The world is in an age of disruption, whether in politics, economy or technology. In any such era, uncertainty rises. Among nations, there will inevitably be winners and losers. Business as usual or maintaining a status quo may seem like a safe option, but it is not. Only nations that embrace the disruptions and are nimble enough to capture the upside will succeed. What should India do?
Global politics is set for unusual times with Donald Trump helming the US. By all indications, his second term is likely to be more disruptive for the global order, whether on war, multilateral/bilateral economic frameworks or climate change. On his tail, there is Elon Musk, the most disruptive entrepreneur of the age who has now made it his mission to also be a disruptive global political influencer. Both men want to change not just the US but also mould the globe as per their worldview and interests.

The global economy is going through a tough phase. Even India, which is the star of the show, is slowing down. The predominant policy reaction across the world is to abandon the long-held consensus on openness and to look inward. Almost every major economy is strategising some version of self-reliance that doesn’t necessarily mean a complete rejection of the outside world. What it does mean is the need for greater reciprocity in concessions and a preference for politically-aligned partners.

An Uncertain World

At the same time, there is a hugely disruptive industrial revolution underway. The continued rise of AI and other automated technologies is putting a question mark on the future of conventional jobs. It is bringing to the fore new challenges, such as the need to secure supply chains of critical minerals that are the core of emerging technologies.

It is a tough world. But even in uncertainty, there are some certainties that can be leveraged, especially by India. Trump is unlikely to look at India’s high tariff barriers favourably. Nor is Elon Musk. But there lies an opportunity in their interests. Both Trump and Musk would look at India positively as a destination for American investment. And welcoming that would also open a door for greater market access for exports to the US. The best chance for India to make full use of the China-plus-one sentiment for manufacturing is during Trump’s time as president. However, it may require some disruptive policy changes in India, including a reduction in tariffs in some sectors where they are abnormally high. It may also require a drastic simplification of processes and clearances, moving towards self-certification, time-bound clearances and deemed clearances. Complexity and delays are an anathema to foreign investors.

The global economic slowdown affects India’s exports, but it need not be a downside to India’s 8% growth prospects. Again, disruption to business as usual may be required. An immediate loosening of monetary policy by at least 50 basis points and substantial tax relief to the middle class will spur domestic consumption, which has been sluggish for the last few quarters. A rise in demand will hasten the capex plans of corporations and lead to a rise in private investment, which has also been struggling.

The answer to technology disruption and its impact on jobs is not obvious. It will play out over time. But it is clear that the nature of future jobs will involve more, not less skill. In particular, numeracy, basic mathematics and science will be key. India’s school education needs a radical revamp with learning rather than enrolment as the primary goal. The Centre and states must get together to redo pedagogy in order to make the next generation future-ready.

Be Nimble

That said, there will still be more uncertainty in the world than certainties. Not all challenges can be predicted beforehand. In terms of nimbleness in response, there is no comparison between market forces and government. Countries that give a greater play to market forces and entrepreneurship will be more successful than those that put their governments in pole position. That is already evident in the widely divergent economic outcomes in Europe and the US. Europe, much more statist than America, is in real decline. America’s alleged decline makes headlines but is greatly exaggerated. East Asia has done better than South Asia because it has been open to market forces.

In India, the political economy still favours the government over the private sector. The biggest disruption needs to happen here if India is to continue its march to prosperity in a tumultuous and uncertain world.

(The author is Chief Economist, Vedanta)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The world is in an age of disruption, whether in politics, economy or technology. In any such era, uncertainty rises. Among nations, there will inevitably be winners and losers. Business as usual or maintaining a status quo may seem like a safe option, but it is not. Only nations that embrace the disruptions and are nimble enough to capture the upside will succeed. What should India do?
Global politics is set for unusual times with Donald Trump helming the US. By all indications, his second term is likely to be more disruptive for the global order, whether on war, multilateral/bilateral economic frameworks or climate change. On his tail, there is Elon Musk, the most disruptive entrepreneur of the age who has now made it his mission to also be a disruptive global political influencer. Both men want to change not just the US but also mould the globe as per their worldview and interests.

