Why no permanent seat for India in the United Nations Security Council | S Jaishankar | TOI

What’s India’s relationship with the UN?
For starters, India has been one of the largest contributors of troops and police personnel. As of 2021, India has contributed over 200,000 peacekeepers to the UN, making India one of the largest troop-contributing countries to the United Nations globally.
India is also a very vocal advocate for the UN’s peacekeeping missions and has emphasized the importance of these missions in maintaining international peace and security. The other thing that defines India’s relationship with the UN deals with promoting human rights.
India has been a strong advocate for the protection of the rights of women and children and has played a leading role in the UN’s efforts to address violence against women and girls.
India has also been active in the UN's efforts to promote the rights of people with disabilities and has advocated for the inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society.
To add to this, India has also played a leading role in the United Nation’s efforts to address climate change. So much so, that in 2015, India was a key player in the negotiation of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change which aims to limit global temperature increases and encourages countries to reduce their carbon emissions. In fact, India has gone one step further on following through on the mandates of the Paris Agreement with the Indian Cabinet having recently approved PM Modi’s five climate targets, nicknamed the Panchamrit strategy looking at non-fossil energy capacity, renewable energy use, reducing carbon emissions and carbon intensity and achieving net zero by 2070.
According to the ancient Indian Hindu epic Mahabharata, Panchamrit refers to five Ayurvedic elements (milk, honey, curd, sugar and ghee) for good health. Perhaps the most significant thing that you may not even be aware of about the India-UN relationship is that India is one of the world’s largest financial contributors to the United Nations. India gives the UN over 40 MILLION USD every year which helps support the UN's various activities, including peacekeeping operations, humanitarian assistance, and the promotion of human rights.
If India is doing so much for the UN, why isn’t it a permanent member?
The fact is that India is more than qualified to have a permanent seat but faces resistance from the 5 permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Though the USA has recently endorsed India, it has NOT done so in the past. And permanent members might only be supporting India because they very well know that China will VETO India’s candidacy.
So, if not a permanent seat, is India getting any ROI from the UN?
Keep in mind, the UN is one of the world’s largest international organizations, made up of 193 member countries. It would be non-strategic for India to quit the UN. And though the United Nations (UN) has faced significant financial challenges in recent years, due to multiple member states falling behind on their financial obligations to the organization, it STILL remains relevant because it serves as a platform for worldwide cooperation and dialogue.
What’s noteworthy here is that India has an ambitious geopolitical agenda for 2023 focusing on prioritizing Eurasian connectivity, counterterrorism, and the stabilization of Afghanistan. Perhaps one of the most significant benefits for India is that it has leveraged the UN to CALL Pakistan out on terror activities.
#indiaunscpermanentmembership #indiaunscpermanentmember #UNSCpermanentseat #unitednations #unsc #unitednationssecuritycouncil #unscpermanentseatforindia #india #un #indiaatun #narendramodi #jaishankar #unscmembership #usa #france #china #russia #uae #corequestions
Subscribe to The Times of India's KZbin channel: goo.gl/WgIatu
For daily news & updates and exclusive stories, follow the Times of India
Facebook:
/ timesofindia
Instagram:
/ timesofindia
Download the app: toi.in/3SLUCa80
Follow TOI+ for well-researched and in-depth news and analysis
Facebook:
/ timesofindiaplus
Twitter:
/ toiplus
Instagram:
/ toi_plus

[@ramfulsurendra7003]

I disagree. India didn't condemn russia because russia has same rights as USA that has caused sufficient numders of aggression in the world like in vietnam and Iraq to mention only these two. If USA can do so many, then it is obvious that somebody else too have rights to do so. You just cant😋blame Russia and allow USA and China to go scot free. JAIHIND

[@user__100]

Replace UK with India at UN Security Council

[@niocococo]

UK is an ally of USA, we USA will not allow it.

[@ramfulsurendra7003]

Should actual security council be dismantled and make a new one with india as chairperson and zero veto powers to any members except chairperson. A new w council is more than ever expected to resolve so many burning world issues. JAIHIND

[@randym1788]

new one with India as the chairperson? And why do you think every other country in the world will vote for India? ROFL

[@rajureddy9236]

I love my india

[@sankaramenon9336]

We have an independent Foreign policy

[@someguy2707]

Great Analysis Priyanka!

[@PriyankaDeoJain]

thank you! 🙏

[@internationalenglish7413]

India should produce millions of teachers and send all over the world to teach math and science. That will influence the world more positively than any country has ever done.

[@SHARMA_FAN]

Because indians are legends in maths and physics. No one can defeat indian youth in math particularly those from iit

[@redpillmatrix3046]

India is already doing it, Lots of top professors and scientists in top universities are indian and Indian origin.

