India has adopted two distinct but carefully calibrated positions toward initiatives led by US President Donald Trump, choosing to formally join the technology-focused Pax Silica coalition while limiting its participation in the Board of Peace to observer status. The differing responses reflect New Delhi’s effort to align international engagement with national interests rather than signalling inconsistency in foreign policy.
India officially became part of Pax Silica on Friday, a coalition designed to strengthen secure and resilient technology supply chains among trusted partner nations. The initiative focuses on cooperation in critical sectors such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence, rare earth minerals, and advanced manufacturing. For India, participation aligns closely with strategic priorities that include reducing dependence on China-dominated supply chains, expanding domestic technological capabilities, and strengthening economic security. The move also helps reset momentum in India–US relations by shifting cooperation toward future industries and innovation-driven partnerships.
Pax Silica, launched in Washington in December 2025, functions as a non-binding cooperation framework rather than a formal treaty arrangement. Its objective is to coordinate policy alignment, investment screening, export controls, and supply-chain diversification among member countries including the United States, Japan, South Korea, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel, the Netherlands, Singapore, Qatar, the UAE, and now India. By joining the grouping, India gains access to allied capital, technology collaboration, and coordinated strategies aimed at reducing what policymakers describe as “coercive dependencies” in strategic sectors where China currently holds significant dominance.
India’s participation also complements domestic initiatives such as the National Critical Minerals Mission, which focuses on stockpiling essential resources, overseas asset acquisition, and large-scale mineral exploration projects. Investments in rare earth processing, dedicated supply corridors, and a Rs 7,280 crore programme to build permanent magnet capacity align closely with Pax Silica’s goal of securing inputs essential for electric vehicles, renewable energy, defence manufacturing, and semiconductor production. Officials have indicated that membership strengthens India’s electronics and semiconductor ecosystem while preserving policy flexibility because the arrangement does not impose binding obligations.
In contrast, India adopted a more cautious stance toward the Board of Peace, a multilateral body established under Trump’s leadership to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction and broader peace initiatives. Although Prime Minister Narendra Modi was invited to participate, New Delhi chose to attend the inaugural meeting only as an observer, represented by India’s Charge d’Affaires and Deputy Chief of Mission in Washington, Namgya C Khampa. The decision signalled engagement without formal endorsement.
The Board of Peace differs significantly from Pax Silica in structure and purpose. Unlike the technology coalition’s cooperative framework, the Board operates as a centralised political organisation with Trump serving as lifetime chairman, holding authority over membership invitations, decision-making, and leadership succession. The body was created following a UN Security Council resolution endorsing a Gaza reconstruction framework but has since been described by its proponents as potentially expanding its mandate to address broader global conflicts.
This structure has generated concern among analysts and policymakers, particularly because critics argue it could overlap with or even challenge existing multilateral institutions such as the United Nations. Statements suggesting that the Board might function in an oversight role relative to the UN have intensified debate about its legitimacy and long-term implications. Additional features, including a reported $1-billion joining fee and highly curated membership, have reinforced perceptions that the organisation resembles a selective coalition rather than a universal multilateral forum.
Indian strategic thinkers and former diplomats have expressed reservations about joining a body perceived as personality-centric or heavily dependent on a single leader’s authority. Concerns also extend to sovereignty and strategic autonomy, as an expandable mandate could potentially involve discussions on conflicts or regional issues sensitive to India’s national interests. Participation in a politically charged conflict-management institution carries diplomatic risks, particularly when outcomes and governance structures remain uncertain.
India’s contrasting choices therefore reflect differing cost-benefit calculations. Pax Silica offers economic and technological advantages with minimal political exposure, strengthening supply-chain resilience and positioning India as a key Global South participant within a Western-led technology partnership. The Board of Peace, by comparison, involves geopolitical commitments, conflict mediation responsibilities, and institutional uncertainties that New Delhi appears unwilling to embrace fully at this stage.
By joining one initiative while maintaining distance from the other, India has demonstrated a calibrated foreign policy approach that balances cooperation with strategic caution. Engagement where national interests align — particularly in technology and economic security — is paired with restraint in initiatives that could compromise institutional norms or strategic autonomy. Rather than contradiction, the dual approach underscores India’s effort to maximise opportunities while avoiding entanglement in uncertain political frameworks.
