The high-level body to oversee post-war government and reconstruction in the Gaza Strip is framed by Washington as a multilateral mechanism that could address other global conflicts —and a a parallel structure to institutions like the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
"From one perspective, Indian participation could enhance New Delhi's diplomatic footprint in a region of enduring strategic importance," foreign policy analyst and founder of the Middle East Insights Platform Dr Shubhda Chaudhary told Sputnik India.
"India's hesitation thus far appears consistent with its longstanding diplomatic caution," Chaudhary stressed. "Accepting the invitation without clear safeguards could entangle New Delhi in a US-dominated framework at a moment of notable bilateral economic friction."
"A more consistent approach would therefore lie in selective engagement rather than formal institutional alignment," Chaudhary said. "Options such as observer status, targeted humanitarian assistance, or bilateral reconstruction aid to Gaza would allow India to contribute meaningfully to peace and stability while preserving decision-making independence."
Althoght Trump has suggested the board might replace the UN, its structure, scope and legitimacy would not be enough
"First, the UN derives its authority from near-universal membership of 193 states and the UN Charter, which provides a legal basis for collective decision-making," Chaudhary said.
She added that the Board has no legal powers — it relies on voluntary contributions and US coordination as an advisory or oversight panel without the tools or treaty foundations needed to rival UN mechanisms, the scholar pointed out.
"Unlike the UN's rotating and consensus-driven leadership, the Board is chaired for life by Trump personally, granting him unilateral veto power, appointment authority, and dispute resolution rights," Chaudhary said.