[@changjuma6302]

@@SHARMA_FAN the truth is india just got 9th in IMO 2023

[@ch012]

This is a good situation only...it is clear that china will not allow entry of India as permanent member....so we should keep pushing and be visible in world politics..

[@rayli588]

Don't always single out China. Even if China agrees to India's accession, the other four countries will still definitely exercise their veto power, they are all bullies.

[@Henrycus5321]

we won’t let India become the sixth person in permanent seat, the cake was not enough to share for six person, I hope Indian get what I mean.

[@vaishnavihr279]

UNSC is not a piece of cake, it is the responsibility of the member country to make the world a secure and better place to live But instead u r funding Russia Ukraine war by selling ur weapons to Ukraine A proud Indian

[@pyfirst214]

India cannot apply for Permanent UNSC for the next 50 years because they have applied 5 times and failed. 😂

[@nguyentrinh793]

🌷🌷🌷🌻

[@shobhamekala2590]

WHEN WILL INDIA BECOME A PERMANENT MEMBER OF UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL? IT HAS BECOME A BIG DREAM FOR INDIAN CITIZENS.

[@LTBOA]

永远都不可能，至少在印度变成一个真正的文明国家之前。

[@neonroy1431]

Why she trying to talk like britishers, is bharatiya accent not good ?

[@LTBOA]

印度口音不好

[@kappukalarziyaaudhin401]

unless India becomes economic super power {with less corruption,less infighting of different faiths both are secondary factors) but economic superiorty with top manufacturing and research may give a place.but China will never accept unless we prove better than chinese in most aspects.USA and Russia may say that there are in favour but they know it will not happen as of now.

[@jason34007]

Why China, it is strange. India has already surpassed UK, so replace UK is a nice solution.

[@hsiachongong104]

If the India government can avoid the discriminate on races and religious issues, improve on the social structures, land ownership, bureaucratic practice in government agencies, eliminate corruption practices in agencies, the road in path with china will get close.

[@adharshviswanath1949]

You missed some - abolishing democracy, creating correctional facilities, abolishing freedom of expression and rule of law, ranking citizens by social credit score, extra judicial disappearances, disregarding private ownership where it suits the party priorities, salami slicing in both sea and land, debt trapping vulnerable countries etc to name a few.

[@cameronk4758]

The USA did try to get India to replace the Republic of China in 1950 and the Soviet Union tried to get India to replace communist China after the USA had tried to get India on the council but both times it was rejected by India. Theres a reason why a statue of Patel is made and not Nehru, Nehru was an idealist while Patel was a realist.

[@itstactic1287]

Well said 👏🏼👏🏼

[@chittaranjansamanta955]

India should not its proactive role in UNSC since 5 permanent members internally objecting Indias permanent membership in UNSC.

[@randym1788]

While there is no doubt that Russia has helped India more than the US, but supporting the invasion of a sovereign country just because the invading country is a friend isn’t deserving if a seat in the security council. Would you want someone appointed as a judge just because they always supported their true friends?

[@The1HemantShah]

UR in the left field buddy. Modi told Putin clearly that this ERA is not of War but of Peace.....how do u say that India supports Russia in this war? India did not send arms or personnel to Russia. India buying oil from Russia is not supporting the war......Because Europe is also buying Gas from Russia. Why are you bias in favor of Europe and against India??

[@knightatdawndonbynight8432]

