The Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM), which functions as the economic wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), has voiced support for the government's position of not permitting Elon Musk's Starlink to operate commercial satellite broadband services in India, citing sovereignty over the country's communications infrastructure and what it described as security considerations as the basis for that stance. A representative of the organisation stated that overseas telecom operators, as a category, carry inherent security risks.
A Tuesday statement from SJM contended that Starlink had yet to meet the government's security conditions — among them, the capacity to cut off services on official instruction and a requirement that domestic internet traffic flow through gateways located within India. A formal appeal has gone from the organisation to the government, calling for the company's application to run commercial satellite broadband services to be turned down.
SJM's national co-convener Ashwani Mahajan conveyed to a television news channel that, given the domain in question spans space and satellite infrastructure, his organisation viewed any arrangement that placed national and internal security at risk as one it could not endorse. The group's objections, he indicated, reach beyond the remarks Musk has been reported to have directed at Indian businesses and government bodies.
Ground-based phone and internet systems rely on land-based infrastructure, leaving room for governments to instruct service providers to cut off coverage in particular locations. Compared with that arrangement — where service restrictions could be applied on a geographic basis when problems arose — the current situation with satellite broadband leaves fewer containment options available.
When data passes from one satellite to another via laser links before ever touching a ground station, the routing architecture presents a distinct set of technical demands. Questions arise around traffic routing, lawful interception protocols, emergency shutdown procedures, and how far a non-domestic operator can be directed to act on directives issued by Indian authorities. How a foreign operator might demonstrate that its satellite broadband services would remain accountable to national security bodies forms a central regulatory question authorities have been presented with before the domestic market opens to external providers.
Drawing on operational encounters across Ukraine, Iran, Russia, and several other nations, SJM laid out what it characterised as the broader geopolitical weight that satellite communications now carry. Recovered Starlink hardware during security inquiries has also been cited, with the concern raised that adversaries might leverage such satellite-based connectivity to bypass standard telecommunications infrastructure.
Pointing to the body's stance against Huawei and ZTE when India rolled out its 5G networks, Mahajan drew a comparison with the current situation, stating that curtailing overseas involvement had opened a pathway for domestic firms and researchers to build up technical expertise within the country. That reasoning now forms part of SJM's argument regarding satellite broadband access — the organisation's position holds that a postponement of Starlink's arrival does not necessarily leave underserved areas without connectivity options.
SJM has argued that domestic satellite development and private-sector involvement stand to gain momentum from this path, broadening connectivity without, in the organisation's view, placing national security at risk. Constructing a satellite broadband network from the ground up typically involves substantial financial investment, purpose-built hardware, and an extended period of development before the infrastructure can serve users at scale. No independent verification has established whether domestic alternatives would undercut Starlink on price.
Mahajan also stated that Washington's use of national security justifications to impose tariffs on Indian goods would give New Delhi comparable standing to block Starlink from its market on the same grounds. The position put forward by SJM carries implications that extend into the geopolitical sphere.
What underlies the debate, SJM has argued, is a question of who holds authority over the decisions involved. Where network disruptions have at times been ordered by governments during civil unrest, a communications platform that falls short of locally mandated compliance standards may find itself at odds with regulators. The organisation's stance holds that revenue potential does not outweigh the need, as it frames it, to retain domestic authority over the country's communications networks.
Starlink's contested place within India's regulatory framework has drawn foreign investment, nationwide connectivity, and state authority over digital networks into a single, unresolved policy debate.
