For New Delhi, the invitation from US President Donald Trump to join his much-publicised Gaza Peace Board is less a straightforward diplomatic opportunity and more a delicate test of balance. While the offer places India at the table of a proposed high-profile global forum, it also risks pulling New Delhi into a framework that could clash with its long-standing principles on multilateralism, the primacy of the United Nations and a rules-based international order.
Trump has described the proposed body as “the greatest and most prestigious board ever assembled,” and invitations have reportedly gone out to several countries, including India. However, strategic analysts warn that membership of the so-called Board of Peace could prove to be a diplomatic minefield. Rather than complementing existing international institutions, the body is widely seen as an attempt to create a parallel global peace and security architecture under a Trump-led Washington, potentially diluting the authority of the United Nations Security Council.
The Board of Peace is conceived as a US-led intergovernmental platform to oversee the reconstruction of Gaza following the war and to manage what is described as the “second phase” of the US-brokered ceasefire. Announced in September 2025, the board is meant to supervise the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, a technocratic Palestinian body, while also handling reconstruction and the disarmament of Hamas. However, experts argue that its ambitions extend far beyond Gaza and into the broader domain of global conflict resolution.
Chaired by Donald Trump himself, the board is expected to include influential figures such as Jared Kushner, former British prime minister Tony Blair and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. To many observers, this composition reinforces the view that the initiative is designed to concentrate decision-making power in a select, Western-dominated forum rather than within inclusive multilateral institutions like the United Nations.
For India, which has consistently positioned itself as a strong advocate of multilateralism and reform of the UN system, this presents a serious dilemma. Joining a US-led body that appears to bypass or weaken the UN framework could undermine India’s credibility as a defender of multilateral order, especially among countries of the Global South. At the same time, declining the invitation is not without cost. Staying away could mean ceding diplomatic and strategic space at a moment when new, informal power structures are being actively shaped.
Adding to the complexity is the structure of the proposed Board of Peace. Permanent membership is reportedly tied to a mandatory contribution of one billion dollars to a reconstruction fund controlled by the board. This effectively turns peace-making into a pay-to-enter arrangement, limiting participation to a select group of states. Such a model stands in sharp contrast to the inclusive ethos of the UN General Assembly and raises questions about legitimacy, representation and fairness.
The ambiguity surrounding the board’s mandate further complicates India’s decision. While Gaza is its immediate focus, reports suggest that the charter avoids explicit reference to the territory and instead uses broader language such as “world peace.” This has fuelled speculation that the body could eventually expand its remit to other conflicts, effectively functioning as a US-dominated alternative to the UNSC. For New Delhi, aligning with such an initiative could blur its carefully maintained position on global governance.
The Palestine issue adds another sensitive layer. India has long supported a two-state solution and Palestinian rights, while simultaneously strengthening strategic, economic and defence ties with Israel. Participation in a West-centric, Trump-driven platform on Gaza would inevitably be interpreted through this prism. New Delhi would therefore have to manage not just policy substance but also diplomatic optics, particularly in the eyes of the Arab world and the Global South.
Trump’s own rhetoric adds to the unease. His earlier remark about the United States “taking over” Gaza and developing it as the “Riviera of the Middle East” sits uneasily with India’s stated positions. Navigating participation in a grouping led by Trump, while distancing itself from such statements and ideas, would require careful and sustained diplomatic calibration. This is especially important given Washington’s demonstrated willingness to deploy punitive trade measures at short notice.
Another complicating factor is Pakistan’s reported inclusion in the invite list. Pakistan has publicly confirmed receiving an invitation, while New Delhi has adopted a cautious wait-and-watch approach. Sharing a diplomatic platform with Islamabad, particularly on an issue as sensitive as Gaza, could trigger political criticism at home, given India’s firm stance against engaging with what it describes as state sponsors of terrorism.
Reports that Pakistan may contribute troops to a proposed International Stabilisation Force in Gaza further sharpen the contrast. India has categorically ruled out deploying its military in non-UN missions, reinforcing its commitment to UN-led peacekeeping frameworks. A forum where Pakistan seeks to project itself as a peace contributor, possibly with Trump’s endorsement, would be diplomatically awkward for New Delhi.
In essence, Trump’s Gaza Peace Board places India at a crossroads. Opting out risks marginalisation from a potentially influential platform, while opting in carries reputational, political and strategic risks. Any decision will require New Delhi to carefully balance engagement with a powerful US-led initiative against its long-standing commitment to multilateralism, the UN system and an independent foreign policy posture. How India navigates this tight-rope will be closely watched, both at home and abroad.