On India's part A) India takes its trade interests seriously. India has trade interest, mostly of the nature of export, in the west but India has trade interests with Russia that is important for sustenance of growth of its economy, be it crude oil, minerals or fertilisers required for ensuring food security of a country of 1.4 billion people. In any case, India can not allow a scenario where a country like Russia with massive mineral resources, decent science, technology and engineering base, UNSC permanent membership with veto wielding power, massive nuclear warhead stockpile be globally isolated commercially and be reduced to having a monospony relation with China where Russia's foreign policy is dictated by China at the expense of India's strategic interests and Russia's cheap resources be used up to fuel further economic rise of China in the global stage at the expense of India's economic interests. Russia has been steadfast in its support of India especially by vetoing several western backed pro-Pakistani military dictatorship resolutions targeting territorial integrity, an area of core strategic interest of democratic India since India's independence. B) India understands Russian invasion of Ukraine as unjust and and categorically conveyed that to Russia expressing India's displeasure about it but India also understands that such a scenario has arrived because of NATO's push for eastward expansion even after nicety shown by Russia in dissolving the Warsaw pact (similar to NATO in structure, ambitions and organisation) which does not remain limited to military strengthening of new NATO member states but enhances possibilty of nuclear destruction of Russia with storing of nukes in new member states along Russia's immediate border, reducing Russia's ability to neutralise missiles directed at Russian territory while the US as a transcontinental "security provider", an offshore balancer if sorts, remains safer thousands of miles away in another continent, thus destabilising balance of power dangerously. C) India also stares at the possibility of Chinese aggression along India-China ceasefire line (known as the LAC) and India needs Russia's assistance for servicing, maintenance and upgrades of its weapons mostly acquired from Russia. While Western wrapons may be technologically more sophisticated and reliable than Russian weapons, Russian weapins are still superior to Chinese weapons that Indian armed forces will face and India requires cheaper weapons in greater quantities to fight with China that is economically ten times that of Russia and expensive westen weaoons do not fit into India's military budget. It will take another two to three decades and several tens of trillions of american dollar worth of money for India to switch over from Russian weapons to a combination of indigenous and western weapons. If India supports NATO blindly and tomorrow a war breaks out between India and China, India's russian origin weapons will become cold turkey in absence of russian support in maintenance and spare supply of those weapons and there is no guarantee that NATO will come in India's aid by providing as many weapons required to fight Russia. Having seen from Ukraine's experience of not being provided with frontline warfighting machines like western fighter jets required to push russians out resulting in Ukraine still remaining embroiled in war inside its own territory, India can not afford to remain stuck in a war in its own densely populated territories by trusting NATO blindly with titbits and hence instead of being at Nato's mercy, India wants to depend on weapons bought with its own hardearned money over the years. Also Russia has been of help to India in transfer of sensitive military technology of strategic nature, like design of nuclear submarine propulsion, long range air defense missiles (stuffs India needs to protect itself from China) or even development of cryogenic engines, that too in the backdrop of vehement opposition by the west. Why would india side with the west by sacrificing its core interests and ambitions when no such technology transfer from the west is forthcoming and the west does not treat India on merit and instead just intends to have it on their side like a muzzled dog (middle power vaguely toeing western narrative without much of its own voice) content with gunboats (weapons of tactical nature) only? Not to forget, inbaded by China in 1962, democratic India approached the west first fir military assistance and when the west dithered, only then India forged a strategic relationship with Russia. So long as India does become self-reliant on military equipment, it serves India's strategic interest to diversify foreign sources of its weapons so that unforeseen sanctions by one country or grouping in future does not cripple India's warfighting capabilities needed to safeguard its territorial integrity- the reason India buys weapons from other countries in order to not remain completely dependent on Russia is exactly why India will not stop buying weapons from Russia so that it does not become solely deoendent on the west to create a situation where the collective west can tinker with India's foreign policy and trade policy by leveraging threat of sanctions on sale, servicing and maintenance of weapons against India.

[@knightatdawndonbynight8432]

