No.
First, India was not a rigid authoritarian state like China or the USSR. India was quasi-democratic and still failed in its collectivized policies.
Second, Marxist definitions refers to it as state capitalism. But Marxist definitions of capitalism have always been a bit funky. Others say it was not state capitalism, but state socialism. Or at that point, state capitalism and state socialism blended into something indistinguishable. IMO, Capitalism by definition requires private ownership. Maoist China and the USSR mostly banned private businesses and everything was owned by the state (collectivization). So what they had does not meet the definition of privately owned production that is required for state capitalism. True state capitalism is privately owned corporations that are supported by the government - see WW2 era Germany for an extreme example.
If the govt/public directly outright owns and controls business, then it is no longer capitalism or state capitalism under traditional definitions.
However, if we want to use the Marxist definition that it is state capitalism, then there isn't much difference between state capitalism and state socialism. Both are collectivized.
Third, China and the USSR transformed into authoritarian states to enact collectivization. Collectivization usually requires the forcible seizure of private property, which in turn requires an authoritarian state to enact. Advocates for collectivization have almost always advocated for taking property currently owned by others (instead of simply going off to form a new country with their own property)...and mass collectivization that involves the seizure of other people's property will require some level of authoritarianism.