The quiet legacy of the peacekeeper

Despite uneven power structures, UN peacekeeping has endured and remains central to conflict resolution

May 29 is the International Day of the UN Peacekeepers, where we honour a Nobel Laureate. Yes, the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the UN Peacekeeper, and the Indian peacekeeper had a big hand in this recognition. On this day, it is also apt to take stock of the present status of international peacekeeping, which is the raison d’etre of the United Nations.

The world realised the futility of conflict after World War I and set up the League of Nations, where nations could talk instead of going to war. Member countries included Germany, which had previously been at odds with others, and the United Kingdom and France were the largest donors. However, the United States did not join due to its isolationist-favouring political policy and its opposition to Article X of the charter, which required member states to safeguard the territorial integrity of others. US senators reportedly did not want to lose the right to make war-making decisions. The Second World War, thus, could not be avoided because the League lacked a peace-enforcement mechanism, leading to its demise.

The Second World War prompted the world to revisit the idea of an international organisation, leading to the birth of the UN, of which India was a founding member. Today, eight decades later, the geopolitical interests of the P-5, especially the US, are tending to sideline it despite the multitude of ongoing conflicts in the world. A recently released SIPRI report states that UN peacekeeping operations in 2025 reached their lowest level of the past decade, with deployed personnel dropping to 78,633. This number is half that of 2016 and the smallest in the past 25 years; 70% of the peacekeepers are deployed in sub-Saharan Africa.

India’s first contribution to peacekeeping was in 1950, when an army medical unit and troops were sent to Korea. Since then, India has been part of 53 of the 72 UN peacekeeping missions. In Africa, Indian Blue Berets have walked the swamps and deserts of many conflict-ridden countries, and even as this is being written, Indian soldiers are part of six peacekeeping missions there.

India’s first mission in Africa was to the Congo, from July 1960 to June 1964, where two Indian Army brigades were deployed. The Indian Air Force (IAF) was a key component, with six Canberra fighter-bombers for reconnaissance and later for offensive strikes. The Indian Army saw fierce action, and Capt G S Salaria was awarded the Param Vir Chakra posthumously.

The IAF had major contingents deployed in Somalia, Sierra Leone, Congo, and Sudan. This writer was privileged to lead the first IAF contingent in 2005 to the UN Mission in Sudan with six Mi-17 helicopters. We were liked by the locals, and the word Hind opened all doors. We met officials who had been schooled in Pune and Bengaluru. I met a Sudanese Colonel who was my student in our Staff College at Wellington. The area Governor had been to India and the locals related to Gandhi, Nehru, and, hold your breath, Akshay Kumar, whose three movies were running in Khartoum at the time, was the most loved actor!

Indian Army medical teams are much loved – and so is the veterinary doctor, an integral part of every contingent, who helps the locals tend to issues with their huge livestock – their only vital treasure. So, what is it that makes Indian soldiers a welcoming beacon in a strife-torn international arena? The answer lies in their even-handed handling of conflict situations, having a humane approach to problems and using dialogue to address differences.

Policy is an exclusive domain

Peacekeeping operations have graduated to peacemaking and peace enforcement, and further to stabilisation or state-building missions. Kinetic action under Chapter VII of the UN Charter has also been used. In Sierra Leone, IAF helicopters helped the Army break a siege and rescue 222 peacekeepers taken hostage for 75 days. Similarly, in Congo, IAF Mi-25/35s were the last resort at places where dialogue had failed.

Has India benefitted by its contributions to UN peacekeeping? The Indian flag has gained visibility and personnel have gained international experience, but the truth is that the UN is a blue-blooded political body and decisions made by the Security Council are moderated by the geopolitical interests of the P-5. It comes down to a nation’s contribution to the UN budget – and here, the rich Western nations, and lately China, get policymaking positions while the developing nations provide personnel who physically get into harm’s way.

Of the total peacekeeping budget, China’s contribution has increased from 2.49% in 2004 to 23.785% in 2025; India’s contribution has been 0.0842% in 2004, increasing to only 0.2212% in 2025. Thus, while India has contributed over three lakh troops, 16 Force Commanders, and lost 184 personnel in peacekeeping duties, the attainment of commensurate political leverage is debatable. China, with its contribution now just marginally below that of the US, sends a large number of troops too and is positioning itself to advantage; it is eyeing the post of the head of UN peacekeeping now.

At a doctrinal level, the UN’s practical utility has been periodically questioned. However, no other organisation exists that the world can approach for resolving international issues. It is the closest to what an honest broker can be, and even as attempts are being made to sideline it – did someone say President Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’? – The UN’s record of peacekeeping operations justifies its relevance. An article in Foreign Policy reinforces this view by stating that, “Since the end of the Cold War, the UN has attempted to end 16 civil wars by deploying complex peacekeeping missions. Of those 16 missions, 11 successfully executed on their mandates, and none of the 11 countries has returned to civil war.”

The Blue Berets have done their job in their unflinching fight for peace and deserve the world’s gratitude.

(The writer is a former Additional Director General, Centre for Air Power Studies)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.