D) When it comes to shared democratic values, the west has supported military dictatorships of Pakistan with funds and mikitary weapons in their past wars against democratic India. Also the west using its militico-politico-financial clout in the UN, have fornulated a resolution in favor of Pakistan wherein the west in the garb of neutrality have secured Pakistan's de facto control of parts of Kashmir illegally occupied by Pakistan by means of force despite the fact that Kashmir legally acceded into India through instrument if accession as part of india independence act agreed to between the british indian colonial regime, Indian nationalists and pro-Pak faction of undivided India) and the west keep preaching india on arriving at a solution based on the biased resolution through a referendum. If the west wants to condine the illegality of Pakistani occupation of Indian territories and seeks a referendum on the basis of religion (India being hindu majority secular country while the Indian state of Kashmir is Muslim majority), India will ofcourse draw a equivalence in double standards of the west as the west promptly calls out Russian occupation of eastern ukrainian states as "invasion by Russia" (but does not call out Pakistan's invasion of Kashmir) and does not call for a referendum to be held on the basis of lignuistics to see as to which country between Russia and Ukraine, Russian speaking population of eastern Ukraine side with (very different from western stance of a referendum being held in Kashmiir). Democratic values and rules of order go both ways, they are not set in motion for being observed by developing countries like india at the cost of their core interests, that of their territorial integrity while being whimsically tweaked and twisted to suit to the farfetched strategic interests of rich western countries in faraway continents where they fund and support authoritarian, undemocratic, military dicatorships relgious theicracies, zealots, despots from time to time so long as they cater to the strategic interests only to have them bumped off in the name of cause of humanitarian intervention and spread of democratic values. E) India also finds the collective west's lecture on need for protection of sovereignty of democratic countries for the sake of democratic values when the west has among its ranks, the Great Britain that colonised India forcibly for 190 years and stripped indigenous Indian people of their sovereign right to determine on their military, foreign affairs, foreign trade policies and instead treated India like a captive market as well as an appendage of raw materials, treated generations of Indian workforce like indented laborers and overall bankrolled its industrialisation with exploits from india and also caused a massive policy induced famine in India in 1943 that resulted in death of 4 million indians yet got away scot free at the end of the world war 2 without paying any sort of reparation at the same time nazis were punished for warcrimes. India used to be the richest and second richest country for two millennia with its fairly populated country having GDP per capita around 80% that of europe when the british set foot on Indian shores as traders and gradually occupied india. India would not need western investment had not the british colonialists reduced india into posterchild of third world poverty. The western investment to India is for collextive benefit of India and the west, not a one way traffic, as it opens up new opporrunities for western businesses and multinationals in the large and fast developing market of India and multiplies hegemonic global milicifinancial presence of the collective west. Remember India already is the second largest investor to Britain in terms of FDI. Had the west really prioritised values over market forces, it would not let its companirs put up factories in communist china to help crank up its expansionist military might, it would not also force india in the '90s to get into free trade with China (by including china into the WTO) that remains in occupation of 43,000 sq km Indian territories since 1962. The west now wants India to boycott trade with Russia but then wanted India to trade freely without restrictions with China, an invader and continuing occupier of indian land just because China's inclusion in the WTO served its strategic interests. It is the same market forces that have preferred south east asia over india because of India's questionable business environment not very conducive to fresh investments due to India's labor protection laws, bureaucracy, overarchrhing judicial interventionism and cacophony associated with large multiparty democracy in a developing economy which India needs to pull up its socks on each front of. Any strategic motivation behind avoiding India would be visible and you will see a return of favor by India through purge of western businesses from India. KZbin will be kicked out of India to start with. F) Now that China has itself turned a total expansionist hegemon and challenged western hegemony camouflaged in curated rule of law, the west supports india regarding China as their mutual interests alig, for each other's benefit-it is not like west has sided with India out of sympathy or philanthropy. It is because India is geostrategically positioned on the other side of China, has decent industrial capacity, decent logistical and infrastructure capacity (ports, airports airbases, highway network, rail network etc) and massive young population with low wages all of which can be put to use as part of contingency plan in scenario of a long drawn invasion into Chinese hinterland that will cause attrition related fatigue in high gdp per capita west and drain human resources of the west in the form of foot soldier. Russia is a short term immediate irritant for cllective west, China that is already economically ten times larger than Russia is the real long term threat. You do not miss the wood for the tree, you do not want to lose India, 14 trillion USD GDP (PPP) economy of 1.4 billion people over Ukraine when you have your eyes set on China.

[@knightatdawndonbynight8432]

G) India is a nuclear power possessing credible deterrence with nuclear triad and buys weapons from the west paying money upfront, it does not beg for weapon in the wake of a war to remain at the mercy of the west, unlike Ukraine. All recent chinese incursions along India's borders have been engaged by means of proportionate military pushback measures by Indian forces leading to deescalations and climbdowns by China, which is a farcry from "India crying". China definitely has deeper pockets and gauntlet of numerically superior military equipment to throw at India but China knows that it may not control the outcome of any military adventurism climbing up the escalatory ladder to the extent of China being nuked by India. That is how deterrence works which is absent with Ukraine. So tone down comparing India's situation with Ikraine and measure your words wisely. H) UNSC permanent membership is not a charity to India. If a multilateral forum has to remain successfully relevant, it has to include one sixth of humanity that India is, into decision making process to address geostrategic challenges faced by the emerging new pole that India is so that India does not have to depend on veto of any third country to safeguard its core interests. The west's intransigence to not getvout of the american comfort zone of having countries of increasinhly diminishing importance, like France and the,UK as pet allies in the UNSC does not serve global good. It will not bode well for the collective west if Ondia in mid to long term gets out of the UN and and forms multilateral forum with likeminded countries challenging authority of the UN.

