New Delhi – India has not committed to joining US President Donald Trump‘s proposed “Board of Peace” for Gaza, with government authorities continuing to examine the initiative announced last Friday. The Trump Board of Peace invitation, extended to approximately 60 countries over the weekend, presents several sensitive considerations for New Delhi, particularly regarding potential expansion of the body’s mandate to address conflicts beyond Gaza, including the Kashmir issue.
According to officials familiar with the matter, the Indian side acknowledged on Sunday that it had received an invitation to join the Trump Board of Peace but emphasized that the proposal requires careful evaluation due to multiple sensitivities. India’s established position remains supportive of a two-state solution and backing for all initiatives aimed at achieving lasting peace in the Middle East region.
Understanding the Trump Board of Peace Mandate
The Trump Board of Peace, according to letters sent by the US President to leaders of around 60 nations, is designed to work toward bringing lasting peace to Gaza while embarking on a “bold new approach” to resolve global conflicts. This ambitious scope is expected to lead to the formation of a global assembly with Trump serving as its leader, significantly expanding the initiative’s reach beyond its initial Gaza-focused mandate.
The Trump Board of Peace forms part of the second phase of a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Originally conceived to oversee governance and coordinate funding for Gaza’s reconstruction following devastating Israeli military operations, the body’s proposed role has since expanded to encompass broader global conflict resolution objectives.
Kashmir Concerns Drive India’s Hesitation
India harbors several critical sensitivities related to the Trump Board of Peace and its plans to assume a role in tackling global conflicts. Officials expressed concern that the body’s mandate could potentially expand to address the Kashmir issue, a matter New Delhi has consistently maintained is strictly bilateral between India and Pakistan, rejecting any third-party mediation or intervention.
In this context, Indian authorities point to Trump’s repeated claims about brokering a ceasefire to end a brief but intense four-day conflict between India and Pakistan in May 2025. New Delhi firmly rejected these assertions, clarifying that hostilities ended following an agreement between military officials of both countries without external mediation. This history informs India’s cautious approach to the Trump Board of Peace proposal.
The Trump Board of Peace framework’s broad language regarding global conflicts raises legitimate concerns for India about potential overreach into territorial disputes that New Delhi considers outside any international body’s purview. This sensitivity explains why Indian authorities are carefully examining the legal and operational framework before making any commitment.
International Response to Trump Board of Peace
India is not alone in its hesitation regarding the Trump Board of Peace initiative. France has indicated it does not intend to respond favorably to the invitation at this stage, with Paris currently examining the proposed legal framework alongside its partners. French officials have raised significant concerns about the Trump Board of Peace charter.
“The charter goes beyond the sole framework of Gaza. It raises major issues, in particular regarding respect for the principles and the structure of the United Nations, which cannot under any circumstances be called into question,” French officials stated. France maintains its commitment to a Gaza ceasefire and a credible political horizon for Palestinians and Israelis while upholding effective multilateralism.
The European Union, Russia, Belarus, and Thailand are among countries that have acknowledged receiving invitations to join the Trump Board of Peace. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney announced on Sunday that he has accepted Trump’s proposal in principle, demonstrating varied international responses to the initiative.
Executive Structure and Leadership
The White House announced last week the formation of an executive board to operationalize the Trump Board of Peace vision. This committee includes high-profile members: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, US special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and World Bank President Ajay Banga.
The inclusion of such prominent figures in the Trump Board of Peace executive structure demonstrates the administration’s serious commitment to the initiative, while also raising questions about governance, accountability, and the body’s relationship with existing international institutions like the United Nations.
Legal and Structural Concerns
Beyond India’s specific Kashmir-related sensitivities, the Trump Board of Peace raises broader questions about its legal framework and relationship with established international organizations. The proposal’s ambition to address global conflicts through a new structure led by the US President presents challenges regarding sovereignty, international law, and the role of existing multilateral institutions.
Countries examining the Trump Board of Peace invitation must consider whether participation would undermine existing international frameworks or strengthen global peace efforts. The initiative’s scope extending beyond Gaza to encompass global conflict resolution amplifies these concerns.
India’s Two-State Solution Position
Despite reservations about joining the Trump Board of Peace, India maintains its consistent support for a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. New Delhi backs initiatives genuinely aimed at achieving lasting regional peace while carefully protecting its own interests regarding territorial disputes and bilateral relationships.
As India continues evaluating the Trump Board of Peace proposal, authorities will weigh the potential benefits of participation in Gaza reconstruction efforts against risks of legitimizing a framework that could eventually address issues New Delhi considers strictly bilateral matters requiring no external intervention or mediation.
