Mittal: India Must Hold the Satellite Kill Switch Itself

India must keep the satellite "kill switch" on its own soil, Bharti Airtel founder and chairman Sunil Bharti Mittal said in a PTI interview marking Bharti Enterprises' 50th year. The remark lands as the government weighs the security conditions that will decide when satellite broadband actually goes live.

"The kill switch, as we call it, should not be sitting somewhere else," Mittal said. "India must have control over its own space destiny." He declined to name any company in that warning.

What is a kill switch, precisely?

It is the power to cut off, throttle or restrict a satellite network's service — for one terminal, a region or an entire country — from the operator's control systems and ground gateways. In satellite broadband, terminals talk to satellites, satellites relay traffic to ground stations, and ground stations connect to the internet. Whoever runs the control and gateway systems can, in principle, disable users or reroute their data.

Governments treat this as a security tool: it lets them shut down service fast in a conflict or under a security threat, enforce lawful orders, and monitor and intercept traffic. The implications cut both ways. If the switch sits abroad, a country's military, emergency and civilian users can lose connectivity on someone else's decision — Mittal's "space destiny" point. If it sits with the government, the same power can cut off access in national emergencies or for strategic reasons. This is why security clearances, in-country gateways and monitoring requirements will shape who launches in India, and how fast.

What does Ukraine prove?

Mittal pointed to the war. "If Ukraine is using Starlink, it's also using OneWeb now," he said. Last month, Ukraine accused Elon Musk's SpaceX of undermining its defences by cutting connectivity speeds and disrupting military operations. Those restrictions rendered some Ukrainian strike and interceptor drones virtually unusable.

Asked whether the government's scrutiny of satellite operators is justified, Mittal said it is, and argued warfare is moving to space. "Whether it's drone or it's cyber issues, or indeed guided missiles and all, they're all going to be managed from space," he said. "Everybody in the world needs to have control over its security. There India will need to have guardrails. It'll need to secure itself."

He advised against leaning on a single provider. "Importantly, it may need to have different players. You can't just depend on one country or one company," he said. India must also secure "the apparatus, of the equipment, the communications coming down into the ground to be monitored," and "everything should be routed through India." He noted Eutelsat OneWeb is building a secure European communications network, with the EU spending 14-15 billion euros, which has drawn attention to the company.

Where does OneWeb stand in India?

The service already works, Mittal said, and the government occasionally uses its terminals for emergency services. Economic adviser Sanjeev Sanyal took a terminal on a boat trip to Oman. "He was streaming all the way through," Mittal said. "It is, right now, fully available. We can just switch it on soon."

"We were the first licence given by the government. We have satisfied all their needs, and we just now wait for their signal," he said. "I still hope we'll get the first approval."

Three companies hold satellite communications licences in India: Jio, OneWeb and Starlink. The government says all three hold provisional spectrum, sit at a similar stage, and await final security clearance before launch.

Who owns the spectrum?

Satellite spectrum is shared, Mittal said. "Everybody dips into the same spectrum," with operators at different orbital heights required to coordinate. OneWeb holds "the highest priority on the KU band, and therefore others have to coordinate with us," he said, adding that regulators understand the debate.

Satellite, he insisted, will not replace mobile networks. "For the foreseeable future it will remain complementary. It's very expensive. Satellites need to be replaced every five, six years," he said. "Where there is fibre, radio cannot compete with it. Where there is a radio, satellite cannot compete with it. But together all of them… will coexist."

The case for satellite is coverage, not substitution. "Dark spots" persist "in deep rural hinterlands, in the forests, in the hills, mountains, in the high seas, in the ocean and of course in the air," he said. A satellite link would connect a phone user in the mountains with no signal. That, and the guardrails, are the whole argument.