Dr. Muqtedar Khan argues that Amnesty International’s report could be viewed as an initial development that may expose Indian officials involved in arms-export decisions to future international legal scrutiny, although no ICC case or arrest warrant currently exists against PM Modi or other senior Indian leaders.
By Syed Khalique Ahmed
In his August 3 commentary on YouTube channel “The Public India,” Dr. Muqtedar Khan argues that Amnesty International’s Made in India report could be the first step toward possible future scrutiny by the International Criminal Court (ICC) of Indian officials involved in arms-export decisions related to Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza.
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is an Indian-American professor of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware, USA, specialising in Islam, governance, South Asian and Middle Eastern politics, and US foreign policy.
His argument is not that the ICC has already opened a case against Prime Minister Narendra Modi or other senior Indian ministers or administrative officials, but that the report may have created a new legal and political connection between India and international crimes being committed by Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in Gaza.
Khan emphasises that Amnesty International has documented alleged transfers of military and dual-use components from India to Israel after October 7, 2023. According to his interpretation, the significance of the report lies in the fact that it identifies state-owned Indian defence companies as well as private firms, raising questions about the responsibility of Indian authorities that regulate or authorise such exports. However, theGovernment of India has rejected Amnesty International’s allegation and clarified that its defence exports have not breached international law.
According to Amnesty International’s report, India has allegedly exported approximately 2,596 shipments to Israel since 7 October 2023. Of these, around 788 are described as military shipments, while the remaining shipments reportedly involved dual-use technologies that could have both civilian and military applications.
The report further alleges that these transfers included about 400,000 units of small arms, including pistols, rifles, and related weapons; approximately 500,000 items of explosives and bombs, and around 300 shipments of military-vehicle components or related equipment.
Dr. Khan argues that this is important because international criminal law can, in certain circumstances, examine whether officials knowingly facilitated or failed to prevent the transfer of weapons that could contribute to war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide. Khan points to the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions, which require states to ensure that weapons supplied to another state are not used for serious violations of international humanitarian law.
A central part of Khan’s commentary is his distinction between the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). He notes that the ICJ deals with disputes between states, whereas the ICC deals with the criminal responsibility of individuals. On that basis, he raises the question of whether senior Indian decision-makerssuch as the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister, defence secretaries, or officials responsible for export approvals, could one day face international legal scrutiny if evidence emerged that they knowingly authorised transfers despite mounting international warnings about Gaza.
Dr.Khan also acknowledges a major obstacle: India is not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. He therefore concedes that there is currently no ICC case against India, PM Modi, Rajnath Singh, or any Indian defence official, and he repeatedly notes that the matter may never reach that stage.
However, he contends that Amnesty’s report has, in his view, changed the international debate by placing India’s name among countries that have supplied military support connected to the Gaza genocide.
His conclusion is that the report should be seen as a potential warning sign rather than evidence of an existing ICC prosecution. In Khan’s assessment, the most immediate consequence is that it can lead to increased international scrutiny, adversely affect India’s reputation, academic citation, and demands for investigation into India’s arms-export practices. According to Dr.Khan, whether that scrutiny could ever evolve into formal ICC proceedings against PM Modi or other senior Indian officials remains uncertain and speculative rather than an established legal reality.
According to Dr. Khan, the US is the biggest external supplier of arms to Israel, followed by Canada, the UK and Germany. He says that the US has not only been supplying arms but also funding and providing diplomatic protection to Israel at the United Nations. The US has used its veto power in the UN Security Council 20 times to shield Israel from international action.
In his view, American leaders, particularly former US president Joe Biden and current President Donald J Trump, bear the greatest external responsibility for enabling Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza by supplying arms and providing financial assistance.
Dr. Khan states that Canada ranks next to the US in supplying arms and ammunition to Israel, but it receives less public attention than that of the US, Germany, and other European powers. Dr. Khan alleges that the United Kingdom is not only on top of the European countries in supplying military equipment, but it has also provided intelligence to the Israeli army about where the children and women were hiding, which enabled the Israeli Defence Forces to attack and massacre them by using drones and fighter jets.
Dr. Khan is, however, cautious about France’s involvement in his comments. He says he is not certain about French military support to Israel in the Gaza genocide.
Dr.Khan’s broader argument is that if international criminal scrutiny were ever held about states supplying weapons to Israel, the primary focus would be first on Israel itself, then on the United States, and subsequently on major Western suppliers such as Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom before India.
What is the practical consequence of an ICC arrest warrant?According to Dr. Khan, countries that are signatories to the Rome Statute would have a legal duty to arrest a person with an ICC warrant if they entered their territory.
It was because of this reason Russian President Vladimir Putin did not visit South Africa to attend the BRICS summit in 2023. As South Africa is a party to the Rome Statute, the country was under a legal obligation to arrest Putin.
However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not arrested despite an ICC warrant against him when he recently visited New York to attend the United Nations Security Council session. This is even though New York mayor ZohranMadani had several times announced that his police would arrest Netanyahu if he visited New York. The reason is that the US is not a party to the Rome Statute and is also not an ICC member. The US also does not recognise the ICC’s jurisdiction over itself or Israel. Therefore, the US was not legally required under the Rome Statute to execute the ICC arrest warrant against Netanyahu.
[The writer is Chief Editor, India Tomorrow news portal (https://indiatomorrow.net)]