[@knightatdawndonbynight8432]

I) The US led west that has historical track record of sweeping under the rugs, its own historical crimes and wrongdoings, like the colonisation of India (in 1946 the allied forces held Nuremberg trial to punish Nazi leaders for their warcrimes conveniently forgetful of contemporary events like a famine in India engineered by chruchill that killed 3 million Indians in 1943- European colonisation of Africa is as recent as 1990, the UK keeps holding onto the Falklands islands and the US till date remains in forcible occupation of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, faraway from the American continent, that legally belongs to some tiny island country named Mauritius) keeps controlling historical narratives through its biased social media giants, academia and media that focus on selective peddling of its politically motivated propaganda while gagging the other side of the story through undemocratic ban (like the banning of the RT, ban of Donald Trump's Twitter account- let them say their bits and you also verbally counter if you belive in democracy, no?), disguising its strategic interests and petty vested interests in the name of righteousness and championing of democratic values and intervention on humanitarian grounds, the same "rules" based order that it wantonly violates whenever it suits its interests, like coopting undemocratic theocratic monarchies (like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Emirates, the erstwhile Shah of Iran- the hypocritical idea being "not being a democracy is okay till you are on our side") and military dictatorships (like several tenures of army generals like Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia and Musharaff in Pakistan, El Sisi of Egypt) so long as they align with its strategic interests (like Iraq's Saddam Hoessin, Mujahideen of Afghanistan), invading countries without UN authorisation (Bosnian and Kosovo wars, 2004 invasion of Iraq), fomenting colored revolutions and ousting democratically elected leaders ( like Victor Yanukovych of Ukraine) through means like Colored revolutions as though the rules it champions and preaches to others do not apply to the west itself. Would you want such a hypocritical and hegemomic "cozy judges club" from the collective west that whimsically bends the global commons and rule of law to suit its long term strategic interest in the disguise of and under the pretext of championing and protecting exalted human values like hunan rights, social justice and democracy and that is overtime to delegitimise Indian democracy in collusion with certain political factions within India in order to orchestrate a soft regime change in India with curated narrative of academia and media professing themselves as mainstream global public fora but in reality beholden to left leaning neocolonialist western deep states, an attempt no short of criminal activity of electiom interference in India, to apppint judges in the first place?

[@timhudson9037]

One simple reason: Violation of UN Resolution: S/RES/47 (1948) Reference: 1948 Security Council Resolutions

[@The1HemantShah]

you dont understand..Resolutions required Pakistan to remove its troops from Kashmir for a free and fair election whether to join India or Pak. Pak did not agree to pull troops out. So no plebisite.....dont blame India, please. British and US wanted to give Kashmir to Pak. But only Russian vitos saved India's integrity. Do u get it now, Mr. Hudson...?

[@santhoshd9591]

Well well still supporting Terriers.. twin tower lovers 😂😂🤣 love it when mad dogs bite in a$$ when they feel like✌️

[@anubhavsharma5495]

I don't think India gives $140 M+ to UN More like $40 M+

[@The1HemantShah]

Not Imp $s....India sends more troops for peace missions of UN. India is the largest and most responsible democracy. India was given a chance to join Sec. Council,,,but Nehru wanted China to join before India...ha ha ha ...Congress party has done more damage than anyone can think off,,,!

[@bhaggyduggal9980]

Read the article again - over 40 million!

[@123321ps]

​@@bhaggyduggal9980yeah sure, 40million plus one ...... Big deal

[@ganje3869]

Why no permanent seat for India in the United Nations Security Council? as an American watching Russia invade peaceful people. India crying over China constantly stealing Indian land. The logic seems a little weird as India was given a HUGE chance and still dilly dallys and chooses the less honorable approach. Why be friends with Country's like that? Your morality is showing friends. Fix it please. America Loves India or we wouldn't waste our time speaking.

[@soorajsekhar4774]

The comment makes no sense. Please indicate what has America done to help India in its troubles with China. Forget China has it helped in any way with India's problems with Pakistan? No infact America has always been supporter of Pakistan by giving it billion of dollars and weapons including F-16s. Do you have any idea of how Pakistan used this monetary aid to cause terrorism in India? Please dont lecture us on our stand in Russia- Ukraine, you have no moral grounds to do so

[@zeuspunz]

Your claim as an American does not really jive with the English that you spew.

[@nomanor7987]

When China invaded India, both Europe and the USA didn’t lift a finger. Now you expect India to condemn Russia, a true friend that has helped India in the past, a past that has seen nothing but hostility from the USA and Europe. No thanks, fix your own problems with Russia, and India does not wish you any luck with that!

[@srajan2002]

Obviously you don't have any knowledge of history in general and America - India history in particular. Your country has and is supporting terrorist countries like Pakistan. In 1971 you supported Pakistan by moving your seventh fleet into Indian Ocean, your President Nixon abused our Prime Minister. Russia has always been a trusted friend and has stood the test of time. The current war is again of your own country's making. Do no blame others for the stupidity of your government

[@randym1788]

While there is no doubt that Russia has helped India more than the US, but supporting the invasion of a sovereign country just because the invading country is a friend isn’t deserving if a seat in the security council. Would you want someone appointed as a judge just because they always supported their true friends?