly limits on foreign funding – are threatening organisational survival. According to The Hindu newspaper, over 20,000 licences have been cancelled under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act in the past decade. This has forced many CSOs to rethink their operations and sustainability models.

Independent media face similar pressures. Online polarisation, press raids, shrinking access to reliable data and widespread disinformation have created a climate of fear. In the 2025 World Press Freedom Index, India ranks 151 out of 180 countries.

The government’s response to mobilisation, whether by established CSOs or emerging youth movements, has been decidedly chilling. Rising self-censorship now characterises much of the civil society and media landscape. Those that continue to speak openly often face consequences, including the withdrawal of operational licences for CSOs or of state advertising for print media.

For platforms such as IDR, this underscores the need for credible, nuanced and non-polarising journalism. Our role isn’t to comment directly on politics, but to document how these shifts affect communities, frontline workers and development outcomes. By amplifying grounded stories and evidence from across India, we help people understand how civic space is shifting.

How are movements and organisations adapting to these restrictions?

CSOs are adapting with a mix of caution and creativity. Many have shifted from rights-based advocacy to service delivery and systems-focused work, while larger organisations are partnering more closely with governments to implement welfare schemes. Others are investing in narrative change, highlighting local resilience and developmental impacts rather than direct political critique. Funding collaborations are also emerging to navigate bureaucratic hurdles.

As formal institutions face mounting pressure, local leadership, community-based organising and alternative forms of civic engagement continue to grow in ways that often remain out of the spotlight. Young people are a particular source of dynamism, finding new ways to engage outside traditional structures. Their participation is often decentralised, informal and rooted in lived experience, including climate action, community volunteering, content creation, digital mobilisation and mutual aid. Their civic expression tends to be creative, cultural and issue-driven rather than overtly political.

Young people are a crucial audience for IDR, and we work to translate complex development knowledge into accessible formats so they can access credible information in an increasingly polarised environment. We also document these adaptations because when organisations adjust quietly and in isolation, they lose collective learning. By highlighting these shifts, we help strengthen institutional memory and enable others to learn from successful strategies.

What gives you hope that civil society can continue defending rights and freedoms?

Indian civil society has faced pressure before and survived. During the 1975 Emergency, restrictions tightened. The Foreign Contribution Regulation Act was introduced in 1976 to control funding to CSOs, and amendments to the Unlawful Activities Act in 2019 expanded the state’s power to label activists and students as terrorists. Civil society has adapted and resisted to continue serving communities while keeping democratic freedoms at the centre.

Grassroots organisations today continue this work with remarkable determination. Community groups in central India support tribal people in securing land rights under the Forest Rights Act. In the south, organisations challenge multinational companies polluting water bodies. In Ladakh, Sonam Wangchuck mobilises communities to protect fragile ecosystems. Across India, gig economy workers are organising to push for grievance mechanisms, insurance and social security.

Although mainstream media may avoid amplifying their stories for fear of repercussions, large sections of civil society remain committed to defending rights and freedoms.

How can the international community best support this work?

The most meaningful support is to listen to and learn from people sharing knowledge on IDR and similar platforms.

For too long, knowledge that shapes global philanthropy and development has been produced mainly in Europe and the USA. These ‘best practices’ are often exported to the rest of the world, despite the fact that most lived experience, expertise and wisdom exist in Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean, home to 85 per cent of the world’s people. This dynamic has been ineffective at best and harmful at worst, reinforcing unequal power relations.

It’s time to change this. We need to democratise knowledge creation and access, ensuring expertise flows in all directions. The majority world cannot be treated simply as a consumer of knowledge produced elsewhere. Insights that advance social progress generated in our contexts must circulate globally, including to the global north.