The global economy is going through a tough phase. Even India, which is the star of the show, is slowing down. The predominant policy reaction across the world is to abandon the long-held consensus on openness and to look inward. Almost every major economy is strategising some version of self-reliance that doesn’t necessarily mean a complete rejection of the outside world. What it does mean is the need for greater reciprocity in concessions and a preference for politically-aligned partners.

An Uncertain World

At the same time, there is a hugely disruptive industrial revolution underway. The continued rise of AI and other automated technologies is putting a question mark on the future of conventional jobs. It is bringing to the fore new challenges, such as the need to secure supply chains of critical minerals that are the core of emerging technologies.

It is a tough world. But even in uncertainty, there are some certainties that can be leveraged, especially by India. Trump is unlikely to look at India’s high tariff barriers favourably. Nor is Elon Musk. But there lies an opportunity in their interests. Both Trump and Musk would look at India positively as a destination for American investment. And welcoming that would also open a door for greater market access for exports to the US. The best chance for India to make full use of the China-plus-one sentiment for manufacturing is during Trump’s time as president. However, it may require some disruptive policy changes in India, including a reduction in tariffs in some sectors where they are abnormally high. It may also require a drastic simplification of processes and clearances, moving towards self-certification, time-bound clearances and deemed clearances. Complexity and delays are an anathema to foreign investors.

The global economic slowdown affects India’s exports, but it need not be a downside to India’s 8% growth prospects. Again, disruption to business as usual may be required. An immediate loosening of monetary policy by at least 50 basis points and substantial tax relief to the middle class will spur domestic consumption, which has been sluggish for the last few quarters. A rise in demand will hasten the capex plans of corporations and lead to a rise in private investment, which has also been struggling.

The answer to technology disruption and its impact on jobs is not obvious. It will play out over time. But it is clear that the nature of future jobs will involve more, not less skill. In particular, numeracy, basic mathematics and science will be key. India’s school education needs a radical revamp with learning rather than enrolment as the primary goal. The Centre and states must get together to redo pedagogy in order to make the next generation future-ready.

Be Nimble

That said, there will still be more uncertainty in the world than certainties. Not all challenges can be predicted beforehand. In terms of nimbleness in response, there is no comparison between market forces and government. Countries that give a greater play to market forces and entrepreneurship will be more successful than those that put their governments in pole position. That is already evident in the widely divergent economic outcomes in Europe and the US. Europe, much more statist than America, is in real decline. America’s alleged decline makes headlines but is greatly exaggerated. East Asia has done better than South Asia because it has been open to market forces.

In India, the political economy still favours the government over the private sector. The biggest disruption needs to happen here if India is to continue its march to prosperity in a tumultuous and uncertain world.

(The author is Chief Economist, Vedanta)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

New Delhi:

Billionaire Elon Musk has predicted the downfall of Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the upcoming Canadian federal election, scheduled to take place on or before October 2025. “He will be gone in the upcoming election,” posted Musk on X, while responding to a user’s request to help Canada get rid of Trudeau.

He will be gone in the upcoming election

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 7, 2024

The exchange on social media started when a Swedish journalist shared an update on the German government and wrote, “The German Socialist government has COLLAPSED and there are now talks about a snap election.”

To this, Musk, Chief executive officer (CEO) of electric automobile maker Tesla and the private space company SpaceX, called German Chancellor Olaf Scholz a “fool” after the collapse of his three-party coalition.

He responded in German: “Olaf ist ein Narr.” The sentence translates to: “Olaf is a fool.”

Olaf ist ein Narr https://t.co/Yye3DIeA17

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 7, 2024

To this, a user said, “Elon Musk we need your help in Canada getting rid of Trudeau”.

This is not the first time Musk has bashed Mr Trudeau. Musk had earlier slammed the Justin Trudeau government in Canada for “crushing free speech” in the country.

