As discussions around former US President Donald Trump’s potential return to the global stage intensify, so too do speculative policy initiatives associated with his potential administration. Among these, a proposed ‘Board of Peace’ for the tumultuous Gaza Strip has garnered attention. While such a concept might prompt various global reactions, India’s response has remained notably measured, exhibiting a characteristic strategic patience rather than an eager rush to engage. This deliberate approach is not merely passive but deeply rooted in India’s foundational foreign policy principles, its complex geopolitical interests, and a steadfast commitment to multilateralism.
A Legacy of Principled Non-Alignment
India’s foreign policy towards the Israel-Palestine conflict has historically been a delicate yet firm balancing act, deeply informed by its post-independence ethos of non-alignment. From the very outset, India has consistently advocated for a two-state solution, recognising an independent, sovereign Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel within secure and recognised borders. This stance is not merely rhetoric but a reflection of India’s belief in self-determination and the peaceful resolution of disputes under international law.
Trump’s past approaches to the conflict, including the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the Abraham Accords, were largely perceived as unilateral initiatives that departed from long-standing international consensus and often seemed to favour one side. For India, engaging prematurely with a similar, potentially one-sided ‘Board of Peace’ could imply a departure from its principled stance. New Delhi understands the intricate history and deep-seated grievances at play, believing that a lasting peace cannot be imposed unilaterally but must emerge from genuine negotiations, mutual recognition, and the broad endorsement of the international community. India’s reluctance stems from a desire to maintain the credibility of its consistent foreign policy, which prioritizes equitable solutions over politically expedient, and potentially divisive, proposals.
Geopolitical Balancing Act and Strategic Autonomy
India’s engagement with the West Asian region is a tapestry woven with multifaceted relationships. It enjoys strong strategic and economic ties with Israel, particularly in defence and technology. Simultaneously, India maintains robust relationships with various Arab nations, crucial for energy security, trade, and the welfare of millions of Indian expatriates. This intricate web necessitates a foreign policy that avoids alienating any key player. Joining a US-led peace initiative, especially one potentially lacking broad regional buy-in, could risk disrupting these carefully cultivated relationships.
Furthermore, India places immense value on its strategic autonomy. As a rising global power, New Delhi prefers to chart its own course, engaging with global issues on its own terms rather than being perceived as merely following another nation’s lead. A rush to endorse a speculative ‘Board of Peace’ could be seen as compromising this autonomy, particularly if the framework deviates significantly from multilateral agreements and resolutions. India prefers mechanisms backed by institutions like the United Nations, which offer a more inclusive and legitimate framework for durable peace. As a prominent Indian foreign policy analyst recently observed, “India’s approach to the West Asian conflict has always been guided by a deep-seated commitment to international law and the rights of both peoples. Any initiative that doesn’t fully embrace these tenets, and isn’t born from a broad international consensus, will naturally be met with cautious observation from New Delhi.” This sentiment underscores India’s preference for inclusive, internationally sanctioned pathways to peace.
Domestic Considerations and Long-Term Vision
Beyond geopolitical calculations, India’s foreign policy decisions are also mindful of domestic considerations. The Palestinian cause resonates deeply with certain sections of India’s large Muslim population. While domestic politics do not solely dictate foreign policy, the government is generally keen to avoid actions that could be perceived as abandoning a long-standing position of support for Palestinian rights, particularly if a proposed peace initiative is seen as unbalanced. Maintaining internal harmony and social cohesion is an important, albeit unstated, factor in India’s measured approach to such sensitive international issues.
Finally, India’s long-term vision is one of a multipolar world where global governance is based on consensus and cooperation, not unilateral dictates. Its leadership roles in platforms like the G20 and BRICS underscore its commitment to building global solutions through collaboration. Engaging in a potentially unilateral “Board of Peace” proposal would contradict this vision, undermining the very principles India advocates on the international stage. New Delhi understands that true peace in Gaza requires a comprehensive strategy addressing humanitarian needs, security concerns for both Israelis and Palestinians, and a viable political horizon for a Palestinian state – elements often overlooked in quick-fix proposals.
In conclusion, India’s measured response to the idea of a Trump-backed ‘Board of Peace’ for Gaza is a testament to its mature and principled foreign policy. It reflects a nation deeply committed to international law, strategic autonomy, and the pursuit of a just and lasting peace rooted in comprehensive solutions rather than fleeting political gestures. India’s deliberate pace is not indecision but a carefully calibrated strategy to navigate the complex geopolitical landscape of West Asia, ensuring that any engagement aligns with its core values and long-term national interests.
