New Delhi- The irony is difficult to miss: the United States has constituted a so-called ‘Board of Peace’ while granting Pakistan a prominent role within it.
Images from Davos, showing US President Donald Trump in warm conversation with Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, were more than symbolic. They signalled a disturbing indifference to well-established facts and lived realities.
Pakistan’s record is neither unclear nor contested. For decades, it has been accused of sponsoring cross-border terrorism against India—violence that has taken thousands of lives and displaced lakhs. The perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks originated from Pakistani soil. Osama bin Laden, the architect of the 9/11 attacks, was found hiding in Abbottabad, within close proximity to a major Pakistani military facility.
More recently, the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam once again highlighted the persistence of this threat. India has borne the brunt of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism for decades, and this is a reality well known to the United States.
Beyond terrorism, Pakistan’s internal record offers little confidence. From the violent suppression of dissent in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to allegations of electoral manipulation, compromised judicial independence, military dominance over civilian institutions, and systemic persecution of minorities, the country has consistently struggled to uphold basic democratic principles.
Yet, despite this history, Pakistan has been accorded a place of prominence on Trump’s Board of Peace.
While announcing the board, Trump spoke of ending decades of suffering, breaking cycles of hatred, and building a “beautiful, everlasting and glorious peace”. The rhetoric may sound noble, but it raises a fundamental question: can peace be achieved without dismantling terror networks and holding state sponsors—most notably Pakistan—accountable?
The Board of Peace appears less like a genuine multilateral initiative and more like a personalised political mechanism, aimed at bypassing established post-war international institutions and replacing them with a US-centric authority. History shows that when peace becomes politicised, caution is not merely advisable—it is essential.
India’s scepticism is grounded not in cynicism, but in experience. In recent years, New Delhi has observed instability across its neighbourhood—Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Nepal—often shaped by external influences and selective international interventions.
So-called neutral peace platforms frequently carry hidden agendas, shaping narratives through soft power, moral pressure and media amplification rather than democratic legitimacy or accountability.
The real danger lies not in the pursuit of peace, but in how peace is defined and enforced. Such forums often operate outside recognised multilateral frameworks, offering simplified readings of complex conflicts where historical context becomes inconvenient. Accountability is frequently demanded of those willing to engage in dialogue, while those actively undermining peace escape scrutiny.
For India, this imbalance is particularly concerning. Decades of cross-border terrorism, proxy conflicts and repeated attempts to internationalise its internal security challenges have continually tested its restraint.
Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s historic bus journey to Lahore in 1999 was a sincere gesture of peace. The Kargil conflict that followed served as a stark reminder of the dangers of misplaced trust.
It is therefore legitimate to question how a ‘Board of Peace’ can include a state that has consistently compromised peace. Has the US forgotten the lessons of Abbottabad, or has strategic expediency eclipsed memory? The visible bonhomie between Trump and Pakistan’s military establishment only intensifies these concerns.
India, the land of Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi, does not require sermons on peace. It views peace not as a spectacle, but as a responsibility. This is why New Delhi must approach Trump’s invitation to join the Board of Peace with measured caution.
The board’s original mandate—monitoring the Gaza ceasefire and reconstruction—has already expanded, with Trump suggesting it could even supplant the United Nations in resolving global conflicts. Such ambitions, devoid of institutional checks and broad inclusivity, should trouble any serious democracy.
With Pakistan seeking to project itself as a key interlocutor, the danger of it exploiting such platforms to revive its Kashmir narrative is real. India has effectively countered such moves at the United Nations and elsewhere in the past, and remains capable of doing so again. Nevertheless, vigilance is imperative.
Peace that disregards history, excuses terrorism and rewards duplicity is not peace—it is an illusion. Pakistan remains a terror sponsor, and it is deeply unfortunate that the United States appears willing to overlook this reality.
With inputs from IANS