It draws attention to an institution under growing strain at precisely the moment when the world most needs credible instruments for containing conflict.

Today's peacekeepers operate amid civil wars, armed militias, terrorism, organised crime, mass displacement and climate-related insecurity. Geopolitical rivalry frequently paralyses the Security Council, while host governments may withdraw consent or restrict a mission's movements. Social media can rapidly turn rumours into hostility against UN personnel. Drones and improvised explosive devices have altered the operational environment, even as a severe UN liquidity crisis has forced missions to reduce civilian staff and repatriate some uniformed personnel.

Peacekeeping itself rests upon a paradox. Blue Helmets are often sent where there is little peace to keep, yet they are expected to protect civilians, monitor ceasefires, facilitate humanitarian assistance and support political transitions without becoming another party to the conflict. They face criticism when they fail to intervene and accusations of partiality when they act forcefully. Their legitimacy depends upon consent, impartiality and restraint, but their credibility also requires the willingness and capacity to respond when civilians are threatened.

India's long peacekeeping record offers useful lessons for negotiating this difficult terrain. More than 290,000 Indian personnel have served in over 50 missions since the 1950s. Indian contingents have worked in places as varied as Korea, Congo, Cambodia, Somalia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Lebanon, Sudan, and South Sudan. This service has included infantry, policing, medicine, engineering, aviation, training and mission leadership.

The importance of that record, however, lies less in national pride than in what it reveals about effective peacekeeping.

The first lesson is that a peacekeeping mission cannot substitute for a peace process. Soldiers may prevent massacres, patrol buffer zones and create space for negotiations, but they cannot resolve the political struggles underlying a conflict. When parties have no intention of compromising, a mission can become an indefinite holding operation. Security Council mandates must therefore be linked to clear political strategies, credible diplomatic engagement and achievable priorities.

Second, mandates must match capabilities. A mission cannot be instructed to protect civilians across vast territory without adequate troops, intelligence, transport, communications, medical evacuation and logistical support. India and other troop-contributing countries, which bear much of the operational risk, deserve a meaningful role in formulating mandates and rules of engagement. Those who authorise operations and those who implement them must share both responsibility and information.

Third, civilian protection requires capability, disciplined by restraint. Peacekeepers must be prepared to use proportionate force when communities face imminent danger. Yet robust peacekeeping must not become open-ended war-fighting. Losing impartiality can endanger personnel, erode local consent and compromise the UN's ability to mediate. The essential skill is neither passivity nor aggression but calibrated action supported by sound intelligence and political judgement.

Fourth, community trust should be treated as an operational capability. Indian contingents have complemented security duties with medical camps, road repairs, veterinary assistance, support to schools and regular engagement with local communities. Such activities cannot replace governmental institutions or long-term development. They can nevertheless improve access, generate early warning and establish the confidence necessary for civilian protection.

Women peacekeepers are particularly important in this regard. India's deployment of the UN's first all-women Formed Police Unit to Liberia in 2007 demonstrated how women personnel can widen communication with local communities, assist survivors of gender-based violence and provide visible models of public authority. Female engagement teams, women military police and women officers should be integral to mission planning, rather than treated as symbolic additions.

Fifth, contemporary peacekeeping must defend information integrity. False allegations, manipulated images and coordinated disinformation can provoke protests, obstruct humanitarian work and place peacekeepers in danger. Missions need credible local-language communication, continuous engagement with community leaders and the capacity to correct misinformation quickly. Technology can assist peacekeeping, but it cannot replace human relationships.

Finally, legitimacy requires accountability. Misconduct by even a few personnel can damage an entire mission. Pre-deployment and field training must emphasise human rights, cultural sensitivity, civilian protection, prevention of sexual exploitation and responsible use of surveillance and artificial intelligence. Accountability is not external to operational effectiveness; it is one of its foundations.

Indian peacekeepers have served alongside equally committed personnel from Bangladesh, Nepal, Rwanda, Pakistan, Ghana and many other countries. Their collective experience carries a clear message. Blue Helmets can restrain violence, protect vulnerable communities and widen the space for political settlement. But they cannot manufacture peace where political will is absent.

The most fitting tribute to the personnel honoured in South Sudan would therefore be a renewed international compact: realistic mandates, dependable financing, stronger consultation with contributing countries and sustained diplomacy. In a fractured world, peacekeeping remains indispensable-but courage in the field must be matched by responsibility at the United Nations.

(The writer taught international organisations in the Department of Political Science at Bangalore University)

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