Across India and South Asia, women have long been at the forefront of movements resisting unjust development, extractivism, and climate degradation. They have led protests against destructive mining, dams, and infrastructure projects. Yet, when it comes to decision-making, these women are largely invisible.
From the forests of Odisha to the coastlines of Tamil Nadu, women have led some of the most sustained resistance movements. In Sijimali (Odisha), women continue to protest mining projects threatening their forest-based way of life, often facing police violence. In Jharkhand, Adivasi women in Dewas are blocking coal mining operations to protect ancestral land. In Tamil Nadu, women from fishing communities have been at the forefront of protests against the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant. These movements represent a powerful assertion of community-led development and environmental protection rooted in lived realities.
Leadership not acknowledged
Despite being central to the resistance, women are systematically excluded from consultations, especially those that claim to uphold free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). In many cases, community meetings and decisions on land are dominated by men, while women, who bear the disproportionate burden of displacement and environmental degradation, are sidelined. Women’s perspectives are also frequently devalued or dismissed as emotional, despite being rooted in acute socio-environmental knowledge.
In Bangladesh’s Phulbari, women resisted an open-pit coal mining project, enduring police crackdowns while organising mass mobilisations. In India’s Narmada Bachao Andolan, Medha Patkar’s leadership brought global attention to the devastating impact of dams. Yet, policies designed in response to such movements have often remained blind to the gendered impacts of displacement and rehabilitation.
Legal frameworks in South Asia do exist to protect women’s land rights — at least on paper. India’s Forest Rights Act (2006) and PESA Act (1996) recognise women’s role in Gram Sabhas and grant equal rights to forest resources. Nepal’s Joint Land Ownership Policy encourages land co-ownership between spouses. Bangladesh prioritises women in land distribution under its Khas land programme. However, these frameworks are undermined by systemic gaps: land titles often remain in the name of male household heads, with women rarely listed as joint or sole owners. Implementation mechanisms lack gender sensitivity, and Gram Sabhas are frequently held in male-dominated settings. Additionally, many displaced women are not counted as heads of households and are thus excluded from compensation.
There is no comprehensive gender-sensitive land policy at the national level in India. State land redistribution programmes often overlook single women, widows, or women without formal documentation. Despite the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act granting equal inheritance rights, customary laws and local practices frequently override statutory provisions, particularly in tribal regions. The intersection of formal legal barriers with entrenched patriarchal norms leads to a practical erasure of women from land governance processes.
This invisibility becomes even more glaring in the context of climate change. In India and beyond, extreme heat, water scarcity, and environmental pollution are deepening existing gender inequalities. Women walk farther for water, care for sick family members, and work longer for less — all while being excluded from decisions on climate resilience, rehabilitation, or mitigation. Yet, most climate adaptation frameworks fail to integrate women’s traditional ecological knowledge or ensure their participation in planning.
While FPIC is increasingly cited in international standards and development finance frameworks, its actual implementation rarely includes gendered perspectives. What use is “consultation” if it takes place in spaces where women feel unsafe to speak? What legitimacy does consent hold if it is given without understanding the long-term ecological and social impacts, or if it is granted by male leaders who don’t represent women’s interests?
Need for structural change
If we are serious about gender justice, climate justice, and inclusive development, this must change. Governments and corporations must ensure that consultations are not only free and prior but informed and inclusive. This means scheduling meetings at times accessible to women, ensuring women-only spaces when necessary, and providing translation and legal aid. It means recognising women as independent landowners, not just as dependents of male household heads.
At the same time, women’s leadership within movements must be amplified. Too often, women do the groundwork — organising, protesting, feeding, and sustaining the movement — without having a seat at the table. Movement allies, NGOs, and policymakers must acknowledge and support women’s leadership, not just on the streets but in negotiation rooms, legislatures, and compensation boards.
If development is to be democratic, if climate policy is to be just, and if resistance is to be meaningful, the voices of women must not only be heard — they must lead. Their stories are not of victimhood, but of vision. It’s time our policies, laws, and institutions reflected that truth.
Bhoomika Choudhury, International lawyer and researcher specialising in business and human rights, corporate accountability, and labour rights
Published – May 12, 2025 01:48 am IST