India has emerged as a significant supplier of arms and military components to Israel since the start of Israel’s Gaza offensive on 7 October 2023, raising serious questions about Delhi’s legal obligations and strategic priorities. A new Amnesty International investigation documents at least 2,596 shipments of weapons, ammunition, and military vehicle parts from India to Israel between October 2023 and November 2025, with exports continuing despite public warnings of international crimes in Gaza.
The scale of India’s arms exports to Israel
Amnesty’s report, Made in India: The Supply of Weapons and Ammunition to Israel, relies on publicly available shipment-level trade data under Harmonised System (HS) codes 93+ (arms, ammunition, parts) and 8710+ (armoured vehicles and parts). The analysis identifies 2,596 shipments comprising hundreds of thousands of military-related items.
Among these, Indian exporters supplied at least 390,516 small-arms parts for military-grade weapons, 564,970 explosive ordnance components—including drone warheads and artillery shell casings—and 298 military vehicle components to major Israeli defence firms. Amnesty explicitly states that its methodology is conservative, excluding shipments likely intended for civilian use or missile defence, suggesting the actual volume may be higher.
Earlier, Al Jazeera obtained 91 Indian customs export documents from 2024 under HS code 93069000 (bombs and grenades), showing Indian firms exporting weapons components to Israeli manufacturers such as Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, IMI Systems, and MCT Materials.
Companies in the supply chain
The report names several Indian corporations—both private and state-owned—as continuing to export military materiel to Israel long after clear warnings about possible war crimes and genocide in Gaza.
Key Indian exporters include PLR Systems Pvt Ltd, a joint venture between Adani Defence & Aerospace and Israel Weapon Industries (IWI), which supplied machine-gun components; Indo MIM Pvt Ltd, which exported firearm components such as automatic sears and bolt carriers; and Kalyani Strategic Systems / Bharat Forge, which supplied 155 mm artillery round casings. Notably, Munitions India Ltd, a state-owned enterprise, exported finished 155 mm high-explosive rounds, while Alpha Elsec Defence & Aerospace—a joint venture between Alpha Design and Elbit—shipped explosive warheads consistent with Skystriker loitering munitions.
Israeli recipients include Elbit Systems, Rafael, Israel Aerospace Industries, and Israel Weapon Industries, all previously flagged by Amnesty for ties to serious violations in the occupied Palestinian territories. The presence of state-owned firms like Munitions India Ltd sharpens the legal argument about India’s direct responsibility under the law of state responsibility.
Amnesty’s allegations and legal framework
Amnesty International’s central claim is that India has continued to authorize and facilitate arms exports to Israel despite a “substantial risk” these items would be used in violations of international law in Gaza, including acts plausibly amounting to genocide as indicated by the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) provisional measures.
Agnès Callamard, Amnesty’s Secretary General, stated:
“India’s continuing support to the Israeli military and defence sector despite the genocide in Gaza, which has been broadcast worldwide on an almost daily basis for years.”
She added:
“India manufactures and supplies arms transferred to Israel through its ownership and control over key supplier companies. Not only has India failed to regulate arms exports to Israel by private companies in line with international law and standards, it has also deepened its defence partnership with Israel.”
Amnesty argues that India is in breach of its duty to prevent genocide under the Genocide Convention and its obligation to ensure respect for the Geneva Conventions. The report warns that under the law of state responsibility,
“by transferring weapons to Israel in the knowledge that these could be used to commit crimes under international law, India may risk complicity in such violations.”
It also notes that
“companies and their personnel also face significant legal risk, including civil liability and, in some circumstances, criminal responsibility.”
India has not acceded to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), having abstained in 2013, which Amnesty says contributes to weak export controls and transparency. Amnesty’s demands include an immediate halt to all arms, ammunition, and parts transfers to Israel; stronger human-rights due diligence in export licensing; accession to the ATT; and remediation where products contributed to abuses.
India’s official stance and policy rationale
While no on-record statement from the Indian government specifically addressing the July 2026 Amnesty report was available at publication, prior statements by senior officials outline Delhi’s policy rationale. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has repeatedly emphasized that arms exports are guided by India’s “national interest” and commitments to international regimes, noting that Israel is a partner that “has stood by us” on security matters.
Defence and MEA sources in 2024 claimed India took a “policy decision” not to supply artillery shells to Israel and described overall defence exports to Israel as minimal, with MEA officials calling India’s export controls “impeccable” and compliant. However, Amnesty wrote to the Indian state and nine companies in June–July 2026 and received no response, indicating a lack of public engagement with the specific allegations.
UN experts, civil society, and domestic legal challenges
UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese has argued that India is violating international law by maintaining defence ties with Israel while the ICJ has found a plausible risk of genocide, pointing to exports of drones, munitions, and components, as well as debris marked “Made in India” found in Gaza.
Domestically, civil society and legal activists have mounted significant challenges. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court, filed by former bureaucrats, academics, and activists led by Harsh Mander and represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, sought the cancellation of export licenses to Israel, arguing violations of international law and Articles 14 and 21 read with Article 51(c) of the Constitution. The plea cited the ICJ’s January order warning against weapons transfers to Israel, stating such actions
“may constitute serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws and risk state complicity in international crimes, possibly including genocide.”
The Supreme Court dismissed the PIL, with Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud stating:
“Can we direct that under the UN’s genocide convention you ban the export to Israel… why this restraint. This is because it impacts the foreign policy and we do not know what the impact will be.”
The bench added:
“We cannot enter into the nation’s foreign policy domain.”
The Court noted that Indian companies could face legal action for breaching contractual obligations but declined to prohibit supplies, effectively deferring to the executive’s foreign policy prerogative.
The broader India–Israel defence partnership
India remains the largest purchaser of Israeli weapons, with multi-billion-dollar annual defence trade and multiple joint ventures on Indian soil, including Adani–IWI and Alpha–Elbit. Diplomatic ties have deepened under the Modi–Netanyahu axis, with upgrades to a “Special Strategic Partnership” and new MoUs. Despite voting for UN ceasefire resolutions, India has rejected calls for an arms embargo and has not joined the ICJ case against Israel.
Strategic implications and legal exposure
The Amnesty report places India in a difficult position: on one hand, it seeks to project itself as a responsible global power and champion of the Global South; on the other, its defence exports to Israel risk entangling it in allegations of complicity in international crimes. The legal exposure is not merely theoretical. Amnesty warns that
“companies and their personnel also face significant legal risk, including civil liability and, in some circumstances, criminal responsibility.”
For Indian corporations, the risk profile is rising as global supply chains face heightened scrutiny over human rights due diligence. The presence of state-owned firms like Munitions India Ltd means India itself could face state responsibility claims under international law.
