The Diplomat: India’s Dilemma: To Be or Not to Be Part of Trump’s Board of Peace
On January 22, U.S. President Donald Trump led a signing ceremony for the founding charter of the Board of Peace at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
While some 19 world leaders stood alongside Trump on the dais at Davos for the Board’s formal launch, no one from India was present at the event. India is among 60 countries that Trump had invited to join the Board. India said it is “examining the proposal.”
India is caught on the horns of a dilemma.
Technically, the BoP has its roots in a U.N. Security Council Resolution passed in November 2025. That had welcomed “the establishment of the Board of Peace as a transitional administration with international legal personality that will set the framework, and coordinate funding for, the redevelopment of Gaza.”
A look at the BoP’s charter, its structure, and India’s current state of ties with the U.S. offers some clues to India’s cautious response.
There are questions whether the BoP will supplant the United Nations. The BoP charter has no reference to Gaza but talks of conflict resolution in a broad context. There are references to the BoP working to ensure “peace in places where it has proven elusive” or to “secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.” Then there is Trump’s own remark: “I think we can spread it out to other things as we succeed in Gaza.” This means it can be extended to other conflicts, although its mandate rose only from the U.N. resolution on Gaza.
India is concerned that the BoP could turn its attention to Kashmir. India is sensitive to any hint or attempt at foreign mediation in its decades-old dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir. It has stoutly rejected all such initiatives previously, including those by Trump in his first term in office.
More recently, India rejected comments by Trump claiming credit for stopping the military clashes between India and Pakistan in May last year, which followed a terrorist attack in Pahalgam. India’s dismissal of Trump’s remarks that he prevailed on the two nuclear-armed countries to end their conflict or face tariffs is seen as a key reason for the souring of ties between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the U.S. president.
Another reason India may be examining Trump’s invite closely is that the BoP includes arch-rival Pakistan. India has repeatedly expressed its reservations over Pakistan trying to “internationalize” or draw in other countries as mediators in the dispute. Add to this New Delhi’s discomfiture with the fact that Trump’s relations with Pakistan have warmed significantly since May last year.
Ad
But staying out of the BoP means India will have few means of countering Pakistan’s efforts to embarrass it from within the board. This would be similar to what happens in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – a group of more than 50 Islamic countries — that regularly passes anti-India resolutions on Kashmir. The resolutions routinely target India’s alleged human rights violations and call for a plebiscite in the region.
“India generally has to work through its friends and well-wishers, some of whom could be indifferent at times,” an Indian government official who did not want to be named told The Diplomat. “It makes a difference if you are in the room” when issues related to India are being discussed, the official added, referring to the OIC resolutions.
But India would like to avoid rebuffing Trump outright by declining the invite to the BoP. India is in the midst of negotiating a trade agreement with the U.S to lower the 50 percent tariff imposed on it.
Then there are initiatives like Pax Silica – a U.S. venture to secure the supply chain of critical minerals and build advanced manufacturing and logistics capabilities that are seen as critical to new cutting-edge technologies, including semiconductors and AI. It is unclear whether Trump would include India in such projects should it categorically refuse to join initiatives like the BoP. India was not in the first list of countries named by the U.S. to be part of the grouping, but added later.
With Trump set to be in office till 2029, India will need to ensure a working relationship with the U.S. president, seen as mercurial, volatile and quick to take offense. So far, India’s strategy is to manage relations with the Trump administration without succumbing to pressure from Washington.
According to T.S. Trimurti, India’s former permanent representative to the U.N., India would gain rather than lose by agreeing to participate in the BoP. “India’s presence in any grouping has always been a voice of reason and pragmatism. If India joins the board, I am confident that our role will be no different,” he told The Diplomat.
In the BoP, India could amplify the concerns of developing countries, burnishing its credentials among countries of the Global South. This is important given that India was seen as supportive of Israel immediately after the October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas, and muted in its condemnation of the civilian deaths in Gaza caused by Israel’s military operations. Officially, India supports a negotiated solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. While New Delhi has supported and financed projects that help Palestinians, it has moved closer to Israel in recent years.
Ad
Other analysts have warned that the BoP, though endorsed by the U.N., “represents a decisive departure from the consensus-driven multilateralism of the post-1945 order toward a transactional, executive-centric model of conflict management.”
Trump is inaugural chairman of the BoP, a role that gives him unbridled powers and “largely unchecked authority,”
A former Indian ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Yemen, Ausaf Sayeed, has drawn attention to “the Charter’s explicit monetization of influence: states contributing more than US$1 billion within the first year are exempted from term limits, effectively securing permanent membership and sustained voting power, while non-paying members are restricted to renewable three-year terms at the discretion of the Chairman.”
Ajay Bisaria, former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan and Canada, has said that instead of totally rejecting the offer to join the BoP, India should “give it conditional support,” making clear New Delhi’s position that it was comfortable with the BoP rebuilding Gaza but not emerging as an alternative to the U.N.
Speaking to The Diplomat, Bisaria said that “India and the U.S. should have a conversation on this bilaterally,” and Delhi could pitch in with efforts like sending medical teams, help with reconstruction in line with its reputation as a contributor to peace.
Given that the BoP doesn’t have impressive representation so far, with prominent European countries staying away, India could use this opportunity to negotiate its participation in the BoP for a price. This could be lower tariffs or a quicker trade deal with more benefits for itself. And who better to negotiate with than transactional Trump himself?
India has long complained about the U.N. system, including its outdated structure that keeps countries like itself out of the decision-making U.N. Security Council. But that does not mean India is giving up on multilateralism or is comfortable with the BoP. India has always argued in favor of a multipolar world with India as one of the poles. If Trump intends the BoP to become the basis of a new global governance architecture, India could seize the moment to negotiate a bigger and more prominent space for itself in the biggest global shakeup since 1945.
India does not need to participate in the BoP at the head of government level. The charter provides for countries to nominate representatives. Given such ambiguities, India should carefully look at the possibilities the BoP has opened up and make the most of the global flux it has wrought. There would be no great damage should India undertake such a cost-benefit analysis in an increasingly transactional world.
XXX
This article was first written by Elizabeth Roche for The Diplomat.