top of page

By:

Sagari Gupta

24 March 2026 at 2:16:04 pm

SpaceX’s IPO and India’s Sovereignty

The record-breaking $1.75 trillion IPO underscores a new reality that nations which do not control critical digital infrastructure risk ceding part of their sovereignty. Last week, SpaceX listed on Nasdaq under the ticker SPCX, raising $75 billion at a staggering valuation of $1.75 trillion. That single offering surpassed Saudi Aramco’s 2019 record of $25.6 billion by a factor of three. India’s defence budget for FY 2025-26 was Rs. 6.81 lakh crore, approximately $78.57 billion, according to...

SpaceX’s IPO and India’s Sovereignty

The record-breaking $1.75 trillion IPO underscores a new reality that nations which do not control critical digital infrastructure risk ceding part of their sovereignty. Last week, SpaceX listed on Nasdaq under the ticker SPCX, raising $75 billion at a staggering valuation of $1.75 trillion. That single offering surpassed Saudi Aramco’s 2019 record of $25.6 billion by a factor of three. India’s defence budget for FY 2025-26 was Rs. 6.81 lakh crore, approximately $78.57 billion, according to the Union Budget. SpaceX raised the near-equivalent of that annual allocation in one day. The investors who participated were not buying into a rocket company. They were pricing control over satellite infrastructure, global internet access, launch capability, and an integrated AI platform at a level exceeding the GDP of most countries. Roughly 30 percent of the shares, worth approximately $22.5 billion, went to retail investors, three times the proportion typical of a US listing. India has no private entity in this category. What SpaceX actually controls Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet division, operated approximately 7,000 active satellites globally as of early 2026. It counts over nine million subscribers worldwide, and following a 2026 merger, SpaceX also owns xAI, the developer of the Grok AI system. A company that controls satellite connectivity, launch capacity, and a frontier AI model occupies a position no regulator has previously had to classify. It is not a telecom operator, not a defence contractor, and not a technology platform. It is all three at once, under common ownership. In June 2025, SpaceX received authorisation from India’s Department of Telecommunications, followed by a licence from IN-SPACe in July 2025. As of June 2026, Starlink’s commercial operations in India remain pending, with the company in active discussions with the Government of India on security clearances, a process slowed by concerns linked to Starlink terminal use in the Iran conflict. That delay is itself revealing. A foreign company’s service continuity in India depends on negotiations that India does not fully control. Satellite communications, launch systems, and AI-integrated data infrastructure are the functional equivalents of roads and electricity grids in a digital economy. States that built those grids in the twentieth century retained control over access, pricing, and service continuity. States that depend on foreign corporations for digital infrastructure in the twenty-first century do not. The dependence question is already live for India India’s digital public infrastructure, covering Aadhaar, UPI, and the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission, processes billions of transactions monthly. Aadhaar covers nearly the entire adult population, and UPI carries the bulk of India’s retail digital payments. The system’s design is sound: public architecture, state-controlled data governance, open standards. The next connectivity layer is the problem. TRAI data shows rural internet penetration at 44.2 percent as of March 2024, with only 3.8 percent of rural households connected through high-speed fixed infrastructure. Approximately 630 million Indians remain offline, with primary barriers being awareness, affordability, and limited local-language content, according to the Kantar ICUBE 2024 survey. That gap will not close through terrestrial fibre rollout alone. Satellite broadband, through Starlink, Eutelsat OneWeb, or Amazon’s Project Kuiper, will carry a large share of that load over the next decade. None of these are Indian entities. Their pricing decisions, service continuity choices, and data routing practices sit outside Indian jurisdiction. A farmer in Chhattisgarh receiving crop advisory data through a satellite connection does not know that a pricing decision made in California affects whether that signal arrives tomorrow. She will notice only when it