External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, addressing questions in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday (December 5), avoided directly confirming whether India has been exporting arms and ammunition to Israel amid the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
He claimed that decisions regarding military exports are guided by India's national interest and international obligations, The Telegraph Online reported.
In response to CPI MP P.P. Suneer’s query about arms exports to Israel since the conflict began, Jaishankar clarified that details about military exports are not publicly disclosed.
"With regard to our exports to Israel, in particular any export which is related directly or indirectly to munitions or military sense, that is not information that is in public domain,” he said.
CPI(M) MP John Brittas pressed further, asking whether Palestine's Minister of State had requested India’s ambassador to reconsider arms sales to Israel due to their alleged use against Palestinian civilians.
Jaishankar reiterated India’s adherence to its national interest and its obligations under international regimes, including the Wassenaar Arrangement, which governs the export of military and dual-use goods.
"Israel is a country in which we have a strong record of cooperation in national security. It is also a country that has stood by us at different moments when our national security was under threat. So, when we take any decision we will bear in mind, obviously, the larger circumstances but we will definitely be driven by our national interest in this matter,” Jaishankar added.
Jaishankar also defended India’s decision to abstain from a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for a humanitarian truce between Israel and Hamas.
He stated that the resolution was inadequately drafted, failed to address India’s concerns, and lacked balance.
“Generally, when we abstain, the reasons are resolutions are not balanced, the resolution is more divisive, the resolution can set a precedent which has consequences for us and the resolution has larger implications. In this particular case, we felt that the resolution was not well drafted. We had reservations about the language. Our concerns were not accommodated, that is why we abstained," he said.
Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale raised questions about India’s stance on the two-state solution and its abstention from resolutions condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Jaishankar reaffirmed India’s support for the two-state solution but stressed that resolutions must reflect all aspects of the situation, including terrorism.
He claimed that decisions regarding military exports are guided by India's national interest and international obligations, The Telegraph Online reported.
In response to CPI MP P.P. Suneer’s query about arms exports to Israel since the conflict began, Jaishankar clarified that details about military exports are not publicly disclosed.
"With regard to our exports to Israel, in particular any export which is related directly or indirectly to munitions or military sense, that is not information that is in public domain,” he said.
CPI(M) MP John Brittas pressed further, asking whether Palestine's Minister of State had requested India’s ambassador to reconsider arms sales to Israel due to their alleged use against Palestinian civilians.
Jaishankar reiterated India’s adherence to its national interest and its obligations under international regimes, including the Wassenaar Arrangement, which governs the export of military and dual-use goods.
"Israel is a country in which we have a strong record of cooperation in national security. It is also a country that has stood by us at different moments when our national security was under threat. So, when we take any decision we will bear in mind, obviously, the larger circumstances but we will definitely be driven by our national interest in this matter,” Jaishankar added.
Jaishankar also defended India’s decision to abstain from a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for a humanitarian truce between Israel and Hamas.
He stated that the resolution was inadequately drafted, failed to address India’s concerns, and lacked balance.
“Generally, when we abstain, the reasons are resolutions are not balanced, the resolution is more divisive, the resolution can set a precedent which has consequences for us and the resolution has larger implications. In this particular case, we felt that the resolution was not well drafted. We had reservations about the language. Our concerns were not accommodated, that is why we abstained," he said.
Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale raised questions about India’s stance on the two-state solution and its abstention from resolutions condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Jaishankar reaffirmed India’s support for the two-state solution but stressed that resolutions must reflect all aspects of the situation, including terrorism.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment