Earlier, Google had challenged the might of China. Both BlackBerry and Google pose security risk to sovereign states. Google is also known to be mischievous with regard to delineation of highly sensitive geographical maps and international boundaries. Google's Gtalk and Skype's voice -over internet protocol (VOIP) providing video calls and services have become a matter of grave concern among national and international security agencies with regard to interception of data and communication to nab terrorists and criminals. So-called selective technical solutions provided by these companies and service providers to some of the host countries under pressure are rather unsatisfactory and also unreliable.

These global high profile technology companies are also notorious for maintaining double standards in operations - one for the country of origin or the country providing critical business support (the USA for BlackBerry) and another for emerging markets. Neither Google nor BlackBerry has courage to disclaim the security concerns of the United States of America. For instance, Google may tamper with the map of India and the positioning of Kashmir, Arunachal Pradesh and Tibet, but it will never dare to do the same with Alaska. The Coca-Cola Company dare not drag a US state administration or federal government to court contesting an official charge against it for causing environmental pollution or depleting ground water, but the same attitude was missing when it came to the company's dealings with the Indian state or its legal proceedings against the Kerala government and the people of Perrumutty Panchayat, before Coke was forced to shut down its Plachimada beverage bottling plant. The ways of oil majors such as Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum and Exxon Mobil in conducting business outside their countries of origin have often kept host governments in the dark in matters critical to national security, public health and environment.

Many of the mighty transnational business corporations, boasting annual revenue income more than most of the individual countries in the world, are known to meddle with and influence policies of host countries to their business advantage. Historically, the sources of their extra-commercial power often included their powerful patron countries or countries of origin. In the 18th century, the East India Company owed their extra-commercial power from the British government. The company carried both the Union Jack and British guns. In the 21st century, the commercial clout of companies such as BlackBerry, Google and Coca-Cola is bolstered by the diplomatic muscle of the USA. The key sources of arrogance of companies like BP, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Unilever, IBM, Microsoft, GE, Siemens, Raytheon, Asea AB, Mitsubishi Corp, China Petroleum, ENI, Rio Tinto, UBS, etc. can be easily attributed to the diplomatic support they often exert for international business from their respective countries of origin. Some of the more ruthless commercial entities are even capable of embarrassing or even go up to the extent of overthrowing host country governments through dirty means if local actions hurt their global business interest. ITT's role in organising political coup in Chile or Union Carbide's murderous act in Bhopal and the subsequent disappearance of its global chief executive from India with full 'honours' with the help of both the state and the national governments in India are part of the 20th century politico-commercial folklore.

It is in this context that the Indian government's firm warning to BlackBerry asking the high technology telecom service provider to immediately give the data access to national security agencies or face ban by August 31 deserves public admiration and support. The government's earlier soft approach to make BlackBerry appreciate Indian security concerns especially after 26/11 Mumbai carnage did not work. An unsolicited communication by the otherwise friendly US government, a habitual global interventionist, in support of BlackBerry, failed to cut ice with the Indian administration. BlackBerry, which has positioned itself as a fashion-hunt among the country's nouveau riche and high spending corporate clients, is already buckling under pressure. Reports are that BlackBerry has agreed to “allow lawful interception” of its messenger service. But, the company is still unwilling to allow access to the BlackBerry Enterprise Service (BES), which provides corporate e-mails, to India's law enforcement agencies. Indications are that BlackBerry will fall in line to comply with the government ultimatum. Otherwise, it stands to lose a huge market. BlackBerry's restrictive business practice has helped the company build a huge high profile customer base in India, numbering over a million, within a short span of only 30 months.

Unfortunately, the reckless privatization of the telecom sector, allowing 100 per cent foreign ownership to operators, itself poses a security risk to India. Cumbersome cross holdings of foreign equity, less transparent sources of foreign equity funds inflow into telecom, cheaper import of critical telecom hardware and data services having defence implication from some of India's hostile neighbours and systematic destruction of the public sector telecom service providers and equipment manufacturers all point at loss of security control over this sector of vital national concern. No other major political and economic power in the world is known to have willfully surrendered its control over cyberspace and telecommunications services to external entities. Japan's NTT, Germany's Deutsche Telecom, British Telecom, AT&T, Alcatel of France, Telecom Italia, Brazil's Telebras, China Telecom, Malaysia Telecom, and SingTel are among the best known world brands in the business of telecom service. India made little effort to emerge as a global telecom powerhouse.
On the contrary, for reasons best known to the government and unclear to the general public, India had surrendered its potential lead even in domestic telecommunications business to foreign investor and suppliers - from 100 per cent state control to near complete reliance on overseas enterprises. The early lead came from the creation of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) in the 1980s and its subsequent corporatization of telecom services (MTNL and BSNL), the setting up of Videsh Sanchar Nigam (VSNL) and Indian Telephone Industries (ITI). They are now part of independent India's nearly forgotten industrial history, which lost the support, respect and recognition of their creator, the government, in the wake of the economic reform of the 1990s. The conflict with entities such as BlackBerry, Google, Chinese Huawei and ZTE, if anything, indicates India's growing frustration because of its lack of will and capability to play a stellar role in this booming business. India's domestic telecom business, growing at over 30 per cent per annum, is gold for otherwise demand-starved global equipment suppliers and service providers, who know India can't be too choosey about financial and technology partners, even if they mean some domestic security risks, unless it decides to put a sudden brake on the growth of this sector. The fact is the country has been going soft on equipment suppliers such as Huawei and ZTE, knowing fully well about the possible risks to the national security that those remote-controlled foreign hardware are capable of creating. (IPA Service)