On the eve of New Year’s, scores of gig workers of several fast-delivery platforms went on strike. Their protest, put simply, was intended to underscore their demands for the formalisation of their employment status. The ensuing discourse rightly centered on fair labour laws and the exploitation of gig workers. However, this discourse ignores the reality that India, like much of the world, is increasingly becoming a technofeudal state.
Technofeudalism, as defined by a variety of thinkers, including Yanis Varoufakis and Cédric Durand, is the concentration of control over online markets and platforms in the hands of a few tech giants, akin to land in the hands of feudal lords. In this article, we examine the relationship India continues to foster with capitalism and techno-feudalism.
Misconceptions of Capitalism
After the Cold War and its collapse, capitalism, through Western and postcolonial propaganda, emerged as emblematic and, at times erroneously, synonymous with freedom and liberty. It should be noted that this narrative was aided by the authoritarian nature of many Soviet bloc nations. This wasn’t always the case, as in other regions, covert operations often helmed by the United States disposed of popular elected leaders if they leaned socialist or communist.
This created a branding of socialism and communism as economic strategies that were either authoritarian or doomed to fail (or, at times, both). In turn, the Western powers branded capitalism as the free market, giving everyone a fair opportunity to participate. However, as has become evident in the ensuing decades, this is not the case.
Capitalism ideally was to have the means of production in the hands of the people. However, in practice, capital has become concentrated in the hands of large conglomerates. Whilst everyone is allowed to participate in the free market, very few (barring those who possess disruptive technologies) are able to do so, as their competitors hold all the resources and market share.
This misconception of capitalism has spread across the English-speaking world and beyond. As a consequence, many people have little choice over where they buy, work, live and how much they earn. This has been most evident in the techno-space.
India and Technofeudalism
India’s relationship with technofeudalism is shaped by a peculiar mix of scale, state facilitation, and digital dependence. Government-led digital infrastructure, such as Aadhaar, UPI, and the India Stack, has undeniably improved access and efficiency. Yet, layered atop this public backbone are private platforms that increasingly mediate everyday life: food delivery, transport, retail, finance, and even education. In doing so, they do not merely compete in markets; they own them.
Indian tech platforms and multinational giants alike function less as traditional capitalist firms and more as gatekeepers. They extract rents by controlling access; algorithms determine visibility; ratings determine livelihood; and opaque terms dictate survival. Gig workers, formally classified as “partners,” resemble digital serfs: tied to platforms they do not own, governed by rules they do not shape, and disciplined by automated systems rather than human oversight.
Crucially, this shift has occurred without the dismantling of older hierarchies. Caste, class, and regional inequalities are reproduced and intensified within platform economies. The state, rather than counterbalancing this concentration of power, often legitimises it through regulatory silence or partnership. Thus, India’s march is not towards a freer digital capitalism, but towards a technofeudal order in which sovereignty is shared, if not surrendered, to platforms.
Conclusion
Technofeudalism compels us to rethink long-held assumptions about markets, labour, and freedom. The gig worker strikes in India are not isolated labour disputes; they are early symptoms of a deeper structural transformation. What appears to be innovation-driven capitalism increasingly resembles a system of digital rent extraction, in which ownership and control trump competition and choice.
India’s experience is particularly instructive. Its rapid digitalisation, vast labour surplus, and weak labour protections make it fertile ground for platform dominance. While technology promises efficiency and inclusion, it does so only when democratic control is in place; without such control, it entrenches dependency. Capitalism, already distorted by monopolisation, mutates further when platforms replace markets with controlled ecosystems.
Addressing technofeudalism does not require rejecting technology, but reclaiming it. Strong labour unions and protections, platform accountability, data sovereignty, and public ownership of digital infrastructure are not anti-growth measures; they are safeguards against a new feudalism. If left unchecked, India risks exchanging colonial landlords and industrial capitalists for algorithmic lords, with citizenship reduced to mere participation on a platform.
Let us know your thoughts. If you have burning thoughts or opinions to express, please feel free to reach out to us at larra@globalindiannetwork.com.