Last year, the Canadian government made it compulsory for online streaming services to formally register with the government for ‘regulatory controls’. Musk called it “shameful” and wrote, “Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada.”

Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada. Shameful. https://t.co/oHFFvyBGxu

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 1, 2023

Before this, in February 2022, when Mr Trudeau invoked emergency powers – for the first time in the country’s history – to arm his government with more power to respond to truckers protesting the vaccine mandates at that time, Musk compared him to Adolf Hitler.

Responding to a social media post describing how Trudeau’s government had ordered banks to help cut funding to the protesters, Musk posted a meme of a photo of Hitler, with “Stop comparing me to Justin Trudeau” written above his head and “I had a budget” below it.

Later the post was deleted.

The war of words continues.

Less than a year ago, tech billionaire Elon Musk was Britain’s star guest at a conference, with the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, playing the role of a fawning interviewer to the world’s richest man. A year on, things have changed in Britain. The Labour government, which came to power in July, has decided not to invite Musk to a mega investment summit to be held in London on October 14.

The Tesla and X boss ostensibly did not like the snub and hit back at the UK government with full force, urging the guests not to go to the UK. “I don’t think anyone should go to the UK when they’re releasing convicted paedophiles in order to imprison people for social media posts,” he said when he learnt he was not invited. 

Origin Story

It is true that many prisoners have been released recently under a government scheme to decongest overcrowded British jails. But there is no evidence to suggest that sex offenders or paedophiles were let out. Musk’s tweets have sparked controversy and raised concerns about the spread of misinformation, with the British media reminding the tech billionaire of his recent acts of “spreading disinformation” about the UK. A few weeks ago, Musk shared a baseless report that the UK was building internment camps in the Falkland Islands for rioters, though he swiftly deleted the tweet after facing backlash.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer addressed Musk’s latest provocative comments during his recent visit to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York. Dismissing them as being vastly different from the positive feedback received from investors, Starmer claimed that the latter have expressed strong interest in attending and that they praised their meeting with the UK government as the best they’ve had.

Why The Summit Is Important

The summit – in its third edition since 2021 – aims to attract significant investment to drive economic growth, a top priority for the Labour government. According to a government release, last year’s meeting generated a promise of nearly £30 billion of investment. This year, as Chancellor (finance minister) Rachel Reeves and Business and Trade Secretary (minister) Jonathan Reynolds join Starmer in showcasing the UK’s potential, the government hopes to secure an investment commitment worth around 60 billion pounds in sectors like technology, green energy and artificial intelligence (AI).

But the elephant in the room is the government’s cold shoulder to Musk. It has ignited debate about the UK’s true commitment to openness and whether it’s willing to engage with influential business leaders who are critical of the Labour government. As the government seeks to reset relations with global trading partners and promote innovation, Musk supporters and the opposition Conservative Party have raised questions about Starmer’s willingness to walk the talk. Despite the tech billionaire’s inflammatory comments, the Labour government’s decision to ignore him smacks of vindictiveness and pettiness. Musk is no ordinary man. His influence on modern business, technology, and society is undeniable. I rate him alongside the Israeli historian and thinker Yuval Noah Harari — both being the visionaries of our time, but with distinct approaches. I would like to say that while Harari focuses on the bigger picture, encouraging introspection and societal evolution, Musk actively shapes the future through groundbreaking technologies. There is no doubt that both visionaries inspire and challenge our understanding of human potential.

Musk, Agent Provocateur

The relationship between Musk and Starmer has been frosty at best since the Labour Party came to power in July. Starmer, many believe, and justifiably, is upset with the American billionaire for his unsavoury remarks on how the Labour government handled the nationwide riots in August. Following the horrific Southport stabbing that claimed the lives of three children, Musk donned the role of an agent provocateur as he unleashed a barrage of criticism against Starmer and his new government. In one of his tweets, he ominously forecast a ‘civil war’ in the UK. Musk has 193 million followers on X, which means whatever he says on the platform gets amplified across the world in seconds. There is no doubt that as violence and riots spread across the country, fueled by misinformation and far-right extremism, Musk’s misleading tweets added fuel to the fire.

