- A closer examination of the INDI Alliance’s objections to the Spectrum policy are riddled with technical inaccuracies, legal misreading, and a disregard for India’s international obligations.
- The Telecommunications Act 2023 mandates laws that permit the central or state government to take over any telecom service or network during public emergencies, disasters, or safety concerns.
- The opposition parties risk undermining India’s strategic interests, where satellite collaboration is a pillar of the Quad alliance’s efforts to counterbalance China’s dominance in communication.
- The INDI Alliance’s objections, though framed as a defence of transparency and sovereignty, are rooted in outdated analogies and technical illiteracy.
Opposition Parties like the Communist Party of India (CPI), the Congress and the TMC have labelled the Modi government’s satellite spectrum policy a “sell-out to foreign interests,” condemning partnerships between Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel, and Elon Musk’s Starlink as a threat to transparency and national security. However, a closer examination reveals that the INDI Alliance’s objections are riddled with technical inaccuracies, legal misreading, and a disregard for India’s international obligations. Here’s a fact-based rebuttal, anchored in verified sources and expert voices.
Analogy to the 2G Scam Ruling: Comparing Apples and Oranges
The Opposition parties argue that the Supreme Court’s 2012 verdict, which cancelled 122 telecom licenses over corruption in terrestrial spectrum allocation, applies to satellite spectrum. This claim collapses under legal scrutiny.
The judgment explicitly addressed terrestrial airwaves, a finite resource vulnerable to monopolisation. Satellite spectrum, governed by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), operates under entirely different principles: it is shared globally, reusable, and coordinated across borders to prevent interference. Since this ruling was given for Terrestrial Communication, it cannot violate International regulations and thus falls under the grey area.
Replying to accusations raised by the Congress Party’s Jairam Ramesh, Union Telecom Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia emphasized this distinction at a January 2024 event: “If you auction satellite spectrum, you will differ from the global process. India, as an ITU signatory, must align with international norms. The satellite spectrum in the Ku band (around 14 GHz) and Ka band (27.1 to 31 GHz) is inherently shareable in nature, and therefore it is neither desirable nor feasible to allocate it through auction.”
“Terrestrial networks use exclusive frequencies, but satellite spectrum is shared. How do you auction something that’s shared? You can’t”, added Scindia. The opposition’s nostalgia for auctions overlooks the fact that satellite spectrum, unlike terrestrial airwaves, cannot be “sold” as a finite commodity, an immature approach towards SATCOM will only leave India marred by Global litigations.
The ‘Cartel’ Myth: Ignoring the Global Market Realities
The allegations that Jio, Airtel, and Starlink are forming a cartel to monopolize India’s satellite internet market hold no ground, and the argument ignores the competitive landscape.
Global players like Amazon’s Project Kuiper and Euelsat’s OneWeb (backed by Bharti Airtel) are already active in India’s satcom space. Additionally, ISRO’s commercial arm, NewSpace India Limited (NSIL), collaborates with private entities to launch broadband satellites.
Leading global satellite companies, including OneWeb-Bharti, Starlink, Amazon’s Project Kuiper, and Canada’s Telesat (which has partnered with Tata), have strongly opposed the auctioning of satellite airwaves, arguing that such a move would render the satellite communications business unviable. The companies emphasized that satellite spectrum, unlike terrestrial airwaves, cannot be broken down into exclusive blocks or chunks for auction. Satellite frequencies are shared resources, used globally under coordination by the ITU. Auctioning such a spectrum, they argued, would fragment its usage, disrupt global harmonization, and create operational inefficiencies.
OneWeb-Bharti, in its submission, highlighted that the administrative allocation of satellite spectrum is the global norm, followed by over 80% of ITU member states, including the U.S., EU nations, and Japan. Starlink echoed this sentiment, stating that auctions would delay the rollout of satellite broadband services, particularly in remote regions where terrestrial networks are either unavailable or economically unfeasible. Amazon’s Project Kuiper and Telesat-Tata also warned that auction-driven costs would be passed on to consumers, making satellite broadband unaffordable for millions.
Since 2004, the U.S. has replaced satellite spectrum auctions with a streamlined administrative process, reflecting a global trend. Mexico, the only country still retaining auction provisions, last attempted one in 2014, which failed. Most nations have abandoned auctions, adopting administrative allocation to ensure efficient use of shared satellite frequencies under ITU coordination. In 2020, Brazil abolished satellite auctions entirely, replacing them with an administrative process under Law No. 13,879. This shift highlights the impracticality of auctions, which fragment the spectrum and disrupt global harmonization.
