LAHORE: Some commentators and analysts say that SpaceX (Starlink) would be the next East India Company (EIC). They say instead of controlling smaller states through force and trade SpaceX would control these states through technology.
It is worthwhile that SpaceX’s Starlink is actively working to launch in Pakistan, and the regulatory process is in its final stages. Starlink has established a local Pakistani entity and has received provisional regulatory approvals during the licensing process. Instead of hurrying the process the planners must strengthen the regulatory process.
In a country where remote education, banking, disaster management, military communications and government operations all rely heavily on one foreign satellite network, any disruption, whether technical, contractual or political, could have significant consequences. Dependence may therefore translate into leverage, even without any malicious intent.
In the peak of the 19th century, the EIC ruled over millions, commanded a private army twice the size of Britain’s military, and monopolised global trade routes. It was, as historians famously noted, a “state disguised as a merchant”. Today, a growing cadre of geopolitical analysts, economists and legal scholars are warning that instead of wooden ships and gunpowder, SpaceX, a new corporate empire, operates via reusable automated rockets and mega-satellite constellations.
It will have inroads in data of all its clients including government departments and military clients. SpaceX would also have complete access to private companies data which it could trade-in with competing companies. This advantage is not available to other companies like Google etc.
In the past, whoever controlled sea lanes controlled commerce. Today, whoever controls communication networks increasingly controls the flow of information, business and even national security. If an entire country becomes dependent on a single foreign-owned communications network, that dependency itself creates strategic leverage.
Today, a growing number of geopolitical commentators are drawing an intriguing parallel. They argue that the 21st century may witness the rise of a different kind of East India Company — not one armed with cannons and warships, but with satellites, data networks and artificial intelligence. Among the companies frequently mentioned in this debate is SpaceX and its rapidly expanding Starlink satellite internet system.
SpaceX neither governs territory nor commands armies. However, the analogy reflects a deeper concern: in the digital age, control over technology infrastructure may become as strategically important as control over trade routes was in the colonial era. For developing nations, remote territories, and modern militaries, this creates an unprecedented systemic vulnerability.
Even when communications are encrypted, metadata can reveal valuable insights into economic activities and institutional functioning. Such information has immense commercial and strategic value. Companies operating global digital infrastructure could accumulate unprecedented influence. The concentration of so much sensitive data and technological capability in private hands creates a new form of power that history has never experienced.
There is no public evidence that SpaceX exploits customer data to blackmail governments or trade confidential information with competing businesses. Nevertheless, the broader debate deserves attention. East India Company conquered through trade before it ruled through power. The data inroads available to SpaceX are staggering.
While raw data traffic is typically encrypted, possessing the literal physical routing architecture grants immense metadata advantages — the unique ability to map precisely who is communicating, when, and from where. Critics warn that this unprecedented leverage yields deep intelligence insights that could, if desired, be used to compromise government ministries, military clients, or trade proprietary corporate intelligence to competing multinational enterprises.
This is a fundamentally different and more dangerous brand of power than that wielded by Silicon Valley tech giants like Google, Meta, or Microsoft. If a sovereign state falls out with Google, the dispute exists at the application and software layer; the state can migrate to local servers, enforce domestic fines, or adopt alternative digital platforms. But if a state falls out with SpaceX, it loses its physical, kinetic gateway to modern connectivity and the orbital economy. For remote regions and battlefields, there is simply zero technological redundancy.
