Answer

Introduction

Participation in global peace initiatives enhances India’s moral and diplomatic capital by reinforcing its image as a ‘Vishwa-Mitra’ (Friend of the World). However, such engagement especially in non-UN frameworks like the U.S.-led Board of Peace (BoP) can dilute strategic autonomy by tethering India’s foreign policy to the unilateral agendas of major powers.

Body

India’s Decision to Stay Away: Context and Analysis

India skipped the BoP launch at Davos (January 2025-26) despite an invitation to PM Modi, opting for a cautious “wait and watch” approach.

• Erosion of Multilateralism: The BoP is perceived as a “parallel track” that seeks to supplant the United Nations in conflict resolution, contradicting India’s principled stand on UN primacy.
• Mandate and Mission Creep: While initially focused on Gaza’s “Phase 2” reconstruction, the BoP’s charter has sweeping language about “world peace” without explicit territorial limits.
• The ‘Pay-to-Enter’ Model: The board reportedly requires a $1 billion contribution for “permanent” membership, effectively commodifying peace-making. 
• The Pakistan Red-Flag: Pakistan’s immediate joining and offer of troops for the International Stabilization Force (ISF) makes India wary of the BoP wading into South Asian disputes.
  Eg: India fears that joining could lead to the BoP arbitrating on sensitive issues like Kashmir, given President Trump’s past offers of mediation.

Issues India May Face Post-Decision

• Diplomatic Isolation: Being the only major Global South power (beside China) to stay away may cede strategic space to rivals.
  Eg: Countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Turkey have joined, potentially leaving India out of critical reconstruction contracts in West Asia.
• Friction with Washington: Rebuffing a “passion project” of the U.S. President could impact ongoing trade negotiations and the iCET (Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology) partnership.
• Ceding ‘Peace-maker’ Narrative: Staying away might allow Pakistan to project itself as a more “proactive” contributor to global stability in West-centric forums.

What Can Be Done: The Path Ahead

• Principled Engagement: India should demand the integration of the BoP with UN-mandated agencies like UNRWA to ensure international legitimacy.
• Consultative Diplomacy: Maintain active back-channels with the BoP’s Executive Board (including members like Jared Kushner and Ajay Banga) without formal membership.
  Eg: India can contribute to Gaza’s reconstruction via bilateral aid or the I2U2 framework rather than the BoP’s centralized fund.
• Strategic Red-Lines: Clearly communicate that India will only contribute troops to UN-flagged missions, protecting its military from being used in non-UN “stabilization forces.”

Conclusion

India’s refusal to act on the “fear of missing out” reflects its maturity as a leading power. While moral capital is gained through participation, true strategic capital lies in the ability to say “no” to initiatives that lack transparency and bypass international law. By prioritizing principled multipolarism, India ensures that its voice for peace remains independent, credible, and unbought.

DOWNLOAD PDF