Nishikant Dubey hits back at Musk over Starlink, cites security concerns in India

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey has pushed back against Elon Musk’s criticism of India’s regulatory approach to Starlink, insisting that the country will not alter its security policy under pressure from a billionaire or social media campaigns.

The exchange comes as Musk accuses influential business interests of obstructing Starlink’s entry into India to protect existing telecom operators, particularly Reliance Industries chairman Mukesh Ambani. The SpaceX chief has argued that allowing his satellite internet service to compete would give consumers more choices and improve connectivity in underserved regions.

“India is a healthy democratic, sovereign nation; it does not change its security policy under pressure or social media,” Dubey said on X, responding to Musk’s remarks about Ambani and the delay in approving Starlink’s commercial operations.

Dubey, who chairs a parliamentary committee, said lawmakers had examined the potential security implications of the satellite internet service. He claimed that the committee had studied the challenges Starlink could pose to India’s security agencies.

“As the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee, our committee has understood the challenges facing the country’s security agencies through Starlink,” he said, adding that the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Home Affairs and investigative agencies were being affected by what he described as “dangerous games”.

He also referred to concerns raised during the previous United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government. “In 2013-14, the government of Shri Manmohan Singh ji had informed TRAI about these threats,” Dubey said, referring to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). He did not elaborate on the specific threats or explain which risks had been flagged at the time.

Musk accuses Ambani’s camp of opposing competition

Musk’s criticism began with an attack on those defending Ambani and questioning Starlink’s prospects in India. He accused supporters of Reliance’s position of making contradictory arguments about the satellite internet provider’s ability to compete.

“The ridiculous arguments by Ambani’s army of Internet shills make no sense,” Musk said.

He argued that Starlink’s critics could not simultaneously claim that it would be unable to compete with Reliance Jio’s low prices and suggest that it would pose such a strong competitive threat that it should be kept out of the market.

“On the one hand, they say Starlink couldn’t possibly compete with the amazing low prices offered by Ambani’s de facto monopoly in India and then, in the same breath, they essentially claim that Starlink would be too strong of a competitor,” he said, describing the position as “absurd hypocrisy and hyperbole”.

Musk maintained that competition would benefit Indian consumers by expanding their choices. He acknowledged that greater competition could reduce Ambani’s profits but argued that it would not threaten the Reliance chairman’s business.

“The reality is that competition would greatly benefit the average citizen in India by giving them more choices, as it always does,” Musk said. He added that Ambani’s profits might fall but that the businessman “is not going out of business”.

Musk also addressed concerns about Starlink’s affordability, saying the company would have to price its service competitively if it wanted to attract Indian customers.

“Obviously, if Starlink is too expensive in India, no one will buy it, so SpaceX will need to make pricing affordable,” he said, arguing that consumer demand, rather than regulatory intervention, would determine whether the service succeeded.

He then took a sarcastic swipe at Ambani, writing: “Dear Prime Minister Ambani, Please accept my humble apologies for not realizing that you are the real boss of India.”

Musk followed the remark by asking whether Ambani would nevertheless consider allowing Starlink to compete in the Indian market.

Dubey challenges Musk over affordability and political influence

Dubey rejected Musk’s portrayal of the dispute as a straightforward question of competition and consumer choice. He challenged the billionaire to improve affordable internet access in his home country before criticising India’s policies.

“First, provide connections to the poor in your own country, America, at affordable rates, and then level accusations,” Dubey said.

He also denied that commercial interests dictated India’s regulatory decisions, insisting that national security considerations took precedence over potential financial gains.

“If our policy were driven by money, we would have rolled out the red carpet welcome for you despite opposition from the security agencies,” he said. However, Dubey did not identify the agencies involved or provide details of their objections to Starlink.

He also questioned Musk’s criticism by referring to the billionaire’s alleged support for political parties in other countries.

“Don’t you provide even more support to political parties from America to Britain?” Dubey asked, without specifying the contributions or parties to which he was referring.

Musk, meanwhile, framed Starlink’s potential entry into India as an opportunity to expand internet access, particularly in communities that remain poorly connected.

He said many parts of India, as in other countries, lacked reliable internet access, denying children educational opportunities and preventing small businesses from reaching customers in international markets.

“Starlink would change their lives for the better,” Musk said.

The disagreement has since extended beyond the two businessmen and political figures, with the regulatory delay raising questions about competition, affordability and the security implications of foreign-owned satellite communications networks.

