UN Finding of Gaza Genocide: India Must Fulfil Duties
Vivek Monteiro
At a national seminar organised by All India Peace and Solidarity Organisation (AIPSO) in Mumbai on October 4, 2025, senior lawyers and experts spoke on the legal consequences for India of the United Nations finding of genocide by Israel in Gaza.
In introductory comments Dr Vivek Monteiro called out the duplicity of the present Indian government, of voting in favour of a ceasefire in December 2024 at the UN and then abstaining in a similar vote in June 2025. Despite the fact that India recognises Palestine, the police in Maharashtra repeatedly denied permission for holding a protest in support of the Palestine movement. Only after approaching the Mumbai high court was AIPSO able to obtain permission to hold the protest on August 20, at Azad Maidan. In other states, like Madhya Pradesh, people have been arrested for demonstrating with the Palestine flag. Monteiro called attention to recent initiatives by scientists (including many Indians), such as the petition signed by more than 4300 academicians globally, including over 30 winners of prestigious prizes such as the Nobel Prize, Fields Medal, and which included over 85 Israeli scientists. It called for external intervention to stop the genocide in Gaza.
Subsequently Sr. Counsel Mihir Desai, the chair of the session, requested Sunip Sen to present his views. Sen began by describing Israel as a state gone rogue. He proceeded to review the formal and legal milestones in the Israel-Palestine conflict, leading to the UN finding of Genocide on the September 16, 2025. The aims of the UN charter i.e. to avoid war, settle disputes and prevent the taking of territory, were briefly recalled as well as the 1994 ruling by the International Court of Justice that the occupation by Israel of the West Bank and other Palestinian land is illegal.
Sen emphasized that Israel is using the attack on October 7, 2023, merely as an excuse for its agenda of ethnic cleansing of Palestine and enforced settler occupation expansion. The widely reported role of mercenaries in these actions, veterans being hired at a rate of 1100 dollars per day and 5000 shekels being offered per destroyed Gazan home, violate both the United Nations Mercenary Convention and the UN charter. Sen moved on to discussing the definition of genocide in Article 3, highlighting that once it has been established, those complicit in it or in conspiracy to commit it are liable to get punished independent of jurisdiction or formal station, benefiting from neither sovereign nor diplomatic immunity. Such individuals are likely to be eventually extradited and enjoy no security. While the direct targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure such as hospitals and schools in Gaza is undeniable, the finding of Genocide also required the intention to be established. An accounting of the casualties in Gaza as of September 2025 suggests that every able-bodied male in Gaza has been classified as a terrorist. The Lancet account of casualties, at 70,000, is 4-5 per cent of Gaza’s population and is likely to be an underestimate.
Sen pointed out that of the total casualties in Gaza, only 8900 are verifiable militants, leaving a civilian casualty rate of 83%. He concluded by emphasizing that all information suggests Israel has adopted a policy of direct elimination of the Palestinian population.
Sr. Counsel Chander Uday Singh focused on the details of India’s complicity in the genocide, starting by reminding the audience that India was one of the first countries to recognize Palestine in 1988 and then proceeded to show an image of a postage stamp from 1981 which is still in circulation and depicts the Indian and Palestinian flags together. He reiterated that what Israel is doing in Gaza counts as genocide by the definition of the Geneva convention, the ICJ and the ICC. Ignorance or lack of knowledge of these facts does not excuse us from the complicity.
Singh outlined the evolution of India’s position on the matter, from an initial state characterized broadly by solidarity with the Palestinian cause towards a more transactional relationship in recent times under the NDA government. He called attention to the fact that India is involved in arms trade with Israel even during the ongoing genocide, highlighting the instances of two cargo ships from Chennai which were sent to Israel and later diverted to alternate ports in the Mediterranean, bearing explosives, rocket motors and rocket fuel. He urged Indians to take cognizance of our own culpability. He condemned the fact that Bezalel Smotrich, an Israeli minister who has been sanctioned by various countries and entities for openly making genocidal comments, was witnessed joining hands with Nirmala Sitharaman for a bilateral investment agreement.
Mihir Desai reminded the audience that apart from signing the Genocide Convention in 1949, the Indian legislature ratified it in 1959, and that by all definitions we are complicit in this matter. He introduced Justice Abhay Thipsay as the first judge to release a citizen detained under the draconian UAPA act, and also the judge who delivered the verdict in the Best Bakery Case.
Justice Thipsay began by remarking on the vacillating stance of the Indian govt, and briefly described Article 51 of the Constitution, a Directive Principle of State Policy, that calls upon the Indian state to align itself with international law. He pointed out that the Indian Parliament has so far not drafted or promulgated a domestic law based on the Genocide Convention, but also that we are nevertheless in breach of our treaty obligation. He remarked on the lack of case law precedent related to Article 51 of the Indian constitution, pointing out only one known instance wherein a matter of procedural gender discrimination by an Indian state body was adjudicated upon by an Indian court with reference to the United Nations convention on discrimination. He concluded by remarking that peace is not possible in isolation, and that the Supreme Court is reluctant to intervene in such matters holding, in a recent case, that such matters are under the purview of the executive, and not the judiciary’s job.
Mihir Desai remarked that the findings of genocide can be made by three separate bodies: the International Court of Justice, where South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel and where the Indian Judge Dalveer Bhandari has continuously been aligning with the majority decision of the Bench on Palestine related matters; Special International Tribunals, as well as the International Criminal Court, created as the culmination of the Rome Statutes, where matters of genocide can be taken up on a criminal law basis without requiring another state as a litigant party. Desai subsequently called upon Vahida Nainar, who has had a significant involvement with the Rome Statutes, to talk about the ICC.
Nainar began by describing the ICC, that 125 countries have signed the agreement of its creation, and the process by which cases are brought in front of the ICC, wherein crimes can be referred to the office of the prosecutor, by other bodies such as the UNSC or signatory countries. She emphasized that the ICC is not limited by territorial jurisdiction, and made a distinction between War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide. Nainar remarked that the ICC follows more or less the same definition of genocide as the Genocide Convention, except for the matter of recognizing sexual violence as a tool for genocide, as mentioned in Article 7*. She highlighted the role of Judge Navi Pillay, who presided over the first conviction for genocide when she was the judge at the Rwandan tribunal. She pointed out that the ICC has so far only issued an arrest warrant against Netanyahu and Gallant (former Israeli Defence Minister) for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, but not yet for genocide. She made the distinction between non-state party jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories and the territorial jurisdiction after Palestine became a state party.
She reiterated the lack of sovereign or diplomatic immunity in the case of genocide, recalling the example of the president of Sudan. She concluded by emphasizing that the current accusations of genocide against Israel are based on definitive evidence, such as the interviews of victims and doctors, the analysis of satellite imagery, etc. and that the ICC can always add genocide to its charges with which it is indicting Israeli officials.
Subsequently the discussion proceeded to a question-and-answer session. One participant pointed out that India’s complicity is a complicity of the State and not that of our people. It was remarked that an Indian organisation in Delhi had released a blacklist of companies and entities in India trading with and supplying Israel. The question of necessary domestic laws to comply with international treaty commitments was discussed at length, and the possibility of sending humanitarian aid to Palestine was also raised.
Monteiro concluded by stating that the purpose of this seminar was to initiate a serious discussion in India of the legal consequences of the UN finding of genocide by Israel on the Palestinian people. Can Indian entities continue to supply arms to Israel in this situation? AIPSO will raise this question on the national agenda by organizing such programmes in other states. The meeting ended with Principal Shraddha Mehta proposing a vote of thanks.