stops. Foreign private capital has built connectivity infrastructure in India before. Reliance Jio brought down mobile data costs after its 2016 launch, extending internet access to hundreds of millions of Indians who had not been able to afford it before. Jio’s rollout also created large-scale domestic employment in network maintenance, retail, and customer service, jobs that remain within India’s economy. Private investment in connectivity is not a threat to sovereignty. Structural Gap The difference with SpaceX is structural. Jio operates under Indian law, pays taxes in India, employs Indian engineers, and answers to Indian regulators when disputes arise. Its towers and fibre sit on Indian soil. Starlink’s constellation orbits at 550 kilometres, outside any single national jurisdiction. Under the Telecommunications Act 2023, existing Starlink operators in India continue under the legacy Unified Licence framework, with their licences remaining valid. But no Indian regulatory instrument contains a binding service continuity obligation for satellite operators. If Starlink suspends Indian operations, no domestic legal mechanism compels continuation or requires a managed transition for the users left without service. The $1.75 trillion valuation amplifies this structural gap. India’s external debt stood at $736.3 billion at end-March 2025, according to the Reserve Bank of India. SpaceX’s market valuation now exceeds India’s total external debt by a wide margin. A corporation at that scale does not face the same regulatory friction as a domestic operator. It does not need to negotiate from a position of dependence. India’s satellite communications framework, updated through the Indian Space Policy 2023 and the Telecommunications Act 2023, governs licensing and spectrum allocation in detail. It does not contain binding service continuity or exit-transition obligations for foreign satellite operators. That gap needs closing through explicit licence conditions before Starlink and its competitors reach commercial scale in India. India’s Semiconductor Mission has made genuine progress. Pilot production started in three plants in 2025, and the government confirmed that four plants commenced commercial production in 2026. Kaynes Semicon’s OSAT unit in Sanand reached commercial production in March 2026. India also inaugurated its first 3-nanometer chip design centres in Noida and Bengaluru in 2025, a step toward design capability even as fabrication capacity remains limited. These are real milestones, not announcements. They do not yet constitute a domestic supply chain for the advanced chips needed for satellite infrastructure, AI systems, or next-generation communications hardware. India’s domestic semiconductor market was approximately $45-50 billion in 2024-25, according to industry estimates cited by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. Closing the gap between consumption and domestic production is a decade-long task requiring sustained capital commitment. India’s competition framework does not treat foreign satellite infrastructure concentration as a market power question. The Competition Commission of India has a clear mandate over domestic pricing and merger activity. It has no instrument to act when a foreign entity’s control over orbital infrastructure creates de facto monopoly conditions for remote connectivity within India. That regulatory gap needs explicit legislative attention before dependence deepens further. Market Signals SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion valuation is not a data point about one company. It is a market signal about what global capital considers most valuable in 2026: not oil fields or shipping lanes, but control over the systems through which economies communicate, compute, and transact. India entered the hydrocarbon era as a net importer and spent decades building the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and domestic refining capacity to reduce that dependence. The programme continues to expand today, a reminder that infrastructure sovereignty is an ongoing commitment. The response was slow and expensive. It was also the right call. The digital infrastructure era has well and truly arrived. India is already a net importer of the connectivity and computing systems that will define the next phase of its economic growth. The SpaceX IPO makes the scale of that dependence visible in a single number. And policymakers do not have decades to respond this time. (The writer is an independent public policy researcher. Views personal.)