The response from Labour MPs was swift and stinging. Leading voices within the party accused Musk of deliberately spreading disinformation and seeking to sow division within British society. One Labour MP described Musk’s intervention as “grossly irresponsible”, suggesting that his comments were intended to play into existing societal fractures for personal or ideological reasons.

But It’s Not Easy To Just Dismiss Musk

Starmer’s office, too, condemned Musk’s “civil war is inevitable” comment and said there was no justification for such remarks. But it’s not easy to silence Musk, who is seen in many right-wing circles as a defender of free speech. He doubled down on Starmer and posted a series of provocative tweets, even accusing the British police of being harsher on White protesters during the riots.

To Starmer’s comment on X that “We will not tolerate attacks on mosques and on Muslim communities”, Musk replied, “Shouldn’t you be concerned about attacks on ‘all’ communities?” In another post, he claimed the UK was censoring online content, and asked “Is this Britain or the Soviet Union?”

Governments And Businessmen Have Clashed Often

The clash between Musk and the UK government is not an isolated incident. Throughout history, influential industrialists and businessmen have challenged governments, often sparking tensions and drama. Indian-born British industrialists, the Hinduja brothers, were embroiled in the “Hinduja Affair” during Tony Blair’s premiership. The brothers were accused of bribing Indian officials to secure defense contracts. Blair’s government faced allegations of improperly granting the Hindujas British passports. But an investigation cleared them. However, the scandal led to the resignation of Blair’s minister, Peter Mandelson. The episode underlined the complex relationships between business, politics, and national interest.

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s showdown with the Margret Thatcher government began when he acquired The Times and The Sunday Times newspapers. Murdoch’s media empire was investigated for unexplained business dealings, which eventually led him to sell The Times.

It is a widely known fact that billionaire investor George Soros has long been a thorn in the side of Hungary’s nationalist government, led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Soros’s Open Society Foundation (OSF) promoted democratic values and human rights, which Orbán saw as a threat to his rule. His government launched a campaign against Soros, accusing him of promoting immigration and undermining Hungarian culture. The government also passed laws restricting NGOs, allegedly targeting OSF. Soros ultimately closed the OSF’s Budapest office, citing “unprecedented” government harassment.

Can Regulation Tame X?

Under the Online Safety Act, social media platforms are required to proactively remove illegal content, including inflammatory material, and prevent it from appearing in the first place. The UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, has the power to punish non-compliant platforms with fines up to £18 million or 10% of their global annual turnover. It is believed the new act, passed last year, gives the government enough power to tame social platforms if they were found to be spreading falsehood in society.

It is reported that some Labour MPs have quietly suggested that action must be taken against Elon Musk for his inflammatory tweets during the riots in August and he should be summoned by Parliament to face questions from MPs. But there are no strong indications of that happening. Not as yet. 

(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

Once again, social media has reminded the editors and managers of traditional media that when it comes to live events or disseminating news worldwide in real time, they cannot compete. While traditional media was squabbling over whether the live interaction on X between tech billionaire Elon Musk and Grand Old Party (GOP) nominee Donald Trump was a conversation, a conversational interview or an interview, the chat between the world’s two most unavoidable men crossed 200 million views, as per Musk’s claim in a post. The morning after, Musk tweeted again, saying the conversation had garnered one billion combined views – a jaw-dropping number for legacy media.

I was keeping a close eye on the event’s coverage by traditional media. It was disappointing to see that much of it was mostly negative; the slew of headlines both in the UK and the US painted the two-hour interaction in a dark light. One headline screamed: “Trump’s interview with Musk devolves into yet another X catastrophe”. Legacy print media published a number of articles on the event. USA Today said it was an “unmitigated disaster”, The New York Times called it a “two-hour ramble”, and the Washington Post called it “softballs”. Other traditional media outlets were no different: CNN compared the event to watching “Grumpy Old Men”, and MSNBC called it a “failed” interview. Some focused more on the delay caused by a technical glitch. A Guardian analysis was headlined: “Elon Musk’s X suffers tech failure at start of Donald Trump interview”, while BBC said, “Musk’s X talk with Trump hit by tech glitches”. 

