India’s arms supply to Israel

India’s arms supply to Israel

 

 

Context:

Recently, a group of retired diplomats, public intellectuals, academicians and activists have filed a petition in Supreme court seeking a halt to arms exports to Israel amid the Gaza conflict.

 

Key Highlights:

• The petition was filed stating that supplying arms to Israel violates India’s obligations under international law.
• It was argued that it breaches the fundamental rights to life and equality and Article 51C of the Indian Constitution, which directs the State to respect international law.
• The petition notes “Genocide Convention”, arguing that India is legally obligated not to export military equipment to Israel due to the risk of their use in committing war crimes.

 

Why India Shouldn’t Send Arms to Israel?

• Supplying arms to Israel during an ongoing conflict where allegations of war crimes and genocide are involved, violates the International Law. The act contravenes India’s obligations under international treaties like the Genocide Convention.
• Article 51C: It mandates the State to show respect for international law and treaty obligations. Arms exports to Israel against the international treaties  may prove to be a violation of this principle.
• Exporting military equipment to a nation engaged in an active conflict is a “serious risk” to India. It may make India complicit in those actions, contradicting its stated foreign policy of non-alignment and peace.
• By supplying arms that could potentially be used in a conflict, India risks violating the fundamental right to life, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, by indirectly contributing to actions that may lead to loss of life.

 

What is the Genocide Convention?

• It was the first human rights treaty adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1948.
• It signified the international community’s commitment to ‘never again’ after the atrocities committed during the World War II.
• It showed way towards the development of international human rights and international criminal law as we know it today.
• According to the Convention, genocide is a crime that can take place both in time of war as well as in time of peace.
• Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. It does not include political groups or so called “cultural genocide”.
• It was ratified by 153 member states including India.

 

Conclusion:

• Beyond legal and constitutional violations, there is also a strong ethical argument against supporting anyone engaged in alleged acts of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity.
• India should not forget its stance of non-alignment and peace. Risking itself by sending arms would mean disrespect for the international law obligations, constitutional principles, and ethical considerations.