Stop the Hysteria, Start Listening

Updated: Feb 25, 2025

The German election results have shown that branding every populist movement as ‘fascist’ is lazy, self-defeating and untrue.

Friedrich Merz
Friedrich Merz

Germany’s latest election result may have sent shockwaves through the ‘left liberal’ political establishment, but was hardly surprising to anyone with any modicum of common sense. Olaf Scholz’s Social Democrats (SPD) collapsed to their worst postwar performance, securing a meagre 16 percent of the vote. Friedrich Merz’s conservative CDU/CSU emerged victorious with 28.6 percent putting him on course to become the next Chancellor. But it was the second-place Alternative for Germany (AfD), with an unprecedented 20 percent, that truly rattled the political and media classes.


Predictably, the reaction was alarmist. Protesters flooded the streets, and Scholz himself called the result “bitter,” an acknowledgment of his own party’s failure but also a not-so-subtle condemnation of the electorate. Liberal commentators quickly reached for their favourite historical parallel: “the return of fascism.” But is this truly what is happening? Or is the AfD’s rise a sign of something far more mundane - an electorate frustrated with a government that has ignored its concerns for too long?


The AfD is routinely cast as a neo-Nazi party, a charge that both its leadership and many of its voters reject. While it is undoubtedly nationalist, conservative and at times inflammatory, to conflate it with the Nazi Party of the 1930s is intellectually dishonest and historically ignorant. The lazy tendency to brand any right-wing movement as “fascist” is not only a rhetorical overreach but also a dangerous one.


For much of the postwar era, Germany’s political class successfully maintained a rigid cordon sanitaire against the far-right. But that strategy only works if the mainstream parties actually address voters’ anxieties. The AfD’s rise is not due to some latent German desire to resurrect the Reich, but rather to legitimate concerns about immigration, economic insecurity and the erosion of national identity. In vast swathes of the former East Germany, where state neglect has bred resentment, the party now commands over 30 percent of the vote.


Many of its supporters do not see themselves as radicals but as ordinary Germans abandoned by a political elite obsessed with abstract ideals rather than everyday realities. Their grievances about crime, integration and economic stagnation are dismissed as bigoted or backwards. The Left’s answer to their discontent is to call them ‘Nazis.’ That’s not just wrong; it’s counterproductive.


The SPD’s catastrophic defeat is emblematic of a broader trend across Europe, where centre-left parties are losing touch with their traditional base. Once the champions of workers and the middle class, they have become preoccupied with progressive social issues that resonate in university seminar rooms but not in working-class neighbourhoods.


Scholz, much like his counterparts in France, Britain and the United States, underestimated the depth of public frustration with mass migration and economic stagnation. His government’s handling of both issues was widely seen as incompetent, and his party paid the price. Meanwhile, the CDU/CSU, despite winning, finds itself at an ideological crossroads. Merz insists he will never govern alongside the AfD, yet his own policies, especially his hardline stance on immigration, overlap significantly with theirs. That reality is unlikely to change, no matter how loudly the political establishment protests.


Germany is not an anomaly. Across the West, right-wing populist movements are making electoral gains, not because of some grand resurgence of fascism, but because liberal democracies are failing to respond to the needs of their citizens. Whether it’s Giorgia Meloni in Italy, Marine Le Pen in France or Donald Trump in the United States, the pattern is the same: voters are rejecting parties that prioritize ideology over pragmatism.


Trump himself was quick to congratulate the CDU’s victory, while drawing parallels to his own movement. In a post on Truth Social, he framed the German election as a rejection of “a lack of common sense agenda,” particularly on energy and immigration.


Across Germany, the AfD capitalized on widespread frustration with energy policies that have left citizens with soaring utility bills and an immigration system that feels increasingly out of control. It is easy to dismiss this discontent as xenophobic or irrational. It is much harder to confront the reality that mainstream parties have done little to address the underlying causes of voter anger.


Branding the AfD and its voters as ‘fascists’ might make some feel morally superior, but it does nothing to solve the problems that led to their rise. If anything, it ensures that they will only grow stronger.

1 Comment


Srinivasan S
Srinivasan S
Mar 03, 2025

The world is sharply turning right. India, France, US and now Germany. The reasons may be too complicated to understand because there are numerous forces acting on world politics. France wants immigrants to leave. Indians want a Hindu Rashtra. US has MAGA issues. There is a vein of neo-Nazism flowing in Germany. It is difficult to put a finger on a single reason for this trend. Economics alone cannot be blamed for the rise of the right wing in Germany and elsewhere. Autocracy seems to be the flavor. The tectonic shift in geopolitics is leading to tremors in the world order. Interesting months ahead for academicians like me.

Good article.

Edited
Like
bottom of page