UK Riots And Social Media 

In the hours after three young girls were brutally stabbed to death in the UK’s Southport town on July 29, news and reactions began to flow on social platforms, such as TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube. There were real-time updates on the horrific incident on these platforms. On the other hand, many felt that the mainstream media offered a lukewarm coverage of the incident until all hell broke loose and widespread violent protests swept across towns and cities in England. The news of the three girls being killed was initially treated by the legacy media as a routine crime story after it emerged that there was no terror link. It was only after fake videos and unverified news began circulating widely and getting millions of views that established media woke up from its slumber.   

The vacuum was filled by some notorious far-right people on social media who were accused of posting inflammatory material. 

The British government named Elon Musk as one of those who were “stirring the pot”. Reacting to the riots, Musk suggested in a post that “civil war is inevitable” in the UK. Responding to Prime Minister Keith Starmer’s comments on the attacks on the Muslim community he asked, “Shouldn’t you be concerned about attacks on all communities?”. He also accused the police of being biased against protesters 

Billionaire Knows What He’s Doing

Elon Musk appears to have learnt something from the fall of traditional media, which has been accused of lacking in innovation and stagnating; it desperately depends on social media platforms to amplify its content.

Musk has 194.4 million followers on X. He is the most followed man on the platform. The CEO of X, Linda Yaccarini, says the platform has 500 million active users a month. Surely, Musk is aware of this reach, and he is using it strategically to his advantage with a view to weaken the legacy media. One can see his strategy at play by the way he was able to pull off a two-hour interview with Trump and in the run-up to it how he drummed it up.

That was not an isolated incident. Musk came to Donald Trump’s defence in March too when the latter said at a rally in Ohio that there would be a “blood bath” in the US if he lost the November election. He fired a series of posts on X in response to the coverage and urged the people to use his platform to share news instead of reading or watching it on traditional outlets. He accused the legacy media of lying about Trump’s comment, saying his comment was taken out of context.

Open Challenge 

Elon Musk, described variously as a genius and innovator, besides being one of the richest men in the world, appears to have openly challenged the traditional media’s established 200-year hegemony over news and current affairs. In one of his posts, he said, “Citizen journalism from actual domain experts and people actually on the ground is much faster, more accurate and has less bias than the legacy media”. The claim of being “more accurate” and “less biased” can be contested, but not social media being “much faster” than the legacy media.

Social platforms, such as  TikTok, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook, are officially still tech companies, but they have daily news capsules, real-time coverage of events and timeline postings, which cannot be matched by mainstream media. These have emerged as a big challenge to the established, legacy media.

Needless to say, many political parties and popular leaders of the world have robust social media strategies. They too have grasped the importance of speed and reach and often bypass the legacy media to reach out to their followers and voters of their countries, because they believe they interact more closely with their supporters through these platforms.

Will Legislation Help?

Europe has already passed a law to hold social media accountable. Now it’s the British government’s turn. Its Online Safety Bill aims to regulate social media platforms and protect users from harmful content. The Bill asks companies to remove fake and illegal content and establishes Ofcom (media regulators) as the regulator with the power to fine companies up to £18 million or 10% of annual global turnover for non-compliance. The legislation is expected to come into force by 2025. Some anti-far-right organisations have urged the government to implement it as early as possible.  

But will that in some way curb the growing popularity of social media? Will it slow them down in terms of the speed with which they churn out news? Will the erosion of trust and threat to democracy argument hold good? 

What Should The Legacy Media Do?

I can say with the authority of my 30 years of experience in mainstream Western media that they are still slow to innovate, as they were slow to embrace digital transformation and shy of collaborating with social media. 

