Home

Featured Articles

Oct 10, 2026
Viren S Doshi

Elon Musk’s Starlink - A Powerful Dual-Use Weapon

Overview Starlink, the low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellite internet constellation operated by SpaceX, stands as one of the most consequential dual-use technologies of the 2020s. Designed primarily for global broadband access—especially in remote or underserved areas—it has proven remarkably resilient and adaptable in conflict zones. Its ability to deliver high-speed, low-latency connectivity independent of vulnerable terrestrial infrastructure has made it a strategic asset in wars, protests, and humanitarian crises. At the same time, the control over activation, coverage, and terminal access rests with a single private company, raising profound questions about sovereignty, escalation risks, and the privatisation of critical wartime communications. Ownership and Corporate Structure Starlink is not an independent company. It is a division and brand of Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX), the American aerospace manufacturer and space transportation company founded by Elon Musk in 2002. SpaceX designs, manufactures, and launches the Starlink satellites, operates the ground infrastructure, and manages the user terminals and service. Elon Musk, SpaceX’s founder, CEO, CTO, and chairman, exercises decisive control. Following SpaceX’s June 2026 IPO (ticker SPCX), filings showed Musk holding roughly 48.4% of the equity while retaining more than 82% of the voting power through a dual-class share structure (Class B shares carrying superior voting rights). Starlink generates the majority of SpaceX’s revenue (reported at approximately $11.4 billion in 2025 for the connectivity segment) and funds broader ambitions including Starship development. A military-oriented variant, Starshield, exists for government customers, distinct from the commercial Starlink network. Global Operations: Coverage Across 160+ Countries As of mid-to-late 2026, Starlink provides service in 160+ to over 170 countries and territories, serving more than 12 million active subscribers (with targets previously set toward 25 million by year-end). The constellation consists of approximately 11,000+ satellites in LEO (roughly 11,100–11,140 in orbit, the large majority operational), representing the majority of active manoeuvrable satellites in Earth orbit. Service includes residential broadband, maritime, aviation (used by dozens of airlines), enterprise, and expanding direct-to-cell capabilities (satellite-to-standard smartphone connectivity via partnerships). Coverage prioritises areas with poor terrestrial infrastructure. Availability requires regulatory approval in each market; the official map distinguishes active service, “coming soon,” pending approval, and unavailable markets. Expansion continues rapidly, particularly in Africa, Latin America, and smaller territories, though major markets such as India remain in regulatory processes. Prohibition in China Starlink is not authorised to operate in mainland China (or Hong Kong and Macao in the availability data). The Chinese Communist Party-led rule in China has not granted SpaceX any telecommunications licence from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT). Unlicensed satellite terminals are treated as prohibited equipment. Chinese Communist authorities cite national security, data sovereignty, and the risk of foreign-controlled communications bypassing domestic gateways and censorship systems. Starlink traffic routes outside Chinese Communist Regime control, which Beijing views as a potential surveillance or interference threat. Enforcement has intensified: vessels entering Chinese waters (territorial sea and, in practice, broader jurisdictional areas) must power down and disconnect Starlink terminals, with documented penalties for non-compliance. The service does not appear on Starlink’s availability map for China, and terminals ordered for mainland addresses are rejected. China is developing its own LEO constellations (e.g., Guowang) as alternatives. Starlink Role in the Russia-Ukraine War Starlink’s most significant and well-documented wartime impact has been in Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. Ukrainian officials requested activation; SpaceX responded within days, shipping thousands of terminals. After Russian cyber and kinetic attacks degraded conventional networks, Starlink became essential for Ukrainian military command-and-control, artillery coordination, drone operations (reconnaissance and strike), and civilian/government connectivity (hospitals, railways, emergency services). Tens of thousands of terminals have been deployed. Musk and SpaceX have exercised direct control over capabilities: Refusal in 2022 to enable or extend coverage near Crimea for Ukrainian sea-drone attacks on the Russian Black Sea Fleet, citing escalation risks (including potential nuclear response) and terms of service limiting offensive military use. Reports of temporary coverage adjustments during certain Ukrainian operations. In February 2026, implementation of a whitelist system at Ukraine’s request that blocked unauthorised (primarily Russian-smuggled) terminals operating in Ukraine. This disrupted Russian drone and assault coordination and contributed to Ukrainian territorial gains in some sectors. Musk has publicly described Starlink as “the backbone of the Ukrainian army,” stating that the front line “would collapse” if service were turned off, while affirming he would not do so or use it as a bargaining chip. He has simultaneously advocated for negotiated peace, criticising the prolonged conflict. Ukraine has grown concerned about dependence on a private operator and is exploring indigenous alternatives while seeking expanded permissions (e.g., for deeper strikes into Russia). Russian forces obtained terminals via black-market channels and used them until the 2026 restrictions. The episode illustrates both the system’s battlefield value and the strategic leverage held by its operator. Other Conflicts and Crisis Zones Beyond Ukraine, Starlink has appeared in several other settings, mostly through smuggling, limited humanitarian activation, or opportunistic use rather than formal government partnerships: Sudan: Amid the civil war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), smuggled