For decades, international humanitarian law has promised that grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions should not go unpunished. But what happens when an Israeli soldier who has committed war crimes enters India, a formal complaint is filed, authorities are notified, and he appears to leave the country anyway?India is no stranger to Israeli soldiers travelling through the country. More than 73,000 Israelis visited India in 2014, and substantial numbers have continued to arrive every year since. Many are current or former Israeli occupation forces (IOF) soldiers travelling after completing mandatory military service. Israeli veterans receive state-backed financial benefits upon discharge, and post-army travel has become a well-established rite of passage.Eitan Gilboa in Rafah, Gaza.Against that backdrop, the Belgium-based rights group Hind Rajab Foundation’s (HRF) complaint against Israeli reservist Eitan Gilboa, who was vacationing in Old Manali and Gondla village in Himachal Pradesh, has attracted significant attention. The complaint included evidence against Gilboa’s involvement in the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza. It called on Indian authorities to investigate, arrest and act under India’s obligations pursuant to the Geneva Conventions.Yet, HRF notes, Gilboa appears to have left India. So, the question now is no longer whether India was informed. It was. The question is why an Israeli soldier who has clearly committed war crimes was allowed to leave the country even after Indian authorities were formally put on notice.Who is Eitan Gilboa?Eitan Gilboa is a reservist in the Israeli military’s 271st Combat Engineering Battalion, a unit involved in military demolitions and battlefield engineering operations. He has not only been stationed in Gaza but also in Lebanon, another front on which Israel has unleashed large-scale destruction against civilian life.He was born in Gaza. He lived in Moshav Morag, an Israeli settlement in the occupied Gaza Strip. Together with settlements such as Netzarim and Kfar Darom, it formed part of a network of settlements that enabled Israel to fragment Gaza and maintain control over movement and territory. In 2004, Gilboa and his family left Moshav Morag when Israel dismantled its settlements in Gaza. Years later, after October 7, 2023, Gilboa returned to Gaza, this time as a soldier, accompanied by his siblings.According to the complaint filed by HRF, Gilboa was involved in the demolition of civilian residential infrastructure in places including Khan Younis and Rafah. He did not merely participate in these acts, he documented and celebrated them. In one of the videos that he posted on his social media, Gilboa appears to fire from inside a building during Israel’s genocidal military campaign in Gaza. He sadistically staged photographs recreating scenes from his childhood, posing against the ruins of Palestinian playgrounds, children’s toys and destroyed neighbourhoods. The complaint references videos and photographs that show Gilboa documenting and celebrating these demolitions, as well as material publicly and proudly posted by Gilboa’s mother on social media.Eitan Gilboa posts a picture from his childhood, alongside one in which he is posing against ruins of Palestinian playgrounds in Gaza years later.The HRF complaint was drafted and filed by an India-based lawyer based on this evidence. Speaking to The Wire on the condition of anonymity, citing security concerns, the lawyer said that these were sufficient grounds for Indian authorities to investigate Gilboa for war crimes.She also said that the Bureau of Immigration had contacted HRF by email seeking contact details shortly after the complaint was filed. The information was shared, but no further updates followed from the bureau. According to the complaint, both conditions had been met: evidence existed and authorities were aware of the allegations. Yet Gilboa left the country without any scrutiny. This brings larger questions about what India’s obligations under international law actually mean in practice.Eitan Gilboa and his sibling Tamar stationed in Gaza, showing the Israeli flag.What happened after the complaint reached Delhi?The case against Gilboa did not rely on ‘universal jurisdiction’ – a legal principle that allows states to prosecute grave international crimes regardless of where they occurred.The lawyer explained that unlike other jurisdictions where their foundation has previously worked, India does not fully endorse universal jurisdiction. It is also not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court.