India still has regions where fiber optic cables have never reached and cellular towers remain sparse. SpaceX’s recent partnerships with Airtel and Jio to expand Starlink services across India could be looked at as a fundamental shift in the conceptions of connectivity, national sovereignty, and economic power in the digital age.
It is not a zero-sum game for both sides. There are economic benefits for all. For Airtel and Jio, Starlink allows them to provide high-speed Internet to India’s most remote regions without the infrastructure costs of terrestrial networks. For SpaceX, the deal opens up a huge market. It also takes care of India’s complex regulatory landscape by channelling Starlink’s technology through domestic players.
Yet, these arrangements are not just business strategy. There is a lot of geopolitics involved too. Communications infrastructure has always been intertwined with national security and sovereignty, a reality made even more pronounced when that infrastructure orbits 550 kilometres above earth. With the intertwining of business and political interests globally, it cannot be denied that there are fears that the United States-based Starlink network gives the U.S. an advantage in the competition for digital influence, particularly as China develops its rival GuoWang constellation. India’s options were to wait for homegrown alternatives or partnering with other countries (potentially even China). But choosing Starlink could indicate a geopolitical realignment in the Indo-Pacific region. India chose a (seemingly) democratic alliance rather than an authoritarian one.
The monopolistic concerns surrounding Starlink cannot be dismissed. With around 7,000 satellites already in orbit, SpaceX enjoys first-mover advantages in the low earth orbit internet market. OneWeb, its closest competitor, operates fewer than 650 satellites, while Amazon’s Project Kuiper remains very small. This is tending towards a monopolistic market structure. This also has its attendant economic problems of competition, pricing, and dependency. It runs the risk too of having private companies wield nation-state levels of influence over critical infrastructure, as was evident when SpaceX briefly cut Ukraine’s Starlink access during critical military operations in 2022.
Economic value versus geopolitical control
Let us analyse these aspects of satellite Internet through a framework that captures both economic value and geopolitical control. The high economic value, high geopolitical control scenario can be called the “Digital Sovereignty” scenario, where nations have both profitable telecommunications and strategic independence. China’s GuoWang constellation aims for this position, designing its system explicitly as a state-controlled asset. In the high economic value but low geopolitical control equation is the category of “Market Dominance”, where Starlink currently operates, offering tremendous commercial potential but placing control largely outside the host nation’s hands. This can be mitigated to some extent by routing it via domestic telecommunications companies, though this could be termed as just a face-saver, as effective control still sits with Starlink. The “Strategic Asset” scenario (low economic value, high geopolitical control) is where India’s limited indigenous satellite capacity could be placed into (this strategically vital but economically suboptimal). Economically sub-optimal, it could be argued, is strategically useless, because it does not offer any leverage power.
Finally, the “Marginal Presence” context captures emerging players such as Amazon’s Kuiper project — an example of still developing economic models while offering limited strategic leverage.
Towards digital sovereignty for India
For India, the question now becomes whether this is a long-term strategic position. India’s Space Research Organisation (ISRO) continues to develop indigenous satellite capabilities. The aim is obviously “Digital Sovereignty”. However, it would require a lot of investment and time, both of which have their strategic tradeoffs.
The partnership model adopted by Airtel and Jio creates a buffer that preserves some measure of sovereignty. Technology transfer provisions and local data storage requirements could protect India’s concerns and also enhance India’s long-term capabilities. Additionally, having more options for domestic partners means India can maintain some amount of leverage against local monopolistic behaviour, though one could argue about its effectiveness. This model of managed dependency is worth exploring further.
One aspect that is intriguing in all of this is the absence of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) from these partnerships. BSNL could have helped reduce some of India’s strategic concerns. As a state-owned enterprise with extensive rural presence, BSNL provides dual benefits: it provides Starlink with broader reach while giving the government more direct oversight of this critical technology. While BSNL is facing some financial problems, considering the strategic benefits of having BSNL involved also represents a lost chance.
A technology evolution, challenges
Could these partnerships establish a template for something such as global Internet governance that has geopolitical dimensions? As developing nations face the choice between American, Chinese, or indigenous satellite systems, the Starlink-India hybrid model tries to balance technological pragmatism with strategic autonomy.
For SpaceX and Elon Musk, these partnerships have benefits both in terms of commercial opportunity and political legitimacy. Indian regulatory concerns are assuaged. This natural evolution of technology from being disruptive to partnering with governments mirrors the trajectory of previous technological revolutions, from railroads to telecommunications.
The ultimate question remains whether satellite Internet will fulfil its promise of universal connectivity or simply reproduce existing digital divides in orbital form. If it remains too expensive for most of India’s rural population, or requires significant government subsidies which would make it untenable for the Indian government, then it would be a bad deal. Some innovative sales techniques, such as tiered pricing models and package deals, would be needed in this scenario. The famed “innovation at the bottom of the pyramid” could surely help India, by packaging products in a way that are accessible, affordable, and valuable to low-income populations, while also being profitable to the companies involved.
With increasing attractiveness of satellite Internet, the governance challenges will only intensify. These will include orbital debris management, and space traffic control. Their transnational nature will require international governance cooperation even amid strategic competition. Without effective global governance, the promise of universal connectivity could be undermined by the tragedy of the orbital commons.
Orbital assets are going to become as strategic as terrestrial ones. For all stakeholders — nations, companies, and citizens — the challenge is to harness the connectivity revolution without surrendering autonomy.
Arindam Goswami is a Research Analyst in the High-Tech Geopolitics Programme at The Takshashila Institution
Published – April 04, 2025 12:16 am IST