Diplomatic Landmine? Why Joining Trump’s Gaza Peace Board Could Be Risky For India

India faces a difficult choice over joining Donald Trump’s US-led Board of Peace on Gaza, which critics see as a potential alternative to the UN Security Council that could undermine multilateralism. While staying out risks losing influence in global security discussions, joining carries diplomatic, political and reputational risks, especially given the Palestine issue and Pakistan’s reported inclusion.

A new US-led power centre for global conflict management is taking shape, and India finds itself facing a difficult choice. President Donald Trump’s proposed Board of Peace, presented as a high-level body to oversee Gaza’s post-war future, has extended invitations to dozens of countries, including India. Accepting, however, could force New Delhi into an uncomfortable diplomatic corner.

Described by Trump as “the greatest and most prestigious board ever assembled at any time, any place”, experts are viewing the initiative as more than a reconstruction mechanism. Many believe it could reshape global peace and security discussions outside the United Nations system, raising concerns for countries that have consistently defended multilateralism.

A US-designed platform for post-war Gaza

Announced in September 2025, the Board of Peace was established to oversee the second phase of the US-brokered ceasefire that concluded the 2023-2025 Gaza conflict. Its immediate task is to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction and supervise the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), a Palestinian technocratic body expected to govern the territory.

The board will also monitor the disarmament of Hamas. Donald Trump chairs the panel, which includes figures such as Jared Kushner, former British prime minister Tony Blair, and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The scale and composition of the group have prompted questions about its long-term intentions and reach.

A pay-to-join model raises concerns

Invitations to the Board of Peace have reportedly been sent to around 60 world leaders. Permanent membership, however, comes with a significant condition: a $1 billion mandatory contribution to a reconstruction fund controlled by the board.

This requirement has drawn criticism for creating an exclusive forum where influence is tied to financial capacity. Unlike the UN General Assembly or the Security Council, the board does not promise universal participation, raising fears that peace and reconstruction decisions could become selective and politically driven.

For India, this poses a direct challenge to its diplomatic identity. New Delhi has long argued for reforming the UN to reflect present-day realities, particularly the interests of the Global South, while firmly opposing efforts to sideline it.

Why staying out is not an easy option

Despite the risks, declining the invitation is also problematic. India has sought a larger role in global security discussions and would be reluctant to remain absent from a forum where post-war governance and reconstruction models are being debated.

With new international groupings emerging alongside traditional institutions, opting out could mean surrendering influence to others and being perceived as disengaged at a critical moment in global diplomacy.

Ambiguous mandate fuels wider fears

Unease over the Board of Peace is heightened by the lack of clarity in its founding document. While Gaza is the current focus, the charter reportedly avoids naming the territory. The New York Times has noted that broad references to “world peace” have sparked speculation that the body could expand its remit beyond Gaza.

Analysts warn this could signal an effort by Washington to establish a US-led alternative to the UN Security Council, consolidating decision-making under American leadership.

The Gaza prism and India’s balancing act

India’s approach to the Israel-Palestine issue has been deliberately measured. It supports a two-state solution and Palestinian rights, while maintaining strong strategic ties with Israel.

Participation in a Trump-driven, West-centric platform on Gaza would be closely scrutinised, particularly by countries of the Global South. The challenge is compounded by Trump’s past statement that the US would take over Gaza and redevelop it as the “Riviera of the Middle East”, remarks that India would want no association with.

At the same time, managing relations with Washington remains critical. The Trump administration has shown little hesitation in using tariffs and economic pressure as tools of diplomacy, limiting India’s room for open disagreement.

Pakistan factor adds another layer

India’s concerns are further sharpened by reports that Pakistan has also been invited to join the Board of Peace. Islamabad has confirmed receiving the invitation, while New Delhi has yet to respond publicly.

Reports suggest Pakistan may offer troops for a proposed International Stabilisation Force in Gaza — a move India has already ruled out, reiterating that it does not deploy forces under non-UN mandates.

Sharing a diplomatic platform with Pakistan is likely to provoke political backlash in India, particularly given New Delhi’s stance on terrorism. Experience at multilateral forums suggests that bilateral tensions could spill into board proceedings.

A choice with no easy answers

Trump’s Board of Peace places India in a familiar but sharpened dilemma: how to engage with emerging power structures without weakening the institutions it has long defended.

Joining carries reputational and political risks; staying out could mean strategic marginalisation. Any decision will require careful calibration, balancing India’s global image, domestic politics, and its relationship with an unpredictable but powerful United States.

How New Delhi navigates this moment will be a test of its ability to operate in a world where global governance is increasingly contested and increasingly fragmented.