terminals (often via UAE routes) have been used by RSF elements for communications, logistics, and reportedly drone guidance. Civilian populations in RSF-controlled or contested areas have also relied on them after terrestrial networks collapsed. SpaceX has faced pressure over unauthorised use. Myanmar: Terminals have been employed by resistance groups in conflict zones (bypassing junta blackouts) and extensively by cyber-scam compounds along the Thai border. SpaceX has proactively disabled thousands of terminals linked to scam centres. Gaza: Limited, case-by-case activation for humanitarian purposes (e.g., field hospitals), coordinated with Israeli and UAE authorities rather than open commercial service. Iran: Smuggled terminals enabled some connectivity during internet shutdowns and protests against the Ayatollah Regime. Musk has publicly referenced activation or coverage during heightened tension; Regime authorities have claimed disruption efforts and treat possession as a security offence. Reports also mention broader dual-use concerns during regional military actions. Other mentions: Limited or alleged use in parts of the Sahel by armed groups, smuggled devices near India’s Manipur-Myanmar border (denied by Musk, as beams are off over India), and contingency planning discussions regarding Taiwan (where resilient LEO communications could matter against electronic warfare, though no formal wartime activation has occurred). In most non-Ukraine cases, use has been unauthorised or tightly restricted, and SpaceX has taken steps against clear misuse (scams, sanctioned parties) when identified. Broader Implications Starlink’s architecture—thousands of inexpensive, rapidly replaceable LEO satellites plus portable user terminals—makes it far harder to fully disable than traditional satellite or ground networks. This resilience is its greatest strength in contested environments and its greatest source of geopolitical tension. A private company under one individual’s primary control can enable or constrain military operations, influence escalation dynamics, and shape information flows in real time. Governments are responding with indigenous LEO programs, stricter licensing, jamming research, and contingency planning. For users in conflict zones, Starlink has often meant the difference between isolation and connectivity. For strategists, it exemplifies the new reality of commercial space assets as decisive factors in 21st-century warfare and crisis response. As the constellation expands further, its dual-use character will only grow more pronounced. India's Efforts and Starlink The recent spat between frustrated Elon Musk and the Indian Government and Indian Businessman Mukesh Ambani has turned the issue of the satellite network into an even more hotly debated topic. Starlink brand is operated by Starlink Services, LLC, a 100% owned subsidiary of SpaceX (Space Exploration Technologies Corp). There is no way to buy Starlink stock directly - you buy SpaceX. Elon Musk has ∼42-43% equity, ∼79-84% voting power via super-voting shares, so he owns SpaceX and thus controls Starlink. IPO filing in June 2026 said he would retain 82.4% voting power after the IPO. This means Musk controls every decision - launches, pricing, government contracts, Ukraine/India shutdown decisions. No investor can overrule him. Founders Fund, Fidelity, Google (Alphabet 7.5% from 2015), Andreessen Horowitz, Ron Baron - all these investors own equity but have no voting control. There is no separate CEO for Starlink. It is controlled by CEO/CTO/Chairman Elon Musk directly, though President/COO Gwynne Shotwell runs day-to-day operations. As of March 2026: ∼9,600 satellites in orbit, 10.3M subscribers in 164 countries and by June 2026: 12M subscribers. 2025 Revenue filing: SpaceX total $18.7B, Starlink Connectivity = $11.4B (61%) - and only profitable division at $4.4B operating profit. Q2 2026: $4.3B revenue, +66% YoY, ARPU $66/month. SpaceX went public June 3, 2026. So Starlink is now inside public SpaceX. Why it matters for India: Starlink India entity is Starlink Satellite Communications Pvt Ltd – a wholly foreign-owned subsidiary of SpaceX. India allows 100% FDI in satcom but needs government approval and security clearance. That's why approvals are stalled at present. The government says global laser inter-satellite architecture makes it hard to ensure all Indian traffic stays monitorable inside India, and wants kill-switch control during emergencies, because of Starlink's role in the Ukraine war. This is the root cause of Elon Musk’s frustration, who made condescending remarks against India, the Indian PM and Indian Business Magnate Mukesh Ambani. Next fortnight is Jio IPO, and last week, at the India Mobile Congress, in the presence of PM Modi, Jio unveiled its future plans. Reliance Jio officially showcased its proposed network of 1,600 LEO satellites and 23 ground stations under its "Sovereign Satellite Connectivity" banner. India's space regulator, IN-SPACe, cleared Jio’s proposal as technically sound. Jio's planned system expects to deliver a combined data capacity of 4.5 to 5 Tbps across India, while Starlink’s currently approved capacity limit sits at 600 Gbps, pending security clearance. Jio IPO is massive, record-breaking $3.8 billion, opening on October 21, 2026. It may also be noted that almost 50% of Reliance shares are held by people in India. Indians are almost fond of holding Reliance shares. Conclusion Starlink - Jio or Elon Musk - Mukesh Ambani or Anti-democratic forces - Democracy spate has become very interesting. It is to be seen how Jio, Ambani and India respond and survive this onslaught by an Oligarch who is used by Chinese Communists selectively and effectively. Though Starlink is prohibited in China, Tesla is manufactured in China and is the biggest source of revenue for him. Not only that, Tesla is dependent on Chinese Communist Supply Chains for many products used in batteries and other parts. No entry to Communist China's BYD cars in the US during the leftist Biden Administration further deepened the nexus between Chinese Communist Regime and Oligarch Elon Musk. This is just the first salvo of the future confrontations. This is how the war in Space is shaping the conflicts on the Ground. Democracies must unite to defeat

