Why is'nt india a permanent member in the security council of the uno??

Question

Why is'nt india a permanent member in the security council of the uno??

Answer 1

After Independence there was an offer to take India as on of the security council members, it seems. Standing on top of India's high moral ground, Prime minister J.L.Nehru spurned it inebriated with his own righteousness.

Security council is a relic of colonial times. It is a carry-over from the time of league of nations that was born after WW I (1914-18), that was given the task of dismantling the mutually warring empires of 'Austro-Hungary' and 'Ottoman (Turkish)' empires.

In contrast UN (Security Council is one of its organs) has a much more democratic and broad-based representation. Ostensibly mandated to prevent further wars, Security Council has its job to protect imperial interests of the victors, allied powers, till the internal fissures amongst them in the form of cold-war made things difficult. Result is SC was a helpless witness to numerous wars after. Notable of them were 'Korean war' with People's republic of China which was a non-member of UN and the 'Vietnam war' against Communist Vietnam which was similarly has a proxy member in the form of its adversary, South Vietnam. One cannot fail to see the writ of SC in the form of '38th parallel' in Korea and '17th parallel' in Vietnam that is history now.

In contrast India ploghed its own Non-alignment furrow against the imperial powers' hegemony in the company of Indonesia (who hosted Afro-Asian conference in Bandung in 1953) under President Soekarno, Egypt under President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Yugoslavia (now stands split into its 6 constituent republics + Kosovo) under President Josip Broz Tito. J.L.Nehru in the company of these great men basked in glory till economics took over. To become a member one has to demonstrate military muscle like China that was not even in UN but now a permanent (veto-wielding) member of SC, or assiduously cultivate all the five permanent SC members. Now after the de-colonisation work complete (only colonial patch remaining on any mainland leaving Greenland and the many islands in the 3 oceans, is South America's  'French Guiana'), and cold-war leading to fission fragments of USSR and Yugoslavia and the re-unification of Germany, SC virtually has become irrelevent. America is fighting its own war with no refernce to SC.

India did its own stints in unflinchingly sending its troops to all global hot-spots. Its role is so convincing that America craved this Indian indulgence to bail it out in Iraq. India chose to remain cool as the occupation of Iraq was not under the auspices of UN (or SC) like in Korea of 1953.

In this scenario what is the urgency for India to become a permanent SC member? In the past whenever India was in trouble to comply with Pakistan-sponsored SC resolutions on Kashmir USSR has vetoed on India's behalf. That India has failed to project Pakistan as the original aggressor in SC in Kashmir is nobody's case. Irretrievable damage has already been done. USSR has even vetoed a SC resolution on India to cease fire at the start of Bangladesh operation. But for this veto that held till the end of that war, Bangladesh wouldn't be an independent country now. India owes a great debt to USSR and its successor and prime-mover Russia that acted like a 'by proxy' permanent member of India. India needs to redeem that debt at least for friendship's sake.

In days to come, two of SC members shorn of their past imperial trappings will get reduced to average states and India with China that is already in SC permanently, will be thrust into globeal central stage. That is enough reward and if the SC permanent membership is offered then, it can only be a trophy, ego-booster.

One thing that can be learnt (my observation) is by defying SC you'll earn its respect. You can defy it only if militarily, economically and intellectually strong.

Answer 2

NO country should have a say in any other countries' internal matter unless it threaten their integrity or,  till the country in question requests for help. The veto power should be withdrawn, Each and every country should become permanent member of the UN security council. Important matters can be resolved democratically.

Answer 3

India wants,along with Security Council membership,the veto power too.But the five

veto wielding countries are not prepared to allow any other country to enjoy that power,

particularly the US which knows that its importance will be diminished.Left to the whims

of the US,that nation would prefer to enjoy

exclusive veto power.But since that can never be,the US has perforce to put up with the other four also enjoying the veto power.And the US

has the temerity to call itself a democracy when it is not prepared to concede equality to all.Sheer hypocrisy,if you ask me.

Answer 4

No country should. Veto rights must be eliminated.

Then you can call it The United Nations.

Answer 5

India is still out of security council bcoz every time some permanent member vetoed the decision but it appears consensus is building around the world and They can not stop india to become a member of security council.

Answer 6

It is more important to become powerful then becoming permanent member in the security council of the uno

Once we are powerful no need

They shall themself recognise

Answer 7

In simple terms,

India lacks POWER.

India must become Developed Self Reliant

From Services Industry Oriented to a Research & Innovation Development based

That can play a vital & responsible role in betterment of humanity & mankind

If it related to Security Council?

Who really Deserves to be there?

Those who have it in them to explore directions like these ...

Just for eg:

Should DRDO Research on strategic technologies like Passive Radar and Carpet Bombing? What do Indians say?

http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...

Also involves quadrupling to 64 IITs in India from 16

After studying Population Density & its strengths that can be put in Indian Interests