“Digital transformation” is the buzzword in the BBC today. They are being bold in their leap to digitisation at the cost of traditional media, such as TV and radio. Also, it may sound bizarre, but BBC News is quite new to TikTok. It dawned on them only last year that they had lost out on the young audiences of TikTok who, they learnt, consumed news in bulk.

But it’s a strategy full of risks. A balance between legacy and social media, along with innovation and speed, could be the key to surviving and staying stable.  

(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

“Why harp on the facts, it’s the exaggerations that makes a tale interesting!” A favourite aunt once exclaimed when I tried to fact-check a funny family story she was narrating to a huge, giggling audience two decades ago. Each member of my clan cheered her on and it was the start of a delightful evening.

Donald Trump’s interview with Elon Musk sent me back in time as I waded through the conversation. Both Trump and Musk know the importance of exaggerations in any narrative. The Indic epic poets knew it. Herodotus knew it. And so did Boccaccio, Chaucer, and Shakespeare. Trump’s exaggerations, ably supported by his interviewer, made for a good story for his supporters. All 60 million of them he thought were tuned into the live broadcast. This number is an exaggeration, too.

A Risk Worth Taking

But why does Trump exaggerate all the time despite a bevvy of fact-checkers waiting to give each syllable uttered by him a hang-draw-quarter treatment? Political storytelling is assessed under different rubrics than literary texts. Is this a risk worth taking? The answer is a resounding yes. 

Trump capitalises on narcissism when he indulges in making outlandish claims. To understand this link better, let’s look at what the experts have to say about narcissism. “For the narcissistically involved person, there is only one reality: that of his own thought processes, feelings and needs. The world outside is not experienced or perceived objectively, i.e., as existing in its own terms, conditions and needs,” Erich Fromm proposed in the 1950s.  Fromm also posited that narcissists have a stronger sense of entitlement. This lays bare the reasons behind Trump’s constant resort to exaggerations.

Narcissism And Politics

All politicians are narcissistic in some measure; this trait allows them to, first, enter politics, and then stay in it. Narcissism, however, has a highly specialised function for certain political ideologies. The interlinkages of narcissism with the sense of entitlement are important to understand while analysing why Trump’s narcissism works for him politically. A study conducted by political scientists Peter K. Hatemi and Zoltân Fazekas found that “In the 2016 election, higher entitlement reflected the mood of the general public, certainly among the working class, which voted Republican in greater numbers”. Hatemi and Fazekas propose that narcissism may have a role to play in the rise of populist politics. Trump’s constituents and those curious about him are offered a blanket of familiarity.

In simple terms, Trump’s worldview, presented with an exaggerated sense of self-importance and confidence, wins people over. People who are ever so anxious about their entitlements being eroded. And this is why statements like the following work: “Our crime rate’s going through the roof.” Who cares whether the FBI’s reports show a consistent decline in crime levels since 2020, his last presidential year? Add to it a provocative claim about Kamala Harris, “She wants to release all the prisoners that are in detention, and some of these guys are really bad. That just came out today” and you have successfully created a sense of impending doom.

Trump, The Rescuer

Trump is relying on honest Americans to believe that their entitlements are being eaten away by outsiders. Thus, he makes exaggerated claims like, “You have millions of people coming in a month” and “I believe it’s over 20 million people came into our country” about illegal immigrants. He wants people to believe that they are living under extraordinary circumstances by saying, “I think we have the worst inflation we’ve had in 100 years. They say it’s 48 years, I don’t believe it”. Shrinking entitlements being further nibbled on by outsiders-which one of us, narcissist or not, would find that desirable?

People need to despair for the narcissist to, then, brandishing his exaggerated belief in self, come in for the rescue. Trump wants people to believe that he, and only he, can solve these crises. Just the way only he could “solve” the Iran and China crises for the United States. “Iran was broke because I told China, ‘If you buy from Iran…’ Oil, it’s all about the oil, that’s where the money is. ‘…If you buy oil from Iran, you’re not going to do any business with the United States.’ And I meant it, and they said, ‘We’ll pass,’ and they didn’t buy oil.” America can be made great again only when it is unequivocally established that it is in ruins. And it can be made great again only by Trump.