“That meant we had to identify a different legal pathway,” she said. In this case, that pathway was India’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions Act (GCA) and the legal mechanisms available under Indian law.At the centre of the complaint is Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which requires states to search for persons accused of grave breaches and either prosecute them or hand them over to another jurisdiction willing to do so. According to lawyers and international law experts who spoke to The Wire, Gilboa’s presence in India was sufficient to trigger those obligations, regardless of political convenience or India’s relationship with Israel.To compel Indian authorities to act on those obligations, two separate complaints were submitted two departments – one to the Indian Police, and another to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Bureau of Immigration – seeking separate legal remedies, including an investigation into Gilboa’s whereabouts, while also demanding immigration measures such as visa revocation, deportation and restrictions on future entry.The complaints were supported by a substantial evidentiary dossier containing nearly 60 pieces of evidence. The lawyer added that the foundation is tracking multiple Israeli soldiers travelling through India, meaning Gilboa may be only the first of several such cases. “This is just the beginning,” she said.For many people in the country, this complaint was the first time they became aware of the scale of Israeli soldiers travelling through India and the fact that legal action against perpetrators of war crimes may be possible. The lawyer added, “We will keep pushing, his departure does not bring this matter to an end. The record exists, the authorities were informed, and accountability remains an obligation.” International law meets politicsThis story goes beyond Eitan Gilboa. It is about whether India’s commitment to international law survives contact with its commitment to Israel. As Atul Alexander, an international law scholar at WBNUJS, pointed out, “The Geneva Convention has to do a lot with politics.” “Therefore, it also depends on the relationship that India has with Israel,” he told The Wire. The ball was in India’s court long enough for it to take action, yet Gilboa seems to have left the country. For many, the question may seem straightforward. If India has obligations under the Geneva Conventions, surely it must act, right? The reality is, international law has never operated on law alone. When this question was put to Indumugi C, an advocate based in New Delhi, she told The Wire that the institutions responsible for enforcing international law were themselves built upon unequal distributions of power. The clearest example, she noted, is the United Nations Security Council, where five permanent members retain veto powers unavailable to everyone else. As a result, international law is often enforced not according to the gravity of a crime, but according to who committed it and who is willing to protect them.Nasir Qadri, an international law practitioner based in Europe, gave another angle to this. In his view, the veto structure does not simply fail to enforce international humanitarian law but often produces impunity by design. Identical conduct can trigger sanctions, investigations and international outrage when committed by adversaries, while generating silence when carried out by strategic allies. Enforcement, he argued, functions less as a legal reflex and more as a political instrument.This criticism is not new. Scholars associated with Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) have long argued that modern international law emerged alongside the empire and continues to reflect many of those unequal structures.Alexander pointed to the work of scholars such as Antony Anghie and B.S. Chimni who have long examined the relationship between international law and empire. “International law is very hegemonic,” he said. In his view, many of the hierarchies that once distinguished the “civilised” from the “uncivilised” have not disappeared but merely changed form. “What we are seeing is colonialism playing as post-colonialism,” he said. “Today, what we are seeing is a savage vs saviour model.”At the same time, international law is not solely seen as a tool of domination. Anti-colonial struggles, self-determination movements and anti-apartheid campaigns have repeatedly used it as a site of resistance. So it seems, international law remains both a hegemonic and counter-hegemonic terrain.This context becomes important in the Gilboa case because India’s relationship with Israel was likely the deciding factor. The Geneva Conventions Act itself contains a significant limitation: courts cannot take cognisance of offences under the Act without a complaint from the government or an authorised government officer. In practice, that means political willingness becomes paramount to legal obligation.Delhi-based senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan made a similar observation in her book In Custody, where she examined India’s Geneva Conventions Act:“Universal jurisdiction can be exercised over perpetrators of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions under Indian law. Yet courts cannot take cognisance of offences under the Act except on complaint by the government. The Act does not give a specific right to anyone to approach the court. Questions relating to the application of the Convention to a conflict are ultimately determined by a government official, not the court.”Prime Minister Narendra Modi with his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu during a meeting, in Tel Aviv, Israel. Photo: PMO via PTIUnder Modi’s regime, India has tied itself ever closer to Israel through arms, strategy, diplomacy and an increasingly ideological affinity between Hindutva and Zionism.Qadri argued that this political context cannot be separated from the state’s response to the complaint. India ratified the Geneva Conventions and enacted the Geneva Conventions Act, yet when confronted with a complaint involving a close ally, the response was limited to a single