Trump’s Board of Peace: Why India Is Taking a Cautious Stand

Board of Peace Latest News

• India has chosen to stay away, for now, from US President Donald Trump’s proposed Board of Peace, unveiled at Davos, opting for a cautious “wait and watch” approach despite an invitation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

About Trump’s Board of Peace

• The Board of Peace is a US-led intergovernmental body established by Donald Trump to manage global conflict resolution and post-war reconstruction.
• Origin and Purpose – Proposed in September 2025, the board was created to oversee “Phase Two” of the US-brokered ceasefire in Gaza following the 2023–2025 conflict.
• Immediate Mandate – Its primary role is to supervise the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) — a Palestinian technocratic authority — while managing Gaza’s reconstruction and the disarmament of Hamas.
• Leadership and Composition – Chaired by Donald Trump, the board includes prominent figures such as Jared Kushner, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
• Countries that have accepted the invitation include: Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam, among others.
• Notable absentees: Major European powers such as France, Germany, the UK and Italy. Permanent members of the UN Security Council — Russia, China, France and the UK.

‹ ›

India’s Immediate Response on Joining the Board of Peace

• India neither accepted nor declined the invitation at Davos.
• New Delhi is assessing strategic, political and diplomatic implications before taking a decision.

Why Trump’s Board of Peace Puts India in a Tight Spot

• An Exclusive, Pay-to-Enter Peace Club – Permanent membership reportedly requires a $1-billion contribution to a reconstruction fund, effectively turning peace-making into a pay-to-enter arrangement.
• Unclear Scope, Expanding Concerns: Uncertainty over the Board of Peace’s mandate deepens India’s unease. 
  • Though Gaza is the immediate focus, reports suggest the charter avoids explicit territorial limits, using broad phrases like “world peace,” raising fears of mission creep and expansion into other conflicts.
• Fragmented Peace-Making, Outside the UN – The board’s design risks selective and fragmented conflict resolution. 
  • Unlike the UN General Assembly or Security Council, it excludes many stakeholders, raising concerns about arbitrariness in conferring “peace” through a restricted forum.
• India’s Multilateral Principles at Stake – India has long defended multilateralism and the primacy of the United Nations, even while pushing for UN reform to reflect Global South realities. 
  • Joining a US-led body seen as bypassing the UN could undercut India’s credibility on this front.
• The Cost of Staying Out – Avoiding the Board of Peace is not risk-free. India seeks a seat where global security, conflict resolution, and reconstruction are discussed. 
  • Opting out could mean ceding strategic space and appearing passive as new power structures take shape.
• The Palestine–Israel Balancing Act – India has consistently supported a two-state solution and Palestinian rights while strengthening strategic ties with Israel. 
  • Joining a West-centric, Trump-driven Gaza platform risks upsetting this delicate balance and complicating India’s Global South positioning.
• Sharing the Platform With Pakistan – Pakistan’s reported invitation creates a fresh dilemma. 
  • Sharing a high-profile forum with Islamabad could trigger domestic backlash, particularly as India maintains a firm stance against engaging with sponsors of terror.
  • At the same time, India fears that staying out could exclude it from future deliberations affecting India–Pakistan crises.
• Security and Military Red Lines – Reports that Pakistan may offer troops for a Gaza stabilisation force further complicate matters. India has ruled out participation in non-UN military missions, reinforcing its preference for UN legitimacy.

A High-Stakes Strategic Choice

• India is unlikely to ignore the platform entirely, yet joining carries reputational and political risks. 
• The challenge lies in balancing engagement with caution—protecting India’s multilateral principles, domestic politics, and global credibility in a Trump-led forum.

Source: IE | IT | IE