Explained: This article explains the political background, key decisions, and possible outcomes related to Explained : India’s dilemma over Trump’s Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ and Its Impact and why it matters right now.
US President Donald Trump on Thursday launched his so-calledBoard of Peace (BoP) initiative, which will attempt to cement the Israel-Hamas ceasefire in Gaza and oversee a transitional government in the Palestinian territory.
India is among dozens of nations that have received letters of invitation to join the board. However it is not yet clear whether New Delhi will accept the offer.
Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India has dramatically strengthened ties with Israel, becoming its largest weapons importer from 2020-2024, with bilateral trade reaching nearly $5 billion (€4.27 billion) annually.Â
Yet, India simultaneously maintains its support for the “Palestinian cause.” Â
In 1975, it became the first non-Arab country to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as “the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”Â
New Delhi operates a representative office in the West Bank city of Ramallah, provides $5 million annually to the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), and consistently backs peace talks and a two-state solution to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
Trump’s Board of Peace (BoP) could complicate India’s established diplomatic approach.
India assesses the challenges of joiningÂ
Foreign policy experts and diplomats are divided on whether India should join — with concerns ranging from institutional legitimacy to strategic costs.
“There are some serious issues that India will have to consider and walk a diplomatic tightrope,” Muddassir Quamar, associate professor at the Center for West Asian Studies at Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University, told DW.
“While the diplomatic challenge of dealing with an unpredictable US President remains primary, the lack of clarity on the purview and structure of the BOP needs to be contemplated.”
Quamar pointed to the reported $1 billion (€850/€870 million) contribution required for permanent membership as a significant barrier, adding that India’s commitment to a Palestinian state within the UN framework would weigh heavily.
However, he dismissed Pakistani involvement as a determining factor, suggesting India would likely consult regional partners like Israel and the UAE before deciding.
Why some experts urge India to participate
TS Tirumurti, a retired diplomat and India’s first representative to the Palestinian Authority, argues India should participate precisely because the board has UN Security Council approval and the region remains strategically vital.
“The BOP is not really challenging the UN,” Tirumurti told DW.
“Given restricted representation, at best it will challenge the primacy of the G20, which also has restricted membership. Since the US wants the G20 to focus on economic issues, the BOP could become the geopolitical counterpart of the G20,” he said.
Tirumurti dismissed fears that an unrepresentative body could substitute for the UN Security Council, arguing the board might eclipse it temporarily but cannot replace it.
More importantly, Tirumurti believes India’s participation would amplify Global South concerns rather than undermine them.
“India’s presence in any body has always been a voice of reason and pragmatism,” he said.
“In addition to voicing our interests, India has usually voiced the concerns of the Global South. If India joins the board, I am confident that our role will be no different.”
Why others caution against joining
Sameena Hameed, chairperson of the Center for West Asian Studies at Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University, takes the opposite view.
She argues India is unlikely to join due to legal ambiguity, uncertain prospects, and high political costs.
The proposed governance role lacks necessary stakeholder consent, she said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Wednesday that he accepted Trump’s invitation to become a BoP member.
But Hamas, which remains active in Gaza and is engaged in violent power struggles with rival clans and groups, is “excluded entirely” from Trump’s initiative, Hameed noted.
“Beyond Gaza, the board’s reported extension to ‘contested areas’ erodes UN primacy in conflict management, setting a precedent India typically avoids,” Hameed told DW.
“The board’s institutional design vests disproportionate authority in the Chair, initially the US, with uneven member composition and asymmetrical decision-making rights,” she said.
“This undermines its credibility as a genuine multilateral body.”
She warned that participation carries steep costs, potentially damaging strategic relations with Israel while simultaneously denting India’s principled Palestinian support.
Her recommendation is to maintain strategic ambiguity, as India has done effectively in the past to preserve foreign policy autonomy.
A conditional path forward
Ajay Bisaria, former high commissioner to Pakistan, offers conditional support. He warns that any attempt to use the board to revive a unipolar world order will face resistance, and expects the initiative’s expansion beyond West Asia to fail given European pushback.
“India should tread cautiously, examining the fine print and negotiating terms before considering participation,” Bisaria told DW.
He suggests India could join if the board remains focused on West Asia, potentially offering a medical contingent for Gaza in line with its peacekeeping tradition.
“History suggests India won’t rush,” he said.
For now, New Delhi is watching carefully as other major powers deliberate, unwilling to be first in or conspicuously left out.
Edited by: Keith Walker