Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has unequivocally defended India’s arms exports to Israel, citing “national interests” and adherence to international agreements, even as global outrage mounts over Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. In parliament, Jaishankar responded to questions about the ethical implications of India’s military support for Israel, particularly as reports accuse Tel Aviv of deploying advanced AI-enabled weaponry, co-developed with Indian defense firms, to target Palestinian civilians.
Jaishankar dismissed concerns raised by Indian parliamentarian John Brittas about a plea from Palestine’s Minister of State, delivered through Indian ambassador Renu Yadav, to reconsider arms sales that directly fuel atrocities in Gaza. Instead, he emphasized India’s strategic partnership with Israel, calling it a nation that has “stood by us at moments when our national security was under threat.”
Weaponizing Diplomacy: India’s Strategic Partnership with Israel
Israel’s atrocities in Gaza, which have killed over 44,600 Palestinians, predominantly women and children, since October 7, 2023, have been globally condemned as genocide. Despite this, India has tightened its military and security cooperation with Tel Aviv, justified as a pragmatic alignment of strategic interests.
“We are very responsible members of various international regimes, including the Wassenaar arrangement. We have an export control and licensing process,” Jaishankar remarked. “Decisions regarding exports are driven by our national interest.” This technocratic response blatantly sidesteps the moral and humanitarian questions tied to arms sales used in civilian massacres.
Read More: US Lawmakers Target UAE Over Alleged Support for Sudan’s RSF
India’s arms exports to Israel, including components for AI-enhanced Arbel weapons systems, have facilitated Tel Aviv’s advanced warfare strategies in Gaza. According to investigative reports, such systems turn conventional firearms into algorithm-driven killing machines, heightening the efficiency and precision of Israel’s brutal campaign.
International Outrage Meets Indian Indifference
The international community, including institutions like the United Nations and Amnesty International, has unequivocally condemned Israel’s ongoing siege of Gaza as an act of genocide. On December 5, Amnesty International formally accused Israel of attempting to obliterate Gaza’s population through systematic attacks and denial of aid. United Nations reports highlight that over 1.9 million out of Gaza’s 2.3 million residents have been forcibly displaced, with actions described as “unprecedented in scope.”
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in a January 26 ruling, warned that Palestinians face an “imminent risk of genocide.” Yet, India’s Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to halt arms exports to Israel, claiming it was “not our domain.”
India’s moral abdication contrasts starkly with its historical support for Palestinian self-determination. While Jaishankar paid lip service to a “two-state solution,” his government’s actions tell a different story, prioritizing profit and geopolitical alignment over fundamental human rights.
Political Calculations Overshadow Ethical Responsibilities
India’s foreign policy under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has increasingly pivoted toward uncritical support for Israel, reflecting a broader ideological alignment. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) growing affinity for far-right nationalism mirrors Israel’s hardline stance, reinforcing a symbiotic relationship built on shared strategic and ideological goals.
By defending arms supplies under the guise of “national interest,” India implicitly legitimizes Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza. This calculated indifference not only erodes India’s moral standing on the global stage but also aligns it with oppressive regimes, further marginalizing the voices of those suffering under occupation and displacement.
As the world rallies against the atrocities in Gaza, India’s unwavering support for Israel raises uncomfortable questions about its commitment to international justice and human rights.