Trump’s conversation with Musk, therefore, needs to be seen not as a “rambling” one which has significantly undermined his presidential prospects but as a tested strategy aimed at his constituents and swing voters. Whether it will fetch him a repeat of the 2016 outcome remains to be seen. 
Till then, let’s get lost in the meandering world of storytelling. 

(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

New Delhi:

Tesla and SpaceX chief Elon Musk has advised against the use of electronic voting machines (EVMs), citing concerns about their potential vulnerabilities to hacking. His remarks come amidst growing debates over the security of EVMs worldwide, especially following allegations of irregularities in Puerto Rico’s recent primary elections.

“We should eliminate electronic voting machines. The risk of being hacked by humans or AI, while small, is still too high,” Musk posted on X.

We should eliminate electronic voting machines. The risk of being hacked by humans or AI, while small, is still too high. https://t.co/PHzJsoXpLh

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 15, 2024

The spotlight on EVM security has intensified due to recent controversies in Puerto Rico. The primary elections there were plagued by numerous irregularities linked to EVMs. However, a paper trail allowed election officials to identify and correct vote tallies.

Musk’s remark was in response to, Robert F Kennedy Jr, nephew of former US President John F Kennedy and an independent hopeful for the 2024 US Elections, who wrote, “Puerto Rico’s primary elections just experienced hundreds of voting irregularities related to electronic voting machines, according to the Associated Press. Luckily, there was a paper trail so the problem was identified and vote tallies corrected. What happens in jurisdictions where there is no paper trail?”

Kennedy Jr advocated for a return to paper ballots to prevent electronic interference in elections, ensuring that every vote is counted and elections remain secure.

While concerns over EVMs are gaining traction in the United States, the scenario in India presents a contrasting picture. India uses the third generation of EVMs, known as M3 EVMs, which are designed to be tamper-proof. These machines enter a ‘Safety Mode’ and become inoperable if any tampering attempts are detected.

A dedicated team of professors from three prestigious Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) has been instrumental in the latest upgrades of Indian EVMs. The Election Commission of India (ECI) is supported by an eminent Technical Expert Committee (TEC) on EVMs, ensuring that the devices are robust and secure.

READ | Top Experts From IIT Who Helped Design India’s Most Tamper-Proof EVMs

Professor Dinesh K Sharma, a specialist in microelectronics and solid-state electronics from IIT Bombay, told NDTV, “Indian EVMs are different from other EVMs in the world. The M3 EVMs have no connection to any other device, not even mains power supply.”

The Supreme Court this year addressed the issue of cross-verification of votes cast on EVMs through paper slips generated by Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machines. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta rejected petitions seeking 100 per cent cross-verification, maintaining the current practice of verifying five randomly selected EVMs per Assembly constituency.

READ | “Blindly Doubting System…”: Big Supreme Court Order On VVPAT Verification

However, the court issued two directives to the Election Commission. Firstly, after symbols are loaded into an EVM, the symbol loading unit must be sealed and secured in containers signed by the candidates and their representatives. Secondly, these sealed containers, along with the EVMs, should be kept in storerooms for at least 45 days after the declaration of results.

SpaceX is building a network of hundreds of spy satellites under a classified contract with a U.S. intelligence agency, five sources familiar with the program said, demonstrating deepening ties between billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk’s space company and national security agencies.

The network is being built by SpaceX’s Starshield business unit under a $1.8 billion contract signed in 2021 with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), an intelligence agency that manages spy satellites, the sources said.

The plans show the extent of SpaceX’s involvement in U.S. intelligence and military projects and illustrate a deeper Pentagon investment into vast, low-Earth orbiting satellite systems aimed at supporting ground forces.

Also Read |Starlink: Why the new sovereign of low-earth orbit is bad news

If successful, the sources said the program would significantly advance the ability of the U.S. government and military to quickly spot potential targets almost anywhere on the globe.