Why Starlink’s India launch remains uncertain

Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite broadband business, uses a constellation of low Earth orbit satellites to deliver internet connectivity through specialised user terminals. The technology can provide an alternative to fibre-optic networks and mobile towers, particularly in remote villages, mountainous areas and border regions where conventional infrastructure is expensive or difficult to deploy.

The company’s progress in India has involved several stages of regulatory approval. Public reports have outlined its telecom licensing and authorisation process, including approvals obtained during 2025. However, permission to operate commercially also depends on the allocation of spectrum and compliance with the government’s security requirements.

The Centre has maintained that satellite internet operators must undergo the prescribed approval process and that applications are subject to security scrutiny. Recent reporting has indicated that Starlink and competing satellite communications ventures, including Reliance Jio’s satellite business, are awaiting final security clearance. The government has rejected suggestions that Starlink is being singled out for discriminatory treatment.

The dispute over spectrum allocation has also been a major point of contention. In 2024, Reliance Jio argued that spectrum for satellite communication services should be auctioned, as is the case with mobile spectrum, to maintain a level playing field between satellite operators and conventional telecom companies.

Starlink and other international satellite providers have favoured administrative allocation, which is commonly used in several markets. TRAI subsequently recommended an administrative approach accompanied by a revenue-linked charge. The terms governing spectrum assignment and the conditions attached to commercial operations remain central to the regulatory debate.

Security is another key consideration. Satellite communication licences can require operators to establish gateways within India, comply with lawful interception requirements and make relevant facilities available to authorised agencies. These safeguards are intended to address concerns about communications security, monitoring and the enforcement of Indian laws.

Dubey’s remarks indicate that he believes the security implications require particular scrutiny. However, his comments did not establish which specific Starlink capabilities or operating arrangements the parliamentary committee considers problematic.

Starlink’s pricing faces a separate challenge in India

Even if Starlink receives the necessary approvals, its ability to attract customers will depend partly on whether its service can compete with India’s comparatively inexpensive mobile data plans.

Investor and fintech commentator Sheel Mohnot questioned whether enough Indian consumers would be willing to pay for satellite broadband when conventional internet services are already widely available at relatively low prices.

“India has among the fastest and cheapest internet in the world, with remarkable coverage too,” Mohnot said.

He cited an Indian mobile data plan costing $4 a month for 60GB of data, which he said worked reliably even in his family’s village. Based on those figures, the cost works out at approximately 6.7 US cents per gigabyte.

Mohnot compared this with Starlink’s reported price of $27 a month in Rwanda, which he described as the company’s cheapest market. That monthly price is nearly seven times the $4 Indian plan he cited, although the two offerings are not directly comparable in terms of technology, data allowances or service conditions.

“I love Starlink and think India should give them a license, but I wonder how many people will pay $27/mo,” Mohnot said.

He added that the rural areas where satellite internet could be most useful were often those where residents could least afford it. His argument highlights the distinction between extending connectivity to underserved locations and making that connectivity affordable for households and small businesses.

Mohnot also questioned whether India’s approach amounted to protectionism, comparing the dispute with restrictions imposed by other countries on foreign technology and vehicle manufacturers.

“This license thing feels similar to the US not allowing Chinese cars… is there a different way I should be thinking about it?” he asked.

The comparison raises a broader question about how governments should balance market access with national security, particularly when a service is operated by a foreign company with extensive communications infrastructure.

Security, spectrum and pricing will shape Starlink’s future

The disagreement between Dubey and Musk reflects two competing arguments. Musk says greater competition would give Indian consumers more options and help connect communities that lack reliable internet access. Dubey maintains that India’s security requirements cannot be relaxed because of commercial pressure or criticism on social media.

The regulatory process also involves questions beyond the rivalry between Starlink and Reliance Jio. Satellite operators need clarity on spectrum allocation, licensing conditions, gateway infrastructure and lawful interception requirements before they can begin commercial operations.

Affordability presents a separate challenge. Mohnot’s comparison between Indian mobile data prices and Starlink’s reported monthly charge in Rwanda suggests that satellite broadband may struggle to attract price-sensitive consumers in areas already served by inexpensive mobile networks. Its value could be greater in locations where terrestrial connectivity is limited or unreliable.

The Centre will ultimately have to determine whether operators meet the required security standards and satisfy the conditions for commercial service. Starlink’s prospects in India will depend on the outcome of that process, the terms governing its operations and whether it can offer a service that meets the needs and budgets of the communities it hopes to reach.