Telegram founder Pavel Durov has levelled a serious accusation against Reliance, claiming Reliance disrupted access to Telegram for users outside India through a practice known as Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) hijacking.

The allegation, made publicly on X platform, has reignited debate around internet infrastructure, platform competition and government regulation. The claims remain unverified, and Reliance has not publicly responded.

To understand the significance of the allegation, it is important to understand how the internet works. BGP is often described as the internet’s routing system. Every message sent on Telegram, every file downloaded and every connection established depends on networks around the world knowing where Telegram’s servers are located. BGP acts as the digital map that directs this traffic across thousands of interconnected networks.

When functioning normally, BGP ensures data reaches its destination efficiently. However, if a network incorrectly or falsely announces itself as the preferred route for certain internet traffic, that traffic can be redirected, delayed or dropped entirely. This is commonly known as BGP hijacking.

In practical terms, users may experience outages, connection failures, slower speeds or complete inability to access a service. For a platform with hundreds of millions of users like Telegram, a routing disruption can have immediate international consequences.

Mr. Durov’s allegation suggests that Telegram traffic was intentionally misrouted, affecting users outside India, including in the UAE. Such claims are highly consequential because internet routing incidents can disrupt services across multiple countries within minutes.

However, while routing anomalies can often be detected technically, proving deliberate sabotage requires substantial independent verification. At present, no publicly available evidence has conclusively established either the cause or intent behind the alleged disruption.

India’s temporary ban

What makes the controversy particularly noteworthy is that it comes at a time when Telegram is already facing direct action from the Indian government. On June 16, New Delhi temporarily blocked Telegram nationwide until June 22, citing concerns that organised exam-fraud networks had used the platform to circulate leaked medical entrance examination material and deceive students ahead of the NEET-UG re-examination.

Authorities also directed Telegram to disable certain message-editing functions until June 30, arguing that the feature had been used to manipulate timestamps and fabricate evidence related to examination leaks. The restrictions were imposed under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act following recommendations from the National Testing Agency.

The government’s position is that the move is temporary and aimed at protecting the integrity of one of India’s most important competitive examinations, taken by more than two million aspiring medical students. Officials argue that Telegram had become a key tool for organised cheating networks and that urgent intervention was necessary ahead of the re-test.

Mr. Durov, however, has criticised the ban, arguing that it punishes more than 150 million ordinary Indian users while doing little to stop those responsible for exam leaks. He has maintained that the individuals behind the fraud can simply migrate to alternative platforms, leaving legitimate users and businesses to bear the consequences.

At this stage, there is no evidence directly linking Mr. Durov’s allegations against Reliance to the government’s decision to block Telegram. The government’s action is publicly tied to the NEET examination scandal and concerns around exam fraud, while Mr. Durov’s claims relate to the technical routing of internet traffic. Nevertheless, the timing has inevitably led observers to view both developments as part of a broader and increasingly tense relationship between Telegram and Indian authorities.

Platform competition

The question of whether Telegram’s troubles benefit WhatsApp is more complicated as any disruption to Telegram could push some users towards competing services. But WhatsApp remains India’s dominant messaging platform and is already deeply embedded in personal communication, business messaging and digital commerce.

Yet Telegram and WhatsApp are not perfect substitutes. Telegram’s appeal lies in its massive channels, large community groups, file-sharing capabilities and content distribution tools. Many creators, educators, traders and communities use Telegram for functions that WhatsApp does not replicate at the same scale. As a result, a temporary Telegram disruption may increase WhatsApp usage at the margins, but it is unlikely to trigger a major shift in market dynamics.

More importantly, the issues cited by Indian authorities are not unique to Telegram. Encrypted and semi-private messaging platforms across the industry have faced scrutiny over misinformation, fraud and illicit activities. If regulators are focused on tackling abuse rather than targeting a specific company, the broader compliance challenge extends beyond Telegram alone.