There is something almost Shakespearean about Elon Musk’s indignation when the world refuses to bend to his will. The richest man in the world, accustomed to treating governments as inconveniences and public discourse as his personal broadcasting channel, has discovered the virtues of sovereign prerogative. Musk’s complaint that Starlink is licensed in more than 165 countries and has spent five years complying with every requirement of the Indian government, yet remains without a licence, is a grand tutorial in selective outrage. His insinuation that Mukesh Ambani is the real boss of India smacks of theatrical petulance. The question here is why should India compromise its security requirements simply because the applicant happens to be the world’s most conspicuous billionaire? The fact is even OneWeb and Jio Satellite Communications are awaiting outstanding regulatory steps. The government has plainly said the process is being applied uniformly. In fact, Starlink has received an initial licence, but is awaiting further approvals, including security clearance, before launching commercial services in India. The security question goes far beyond the familiar contest between foreign technology and domestic business. It concerns the extraordinary power that a private individual can exercise over communications infrastructure on which governments, armed forces and entire populations may come to depend. A Reuters investigation in July last year had reported that Musk had ordered Starlink coverage switched off in parts of the country during a Ukrainian counteroffensive in September 2022. The resulting disruption had affected military communications and operations. Imagine the strategic implications for India. In a military confrontation with China, particularly along the sensitive frontier in Ladakh, communications are integral to command, coordination and operational resilience. Would India want critical military communications to depend on a network whose availability could be affected by decisions made by a private individual outside its jurisdiction? National security cannot rest on the assumption that a powerful businessman will always make decisions in accordance with another country’s strategic interests. Access to technology must be accompanied by enforceable safeguards, credible contingency arrangements and clear limits on foreign control over critical communications. The hypocrisy becomes more conspicuous when one considers Musk’s own commercial interests. Chinese electric-vehicle maker BYD sells cars across numerous international markets but faces formidable barriers in the United States, where Tesla is a major domestic competitor. Washington has imposed substantial restrictions and tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, invoking concerns about industrial competition, security and dependence on Chinese supply chains. Does Musk denounce every American restriction on Chinese technology as an assault on free enterprise? National sovereignty cannot be invoked as a sacred right in Washington and dismissed as protectionism in New Delhi. It is time Musk realizes that the free market is not a royal court, and its most successful tycoon is not entitled to dictate terms to every sovereign state.
Comments