New Delhi: When US President Donald Trump’s invitation to join his “Board of Peace” landed in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s office, it arrived with a ticking clock.As Trump prepares for a formal signing ceremony on Thursday (January 22) at the World Economic Forum in Davos, India faces a choice that cuts to the heart of its foreign policy identity, according to veteran Indian diplomats who spoke to The Wire.Trump announced the Board of Peace on January 16 as a reconstruction mechanism for post-ceasefire Gaza. But the charter draft, which the US president will sign, tells a different story: there’s no direct mention of Gaza.Instead, the document describes an international organisation seeking to “promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict”. It emphasises “the courage to depart from approaches and institutions that have failed” – a barely veiled reference to the United Nations.The structure concentrates extraordinary power in Trump’s hands. He serves as “inaugural Chairman” with no term limits specified, giving him potentially lifetime control. More provocatively, the chairman holds “final authority regarding the meaning, interpretation and application of this Charter,” including veto power over all decisions.As of Wednesday, as many as 25 countries have reportedly signed on, according to US special envoy Steve Witkoff, with the UAE, Israel, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Kosovo, Bahrain, Belarus, Morocco, Hungary, Vietnam, Kazakhstan and Argentina publicly announcing their participation.India has still not made a decision, as per official sources on Wednesday night.For former diplomats like Asoke Mukerji and Ausaf Sayeed, the Board’s mandate creep poses a structural challenge to established global frameworks.While UN Security Council Resolution 2803 authorised a Gaza-specific mandate until 2027, Trump’s pronouncements suggest “conflict resolution elsewhere”, as Sayeed notes.The implications for Kashmir are obvious and alarming. “It would set wrong precedents for external interventions in disputes anywhere in the world,” Sayeed, India’s former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the Seychelles, warns. “But we are more concerned about South Asia, in particular about Kashmir now. Our firm stance has been against internationalisation.”Former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal is even more blunt. “The Board of Peace will address all conflicts or issues, and this will then give potentially a handle to Trump to start and to knock the heads of India and Pakistan together.”That prospect became more concrete on Wednesday, when Pakistan formally accepted the invitation to join the Board, signalling its intention to support what it described as steps toward a permanent ceasefire and humanitarian relief in Gaza. Pakistan’s foreign ministry said the decision reflects Islamabad’s “longstanding commitment to international peace and security” and support for the Palestinian cause.The prospect of both countries sitting under Trump’s chairmanship, with him holding final interpretive authority over disputes, represents precisely the kind of external mediation on Kashmir that India has spent decades resisting.The charter’s power structure compounds these concerns. As Sibal notes: “You are, by its very charter, accepting the overlordship of a single person who will decide as he pleases.”For a country that has built its foreign policy on strategic autonomy and non-alignment, formally accepting another leader’s indefinite chairmanship represents a significant philosophical departure.The absence of Palestine itself from the board adds another constraint on India’s participation. The structure includes a “technocratic Palestinian panel” to administer Gaza, but only under the Board’s supervision.Mukerji, who was India’s permanent representative to the United Nations in New York, frames this as disqualifying Indian membership in the Board. “As a member of the UN General Assembly that has voted to recognise the State of Palestine, and as a country that has recognised the State of Palestine bilaterally since 1988, India cannot get involved unless the State of Palestine itself is involved in this scheme.”India’s left parties have already seized on this, issuing a joint statement calling the Board a “grave betrayal of the Palestinian cause” and urging rejection.Yet not everyone sees the Board through this lens. T.S. Tirumurti, India’s former permanent representative to the UN, makes an emphatic argument rooted in strategic realism.“India should join the Board of Peace. It is strategically important for us,” Tirumurti argues. “If we don’t take a proactive role then you are leaving it open for countries like Turkey, Qatar, Pakistan and others to drive the agenda, that too on issues where we have strong interests including West Asia and Palestine.”In his reading, fears that a smaller, invite-only grouping could assume the role of the Security Council are overstated. “How can a less representative body take over the role of the UN Security Council? The only collective voice for more than a hundred small states is the UN. Therefore, the Board cannot substitute the UNSC, except to the limited extent of Gaza since there is a UNSC resolution to that effect,” he argues.Instead, he sees it potentially displacing the G20. “Representation-wise, at best it will challenge the primacy of the G20. Since the US, under its current presidency, wants the G20 to go back to its core focus on economic and financial issues, this could be the geopolitical counterpart of the G20,” he says.Rather than defending a paralysed Security Council, he suggests welcoming challenges to it. “Be happy that someone is challenging the liberal world order which is why the paralysis has come about.”His most pointed argument, though, is about reciprocity and credibility. “When we need others to support us in our issues, we also need to extend our support to their issues and conflicts,” he notes, citing the “lukewarm response” to India’s Operation Sindoor. “When we aspire for a permanent membership in the UNSC, one needs to convey our willingness to shoulder global responsibility.”India’s championing of Global South interests adds another layer of complexity. Many developing nations view the Board warily as a US-led challenge to the UN, where they’ve finally gained some voice through the General Assembly.Tirumurti counters that this gives India precisely the reason to engage. “While we have supported the Global South, we need to sustain our leadership role to be able to speak on their behalf. This gives us the strategic space and enhances our strategic autonomy.”Underlying much of the debate is a suspicion about the Gaza Peace Plan’s commercial dimensions. With Jared Kushner and real estate figures on the Executive Board, questions swirl about whether Gaza’s reconstruction will serve Palestinian needs or developer profits.“There are apprehensions that the entire board would lead to the commercialisation of Gaza’s reconstruction,” Sayeed says. “On the board, you have financiers who could prioritise profit over the actual needs and rights of the Palestinians.”That suspicion is reinforced by the Board’s headline feature – contributions of about $1 billion “in cash” for extended influence as a permanent member instead of a three-year appointment. While US officials insist “virtually every dollar” goes to reconstruction, the pay-to-play structure raises obvious questions about influence-peddling. Mukerji calls this “untenable for India”.The state of India-US relations complicates the picture further. Trump has imposed 50% tariffs on Indian imports, which New Delhi has been hoping to bring down by reaching a trade deal. The Board invitation arrives amid this pressure, creating a clear transactional dynamic.Former diplomats acknowledge this reality while downplaying its impact. “Our relationship with the United States is under strain following tariffs and other issues,” Sayeed notes. “But I feel that engagement through the Board may not substantially resolve these issues. These issues will actually be resolved by bilateral discussions, which are actually continuing.”Yet the threat is implicit in Trump’s treatment of France. After Macron snubbed the Board over concerns about UN primacy, Trump immediately threatened 200% tariffs on French wines and champagnes. The message to other reluctant invitees is clear.This creates what Sibal calls a tactical imperative for delay rather than refusal. “If you frankly say no, then he will do what he is doing to Macron,” he notes. “So the thing is to play along, to say that we will examine it and we will take a view in due course. String it up.”