When the US Ambassador to India, Sergio Gor, shared on social media that President Donald Trump has invited Prime Minister Narendra Modi to join the Gaza ‘Board of Peace’, he would have certainly lined up strong arguments in favour of India taking up the offer instantly.
India’s strong ties with Israel even while supporting the Palestinian cause and readiness to extend humanitarian assistance to the people suffering in Gaza are strong reasons for India to consider joining the board, the ambassador might argue. Gor, who presented his credentials to President Draupadi Murmu at the Rashtrapati Bhavan just last week, needs to spend more time here to understand India’s strategic and security concerns.
One very strong and strategic reason for India, one of the founding members of the United Nations Organisation (UNO), to not join the board would be that Trump’s Board of Peace is in reality an alternative to the UN. Touted as an organisation to “promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict”, the BoP was proposed by Trump in September 2025.
This was done not out of humanitarian concern but because the President sensed a business opportunity in real estate in Gaza, which he called a failed “Riviera of the Middle East.” During a White House meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in February last year, Trump described the territory as a “demolition site” with high redevelopment potential, suggesting that the US should “take over” and “own” Gaza.
A risky path
The formal announcement of the Board came on 15 January because, as Trump argued, “the United Nations never helped me”. As the self-appointed chief of the board, “Chairman Trump” can adopt resolutions, take initiatives without consulting anyone else, and singularly hold veto power. And for this one–man show, countries are expected to pay $1 billion as fee to have a permanent seat on the board. This initiative to establish peace in Gaza is probably the first major post-war reconstruction effort proposed by Chairman Trump.
While India, a civilisational nation with a long history of democracy and diplomatic credibility centred around strategic autonomy in a multilateral world, would certainly appreciate Trump’s efforts, it would indisputably prefer to stay out of any ad-hoc, personalised, and partisan peace initiatives undertaken at the cost of the United Nations, however worst its performance might be. A Trump–owned board evidently tied to an American politician’s whims and fancies is not an institution, multilateral forum or international organisation that India should risk being part of, especially when such a board openly seeks to undermine the very existence of the UN. Besides, the board could, in all probability, either be wound up or become non-existent after Trump demits office or is no longer in a position to run it.
In these seven decades since Independence, India’s foreign policy success has been deeply embedded in non-alignment, multilateralism, and firm and consistent commitment to upholding national self-esteem and strategic autonomy. As a founding member, India has several concerns about the way the UN is administered. Yet India’s best bet would be to approach the highly polarising and emotive issues such as the Israel-Palestine conflict and Gaza redevelopment efforts through UN’s institutional approach.
It would also be pertinent to note that Trump’s approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict has been largely guided by his interest and tilt toward Israel and unconcealed apathy toward the suffering of the Palestinian people, who are caught between a trigger-happy army and a self-serving, solipsistic terrorist outfit like Hamas.
Trump’s baffling haste to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and his total marginalisation of the Palestinian Authority (PA) are diametrically opposite to India’s determination to stick to Tel Aviv as Israel’s capital and uphold the primacy of the PA in peace talks. India continues to believe that a peacefully negotiated settlement within the framework of a two-state solution is the best guarantee of peace in the Middle East. In all such bilateral conflicts involving two entities, such as Israel and Palestine; Russia and Ukraine, India has consistently preferred mutually negotiated or UN-monitored settlement, and never a third-party mediation.
Also read: Trump is dismantling the post-1991 world America built. He rejects a second superpower
Avenues for India
Needless to say, not joining Trump’s board does not mean total negation of the issues in the Middle East or any sort of disengagement with the issues there. India has a meaningful role to play — through humanitarian and medical assistance, reconstruction support, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), quiet diplomacy with all sides, through its Representative Office in Ramallah, and supporting other UN-led efforts. These avenues align with India’s capabilities, values, and long-term interests without compromising its autonomy or credibility.
This is not the first time that India would be refusing to join an individual or America’s unilateral initiative. Under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, India refused to deploy its army in Iraq in 2003, as requested by then-Bush administration, stating that it would participate in peacekeeping operations only under the UN banner.
India risks undermining its credibility by endorsing Trump’s personal project, which is devoid of UN authorisation. New Delhi should prevail upon the White House to make the Board of Peace part of the Department of Peace Operations (DPO), which is dedicated to assisting the UN member countries and the Secretary-General in their efforts to maintain international peace and security, Gaza included.
Seshadri Chari is the former editor of ‘Organiser’. He tweets @seshadrichari. Views are personal.
(Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)
Another reason could be that the US unilaterally starts a board on Kashmir and gets many mostly Muslim countries on board