India should continue applying a common regulatory framework for all satellite communication operators while accelerating domestic satellite capabilities, experts said amid the debate over Elon Musk’s criticism of India’s satellite communications policy.
Rajeev Chandrasekhar, former Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Rajiv Kumar, Chairman of Pahle India Foundation and former Vice Chairman of NITI Aayog, Nilesh Shah, Managing Director of Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company, and Nitin Pai, Co-Founder and Director of Takshashila Institution, said India should prioritise national security and maintain a level playing field for all satellite operators.
They also said the focus should now shift towards building indigenous satellite infrastructure.
Rajeev Chandrasekhar said Starlink, GeoWeb and OneWeb must all undergo the same security vetting before being allowed to launch services in India. “It’s extremely important that any player in satcom is carefully vetted,” he said, adding that satellite broadband involves national security and lawful interception concerns.
Nilesh Shah said the controversy is unlikely to materially affect Indian markets but stressed that policy certainty and a level playing field remain important for foreign investors.
India says Starlink not singled out as government rebuts Elon Musk’s protectionism allegations
Rajiv Kumar said India should avoid reacting to Elon Musk’s comments and instead strengthen domestic satellite capabilities. He suggested using the Universal Service Obligation (USO) Fund to support Indian telecom companies in building satellite networks. Kumar also said satellite communications require a coherent policy that applies equally to every operator while encouraging domestic players.
Nitin Pai said the debate extends beyond Starlink’s licence application, arguing that one company controlling a majority of low-Earth orbit satellites poses strategic risks. “It is not in India’s interest. In fact, it’s not in the world’s interest,” he said. Pai added that India has sufficient resources through the USO Fund to expand internet connectivity and should focus on developing its own satellite ecosystem rather than relying on a single foreign provider.
Rajiv Kumar, Nitin Pai back indigenous satcom push amid Elon Musk-Starlink row
These are edited excerpts from the interview.
Question
What do you make of the outburst from Elon Musk, and where does this now really leave matters related to satcom services? All three companies that currently have the authorisation to start satcom services in India have not been granted final approval to launch.
Answer:
Rajeev Chandrasekhar: I think he has certainly established a textbook case of how not to win friends and influence people. He seems to be a man in a hurry and doesn’t want to understand, or doesn’t understand, the importance for a country like India to take not just Starlink, but also Starlink, GeoWeb, and OneWeb through a very careful process of being vetted for security. Satcom and satellite broadband are extremely disruptive, complicated technologies from the point of view of national security and lawful interception. From 26/11 to today, every terrorist, every act of terrorism has been aided, abetted, and has been, in a sense, helped by satellite communication. So, in a country like ours, where we are surrounded by nuclear neighbours, we have been fighting this scourge of terrorism for decades. It’s extremely important that any player in satcom is carefully vetted. Carefully vetted, not just for its background, but for the trusted infrastructure it must deliver so that the infrastructure can be used and accessed by law enforcement agencies and the security establishment.
Question
Monday morning, do you see this having any impact as far as our markets are concerned?
Answer:
Nilesh Shah: There are many other factors for the market to worry about, and hence this may not be at the top of its priority list. But as Rajeev Chandrasekhar mentioned, clearly there is concern among foreign direct investors. If they believe they are not going to get a rule-of-law-based level playing field, their investments will get impacted. While we have success stories of Apple iPhone manufacturing, which could attract many investors, this kind of campaign could create doubts in the minds of those investors. Hence, we should put all our might behind assuring investors that India is a country where Suzuki Motors came to make automobiles in the 1980s. They listed Maruti Suzuki in 2003, and today they sell more automobiles in India than Suzuki sells worldwide. Maruti’s market cap is now bigger than Suzuki’s, even though Suzuki’s market cap reflects its stake in Maruti. More importantly, Maruti has generated higher returns in US dollar terms over the last 23 years than all Japanese automobile companies put together, including Suzuki. This is the experience that investors will get if they remain with India rather than going by the headlines.
Question
What do you make of this? Is Musk acting independently and will have no bearing on the larger relationship, or on the Trump administration’s attitude and approach to India?
Answer:
Nitin Pai: Very few people know that Elon Musk controls two-thirds of all low-Earth orbit satellites around the world, and more than half the total number of satellites of all kinds around the world. So, he has a dominant market position in terms of humanity’s access to space. This is just one company run by one mercurial individual who has taken positions on geopolitics. He’s blocked Ukraine at some times. He’s facilitated Russia at other times. He turned off Starlink signals at a time when Ukraine was in a very sensitive military situation, and so on. So, we are in a situation where two-thirds of low-Earth orbit satellites, and humanity’s access to space, are controlled by one man. And then the question is, should India play along? The answer is very clearly no. It is not in India’s interest. In fact, it’s not in the world’s interest. It’s not in the United States’ interest for one man to control so much of the market for access to space. Our market is competitive. We have the lowest data rates in the world. We have high rates of mobile penetration. Anybody who wants internet access can have it. There’s a huge amount of money, almost $125 billion, sitting in the Universal Service Obligation Fund. So, if the Government of India wants to spend money to make the internet accessible to people, there is more than enough money available. So, this whole story of Musk wanting to provide internet connections to needy students, etc., is nice propaganda or self-reinforcing thinking on his part, but it has no basis in reality.
Question
Over the last couple of years, we essentially had telcos saying, “We’ve spent lakhs of crores of rupees buying spectrum over the last two to two-and-a-half decades. So, why should new players get it allocated administratively or licensed, for example?” The government, and we just spoke with Rajiv Chandrasekhar before you guys came on, said it was a difficult decision to side with newer players like Starlink…
Answer:
Rajiv Kumar: It’s quite clear that you can’t have discriminatory treatment towards different players or different telecom providers. So, if there has been an auction process in the past, then I suppose we should have the same process going forward. But satellite spectrum has not been auctioned. It is the spectrum that has been auctioned, not satellite services. So that’s a new thing on the block. To that extent, you can have a different policy for all players who will provide satellite-based communication and satellite-based connectivity in the country. Now, if the government knows that there are domestic options available or coming along, then I would have no hesitation in saying that they should be encouraged and not be swamped by foreign technology like Starlink. I’m not sure, but I’m quite confident that the Chinese have done the same. They haven’t succumbed to Musk or any other satellite provider… About the USO Fund, why wouldn’t the government subsidise Indian telecom providers to put up their own satellites using the USO Fund? After all, it does provide connectivity and coverage to those who need it, just as laying optic fibre to homes does. So, I would be very open about it and say that this is how the USO Fund should be used. The argument that earlier it was auctions and now it is administrative licensing, perhaps doesn’t hold because it’s a new game in town. But you need a coherent policy that should apply to all players. I would also add that the Indian government should act to build domestic capacity for satellite connectivity and not succumb to any pressure whatsoever.
NOTE TO READERS
Disclosure: RIL, the promoter of Reliance Jio, also controls Network18, the parent company of CNBCTV18.com.