Amnesty International released a major investigation on July 29, 2026, documenting what it describes as a steady flow of weapons, ammunition, and military parts from Indian companies to Israeli defense suppliers since October 7, 2023. The report, titled "Made in India: The Supply of Weapons and Ammunition to Israel" (document ID ASA20/1327/2026), concludes that these exports carry a "substantial risk" of being used in what Amnesty characterizes as the "ongoing genocide against Palestinians" in Gaza.

Amnesty's investigators analyzed 2,596 shipments of weapons, ammunition, parts, and components sent from India to Israel during that period. The organization used shipment trade data to identify exports destined for Israeli companies that supply the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Researchers excluded shipments that may have been intended for civilian use, focusing on exports under HS Codes 93+ and 8710+ — international trade classifications covering arms and armored vehicles, respectively. Amnesty described its methodology as "conservative," meaning the true scale of India's arms contributions to Israel is likely higher than the report's figures suggest.

The numbers are granular. Indian companies supplied at least 390,516 small arms parts for military-grade weapons to Israeli military suppliers. They shipped at least 564,970 parts of explosive ordnance, including drone warheads and artillery shell casings. An additional 298 components for military vehicles were identified. Al Jazeera corroborated the trade-data findings with 91 Indian customs export documents covering arms-related shipments to Israel in 2024. These documents, filed under HS classification code 93069000 — which India's Ministry of Commerce and Industry customs book defines as "bombs, grenades" — showed Indian firms exporting weapons components to specific Israeli arms manufacturers: Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, IMI Systems Limited, and MCT Materials.

Amnesty International Secretary-General Agnes Callamard stated that the report reveals India's continuing support to the Israeli military and defense sector despite what she termed the genocide in Gaza. Callamard further stated that India has failed to regulate arms exports to Israel by private companies in line with international law and standards, and has deepened its defense partnership with Israel. Amnesty International published its findings alongside the full report on July 29, 2026.

The investigation lands against a legal backdrop that Amnesty emphasizes in its framing. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) — the United Nations' highest court — in 2024 issued provisional measures ordering Israel to take action to prevent genocide in Gaza. Arms-transfer obligations under international law, including the Arms Trade Treaty framework, require exporting countries to assess whether transferred weapons could be used to commit or facilitate grave violations of international humanitarian law. Amnesty's argument is that India's exports fail this test.

The broader context here is the depth and asymmetry of the India-Israel defense relationship. India has been Israel's largest defense purchaser for years, accounting for 29% of total Israeli defense sales between 2020 and 2025, according to SIPRI data. The flow of arms documented in this report moves in the opposite direction: from India to Israel. That reverse pipeline, smaller in volume but highly specific in the types of components involved, has received far less scrutiny than the billions in Israeli defense imports by New Delhi.

Several dimensions of this story carry weight for those tracking arms-transfer governance and the evolving dynamics of India's foreign policy. First, the report's reliance on trade-data analysis rather than government disclosures points to the opacity of India's arms-export licensing regime. The Indian government does not publish detailed, recipient-specific data on defense exports, which forces civil-society organizations to reconstruct supply chains from customs records and commercial shipment data. Second, the specific components identified — small arms parts, artillery shell casings, drone warheads — are consumables in a high-intensity military campaign; they are not strategic platforms like missile systems or aircraft. This means they feed directly into ongoing operational use rather than long-term stockpiling, sharpening the legal question of whether India is meeting its obligations under international humanitarian law. Third, the report complicates India's diplomatic posture. New Delhi has historically positioned itself as a voice for the Global South and an advocate for Palestinian self-determination at the United Nations, even as it has steadily expanded defense ties with Israel. The Amnesty investigation makes that tension explicit and quantifies it.

What remains uncertain is whether the report will generate any policy response within India. The Indian government has not publicly addressed the specific findings. Amnesty's call is for an immediate suspension of all arms transfers to Israel, a demand that, if heeded, would require New Delhi to interrupt private commercial supply chains and potentially impose end-use restrictions on defense firms operating in both directions of the bilateral trade relationship. Whether that demand gains traction in capitals beyond Geneva and The Hague is a separate question.