Oct 10, 2026
Salil Gewali

When Love Turns into Murderous Traps

A young life cut short is always heartbreaking. But when death comes from a place where there should have been “trust, companionship and care”, the tragedy becomes even harder to comprehend. The death of 22-year-old Guwahati University student Nimisha Thakuria leaves behind precisely such disturbing questions. In the early hours of September 26, Nimisha was found unconscious in the Garal-Azara area and was later declared dead at Guwahati Medical College and Hospital. What makes the tragedy almost unbearable is the family’s account of her final distress call from Rudra’s Kitchen homestay in Dharapur‑Garal, near Guwahati, Assam. Reports suggest that the couple had stayed at the same homestay as many as five times in the preceding month, making the place apparently familiar to them rather than a one-off destination. Shortly before her death, Nimisha reportedly called her mother, saying she was being brutally beaten and was struggling to breathe. One can only imagine what her mother must have felt and what thoughts must have raced through her mind at that terrifying moment. The police are investigating the case, and charges for serious offences, including murder and gang rape, have been registered. The principal accused, her romantic partner Ashiq Ali, has been remanded to police custody, while others connected with the homestay where the incident occurred are also being questioned. The law must now be allowed to uncover the truth without prejudice. Beyond the police files lies an even more troubling question: why do such brutal incidents, particularly from one community, keep recurring? Why do allegations of concealed identity, sometimes through the use of false names, along with manipulation, sexual exploitation, and coercion, continue to surface in different parts of the country? At what point does affection turn into possession, companionship into cruelty, and a human relationship into a murderous trap? Have some among our younger generation lost their way in a wilderness where physical desire masquerades as love? Love has always called for patience, sacrifice, and the willingness to care for another person beyond one’s own selfish impulses. Yet, in an age increasingly driven by instant gratification, are these deeper values quietly slipping away? Recent cases make the question still more unsettling. In August, the Railway Protection Force rescued two minor Hindu girls, aged 15 and 17, at the Ahmedabad railway station after they were allegedly befriended through social media and online gaming, and then abducted from Jodhpur. Two young Muslim men were arrested, and investigators recovered a fake e-Aadhaar card bearing the name “Aryan”. Here again, trust appears to have been cultivated in the virtual world before the girls were pulled away from home. One shudders to think how easily a friendly message on a screen can open the door to something far more sinister. In Lucknow’s Chowk area, a Hindu woman alleged that she came into contact with Shahrukh Khan, alias Raftaar, through a chat app. According to her complaint, the man concealed his religious identity as well as a prior marriage, and initially assured her that there would be no question of religious conversion. But, as she alleged, things took a very different turn later. She was reportedly coerced into reciting the kalma, following which a nikah was performed. When she discovered what she described as the deception and raised objections, she faced harassment, abuse, and even threats to her life from the accused and his family. Based on her complaint, the police registered an FIR against Shahrukh Khan, his brother, mother, and sister under stringent provisions of the law and began investigating the digital trail and the involvement of his family. Of course, the investigation must now establish the truth. Yet the case raises an uncomfortable question: why do allegations involving online courtship, concealed identities, fraudulent marriage arrangements, and coercion over religious conversion keep surfacing across the country? If a relationship begins with deception and ends in fear, one may well ask whether it deserves to be called love at all. How long can we remain complacent about such relationships in which intimacy races ahead of emotional maturity and responsibility? Live‑in relationships are increasingly catching on among young adults, yet they are now turning into recipes for disaster. Some rightly argue that live‑in relationships have been used as tools to desecrate not just the marital institution but to stab the very heart of our civilisation. The horrendous Shraddha Walkar case, in which Aaftab Amin Poonawala is accused of murdering his live‑in partner in 2022 and chopping her body into 35 pieces, serves as a grim reminder. Needless to say, today, when there is no control from family and society, raw desire of the youth hijacks sanity; trust can indeed be butchered and the social fabric made to bleed. But sadly, custodians of the law seem to be only rubbing salt into the wound. How one wishes that Nimisha’s tragedy, along with the other disturbing cases mentioned above, would serve as a wake-up call. How on earth does the government take such a laid-back attitude? Of course, young people are increasingly calling for greater freedom. But one may well ask: what kind of freedom? No freedom should ever lead someone to the “graveyard” or erode the deeper values of restraint, responsibility, and respect that lie at the heart of Sanatan values. Nothing is more alarming than seeing young women fall into dangerous traps despite cautionary films such as The Kerala Story and repeated warnings from family members and concerned well‑wishers. First they defiantly shout, “Mera Abdul alag hai, woh aisa nahin hai!” — but a few months later the same voice cries out in despair, ‘Mujhe bachao, bachao!’ as Abdul and his family have strangled my throat....”