Indian Space Policy and Expert Speak
The Indian Space Policy, 2023, applicable to all space-related operations originating from or directed toward India, permits non-government entities to offer space-based communication services using self-owned, procured, or leased satellites in Geostationary Orbit (GSO) or Non-Geostationary Orbit (NGSO). Additionally, private players can utilize GSO and NGSO slots, along with associated frequency spectrum and coverage areas, to establish communication services, subject to guidelines issued by the Indian National Space Promotion and Authorization Centre (IN-SPACe). By enabling private participation, the government seeks to boost India’s 13 billion Space Economy, which is projected to grow to 50 billion by 2030, while ensuring compliance with international treaties, national security protocols, and data sovereignty requirements. IN-SPACe chairman Pawan Kumar Goenka went one foot ahead and said that there shall be no effect whatsoever on India’s space Industry with the entry of Musk’s Starlink in India.
Gopal Vittal, managing Director of Bharti Airtel, said, “This collaboration enhances our ability to bring world-class high-speed broadband to even the most remote parts of India, ensuring that every individual, business and community has reliable internet.” The deal aims to expand rural connectivity, not monopolize the spectrum. This collaboration complements, not replaces, existing infrastructure like BharatNet. Reliance Jio’s President, Matthew Oommen, after the Jio- Starlink deal, reiterated Vittal and said, “Ensuring that every Indian, no matter where they live, has access to affordable and high-speed broadband remains Jio’s top priority.”
ISRO Chairman S. Somanath has endorsed private participation: “We have not done this in the past because we thought space to be such an exclusive club, with secret work which you should keep with the government. This idea has to be removed, and we have done this in the last two years. We made a very open and public message that it is for private industries to participate in the space sector and find a business case.” The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) further ensures competition through transparent pricing frameworks. A March 2024 consultation paper outlines fee structures based on bandwidth usage and operational costs.
Security Concerns vs. India’s Regulatory Safeguards
The Opposition, particularly CPI, warns that Starlink could compromise national security, citing unverified claims about its role in the Ukraine conflict. While vigilance is prudent, India’s regulatory framework precludes such risks. The CPI’s analogy to Ukraine’s experience is nothing more than misleading. Unlike Kyiv, New Delhi has legally binding safeguards to prevent external coercion.
The Telecommunications Act 2023 mandates laws that permit the central or state government to take over any telecom service or network during public emergencies, disasters, or safety concerns. They also allow for internet shutdowns when deemed necessary. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has already put Starlink’s encryption standards and infrastructure under scrutiny.
ISRO retains control over defence-centric satellites like GSAT-7A (used by the Indian Air Force) and GSAT-6 (military communications). Private operators focus solely on consumer broadband, with no access to defence data.
Geopolitical Pragmatism: The Quad and U.S.-India Trade Talks
Starlink deal is also touted to remain hinged on the outcome of the India Trade deal scheduled in September later this year. The I.N.D.I.A block sidesteps the strategic significance of the Starlink deal amid ongoing trade negotiations, where tech collaboration is a key bargaining chip. Geopolitically, the opposition parties risk undermining India’s strategic interests, where satellite collaboration is a pillar of the Quad alliance’s efforts to counterbalance China’s dominance in 5G and undersea cables.
While those in Opposition to the deal advocate “self-reliance,” global partnerships are indispensable for accessing cutting-edge technology. As of 2023, India holds 150+ ITU-approved orbital slots, a resource that requires collaboration to leverage effectively.
Digital Inclusion Trumps Ideological Purity Tests
The Opposition parties, while politically resonant, reflect a disconnect from technological and geopolitical realities. While these parties often position themselves as champion of rural welfare, their rejection of satellite internet deprives India’s remote villages of connectivity critical for education, healthcare, and economic mobility. Over 25,000 Indian villages still lack reliable internet access, and a partnership like Starlink-Jio-Airtel could bridge the gap where terrestrial networks have failed. The Starlink-Jio-Airtel partnership complements initiatives like BharatNet, which has struggled with last-mile delivery in rugged terrains.
Need for a Sensible Opposition Critique
The INDI Alliance’s objections, though framed as a defence of transparency and sovereignty, are rooted in outdated analogies and technical illiteracy. India’s satellite spectrum policy aligns with global norms, prioritizes rural inclusion, and embeds stringent security safeguards, a balance auctions cannot achieve. By partnering with Starlink, India embraces progress without compromising sovereignty, ensuring it remains competitive in the $447 billion space economy. The Alliance’s critique, while politically resonant, ultimately serves as a reminder that in the digital age, progress demands pragmatism, not polemics. The Starlink deal is not a surrender but a strategic step forward.
Abhinav is an accomplished Engineer, Technical Writer and consultant, who has worked for prestigious Navratna PSUs of India. He is an expert on matters related to Defense and Technology. Views are personal.
Sakshi Yadav 
Shashank Pandey 
Piyush Anand