The contract signals growing trust by the intelligence establishment of a company whose owner has clashed with the Biden administration and sparked controversy over the use of Starlink satellite connectivity in the Ukraine war, the sources said.

The Wall Street Journal reported in February the existence of a $1.8 billion classified Starshield contract with an unknown intelligence agency without detailing the purposes of the program.

Reuters reporting discloses for the first time that the SpaceX contract is for a powerful new spy system with hundreds of satellites bearing Earth-imaging capabilities that can operate as a swarm in low orbits, and that the spy agency that Mr. Musk’s company is working with is the NRO.

Reuters was unable to determine when the new network of satellites would come online and could not establish what other companies are part of the program with their contracts.

SpaceX, the world’s largest satellite operator, did not respond to several requests for comment about the contract, its role in it and details on satellite launches. The Pentagon referred a request for comment to the NRO and SpaceX.

In a statement the NRO acknowledged its mission to develop a sophisticated satellite system and its partnerships with other government agencies, companies, research institutions and nations, but declined to comment on Reuters’ findings about the extent of SpaceX’s involvement in the effort.

“The National Reconnaissance Office is developing the most capable, diverse, and resilient space-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance system the world has ever seen,” a spokesperson said.

The satellites can track targets on the ground and share that data with U.S. intelligence and military officials, the sources said. In principle, that would enable the U.S. government to quickly capture continuous imagery of activities on the ground nearly anywhere on the globe, aiding intelligence and military operations, they added.

Roughly a dozen prototypes have been launched since 2020, among other satellites on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets, three of the sources said.

A U.S. government database of objects in orbit shows several SpaceX missions having deployed satellites that neither the company nor the government have ever acknowledged. Two sources confirmed those to be prototypes for the Starshield network.

All the sources asked to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to discuss the U.S. government program.

The Pentagon is already a big SpaceX customer, using its Falcon 9 rockets to launch military payloads into space. Starshield’s first prototype satellite, launched in 2020, was part of a separate, roughly $200 million contract that helped position SpaceX for the subsequent $1.8 billion award, one of the sources said.

The planned Starshield network is separate from Starlink, SpaceX’s growing commercial broadband constellation that has about 5,500 satellites in space to provide near-global internet to consumers, companies and government agencies.

The classified constellation of spy satellites represents one of the U.S. government’s most sought-after capabilities in space because it is designed to offer the most persistent, pervasive and rapid coverage of activities on Earth.

“No one can hide,” one of the sources said of the system’s potential capability, when describing the network’s reach.

Mr. Musk, also the founder and CEO of Tesla and owner of social media company X, has driven innovation in space but has caused frustration among some officials in the Biden administration because of his past control of Starlink in Ukraine, where Kyiv’s military uses it for secure communications in the conflict with Russia. That authority over Starlink in a war zone by Mr. Musk, and not the U.S. military, created tension between him and the U.S. government.

A series of Reuters’ stories has detailed how Mr. Musk’s manufacturing operations, including at SpaceX, have harmed consumers and workers.

The Starshield network is part of intensifying competition between the U.S. and its rivals to become the dominant military power in space, in part by expanding spy satellite systems away from bulky, expensive spacecraft at higher orbits. Instead a vast, low-orbiting network can provide quicker and near-constant imaging of the Earth.

China also plans to start building its own satellite constellations, and the Pentagon has warned of space weapon threats from Russia, which could be capable of disabling entire satellite networks.

Starshield aims to be more resilient to attacks from sophisticated space powers.

The network is also intended to greatly expand the U.S. government’s remote-sensing capabilities and will consist of large satellites with imaging sensors, as well as a greater number of relay satellites that pass the imaging data and other communications across the network using inter-satellite lasers, two of the sources said.

The NRO includes personnel from the U.S. Space Force and CIA and provides classified satellite imagery for the Pentagon and other intelligence agencies.

The spy satellites will house sensors provided by another company, three of the sources said.