email from immigration authorities and no apparent follow-up. This illustrates that legal obligations and political will exist in hierarchy, with political considerations often determining which obligations are actually enforced.Ramakrishnan said, “The complaint is an exposure of a volte-face in India’s moral position on Israel and Palestine”. She pointed to the anti-colonial vision articulated by leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Josip Broz Tito, who argued that no state could claim a genuine self-interest in the subjugation of another people. The question raised by the complaint, she suggested, is how far India has moved from those principles. “Of course, political willingness dictates the course,” she said, “often at variance with moral and legal obligations.” She also noted that India has frequently resisted external scrutiny of its human rights record and thus remains outside the Rome Statute framework. Did accountability leave with the war criminal?At first glance, Gilboa’s apparent departure from India may seem like the end. No arrest. No investigation. No prosecution. However, lawyers and international law experts argue otherwise.The Geneva Conventions are made up of four treaties, each dealing with different aspects of international armed conflict and occupation. In this case, the relevant treaty is the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs the protection of civilians during armed conflict and military occupation. India ratified all four Geneva Conventions in 1950 and later enacted the Geneva Conventions Act, 1960 (GCA) to give those obligations effect under Indian law.Nitya Ramakrishnan pointed out that the legal strategy behind the complaint was “both original and interesting” because it attempted to use existing Indian law rather than relying on universal jurisdiction. She argued that India continues to carry both a legal and moral obligation to act consistently with the objectives of the Act. In fact, she suggested that Gilboa’s apparent departure may itself indicate that the complaint had some effect.Alexander made a similar point. India remains bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention, which requires states not only to respect international humanitarian law but also to “ensure respect” for it. As he put it, “every state has an obligation to respect treaties.”The post shows Eitan Gilboa’s childhood photos, against him returning to Gaza as an Israeli soldier.The difficulty lies in how those obligations are enforced. The Geneva Conventions Act allows India to exercise jurisdiction over grave breaches committed outside its territory. However, as Alexander explained, prosecution requires sanction from the Union government. In practice, that means ordinary citizens, lawyers and NGOs cannot independently initiate proceedings. Enforcement ultimately becomes what he described as “a kind of executive prerogative.”This creates a deeper structural problem. While India’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions remain binding, Section 17 of the GCA effectively places enforcement behind a government gatekeeping mechanism. The law creates obligations, but whether those obligations are activated remains largely in the hands of the executive.Alexander also pointed out that prosecution was never the only option available. India could have pursued extradition to another jurisdiction willing to investigate or prosecute. More significantly, the easiest and most immediate step available to the government would have been to revoke Gilboa’s visa or deport him. Neither measure would have required a criminal trial, a judicial determination of guilt, or even a court’s engagement with international humanitarian law. Yet, despite having those powers readily available under immigration law, the Indian government did not appear to consider itself obliged to take even those minimal steps.If nothing happens, then what?If international law is shaped by the interests of powerful states, if countries such as the United States and Israel can ignore it when convenient, and if India has allowed a war criminal to get away, then what is the point?Selective enforcement does not make international humanitarian law meaningless. Instead, it exposes the gap between what states say and what they do. Even when complaints face resistance, they create a public record, force responses, and make political choices visible.The caption in the post speaks of a lost home in Morag. Morag itself was an Israeli settlement built inside occupied Gaza. There is a bitter irony in settlers lamenting their own displacement while participating in a violent project that has ethnically cleansed and displaced Palestinians for generations.Whether Gilboa’s departure marks the end of this case remains unclear. But, it is clear that India’s obligations still remain. The Gilboa complaint reveals both the limits of international humanitarian law and how it functions in practice. Indian authorities were informed. The evidence was submitted. The opportunity to act was presented. Yet Gilboa appears to have left the country without facing consequences in India. He may already be on his way to his next holiday destination.What remains is the record. Not only of the allegations against Gilboa, but of the choices made by the Indian state.Shrishti Khanna is an independent writer and political educator based in Mumbai.