President Donald Trump launched the Board of Peace at the 2026 Davos Summit, positioning it as a pay-to-play alternative to the United Nations with a $1 billion fee for permanent membership.

Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif joined prominently, while India, despite an invitation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, opted to remain non-committal and absent from the signing ceremony.

This stark contrast has ignited debates across South Asia about strategic implications, optics, and India's principled stance.

The Board's charter, an 11-page document, omits specific mention of Gaza reconstruction despite its origins in overseeing post-ceasefire efforts there, instead claiming a broad mandate for global dispute mediation.

Trump chairs the body alongside a founding executive council featuring US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner, and others, with around 25 to 35 countries signing on initially, including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey, Indonesia, and Bahrain. Critics view it as a rival to the UN, with Trump asserting it could "do whatever we choose" once fully formed.

India's decision to walk away stems from multiple strategic red flags. Foremost is the optics of Pakistan's prominent inclusion alongside Trump, a nation India regards as a persistent security threat due to cross-border terrorism and the unresolved Kashmir dispute.

New Delhi likely sees no value in legitimising a forum where Islamabad gains an "inner circle" platform potentially to internationalise Kashmir, bypassing established UN mechanisms. Major powers like China, France, the UK, and Germany also skipped the event, signalling limited global buy-in and reinforcing India's caution against a US-centric initiative.

The $1 billion entry fee raises further suspicions of a "billion-dollar trap," resembling a transactional scheme rather than a multilateral institution grounded in equity. For India, already investing heavily in indigenous defence under Make in India and balancing ties with the US via QUAD, committing funds to an unproven body chaired by Trump—whose foreign policy often prioritises deal-making—poses fiscal and diplomatic risks.

The Board's golden logo, evoking opulence over substance, and its initial focus on Gaza and potentially Americas-centric issues, underscore a misalignment with India's priorities in the Indo-Pacific and South Asian stability.

Trump's explosive claim of personally averting a nuclear war in May 2025, purportedly saving 20 million lives, adds to the scepticism, lacking independent verification and fitting his pattern of bold assertions.

No credible reports confirm such an event, and it appears designed to burnish the Board's peace-making credentials amid Gaza ceasefire fragility. Pakistan may leverage this access to push its narrative on Kashmir directly to Trump, exploiting any FOMO pressure on India, but New Delhi's firm non-commitment reflects a mature strategy of multilateralism via the UN and G20.

India's absence underscores a commitment to principles over prestige. By avoiding Davos optics, New Delhi sidesteps entanglement in a potentially divisive venture that could dilute UN authority and empower adversaries.

This stance aligns with India's historical wariness of exclusive clubs, preferring inclusive platforms where its rising global heft—bolstered by economic growth and defence self-reliance—carries weight without upfront payments. The FOMO narrative overlooks India's leverage elsewhere, as evidenced by its robust US ties sans Board membership.

Pakistan's participation, conversely, signals a pragmatic bid for influence in a Trump-led order, possibly to counterbalance India and secure economic aid amid domestic challenges.

Yet, with limited signatories and absences of key players, the Board's shockwaves may fade, validating India's restraint as a masterstroke in long-term diplomacy. As Davos recedes, the initiative's true test lies in delivery, not fanfare.

IDN (With Agency Inputs)