A Critic and an Apologist: India’s Quest for UN Security Council Permanent Membership

Since the inception of the United Nations (UN), the Security Council membership has been a contentious issue. It is mainly so for two reasons. Firstly, the primary task of maintaining international peace and security lies with the Security Council under the UN Charter. Thus, having prohibited the use of force in general, the Charter authorizes the use of force and other forms of measures against any State for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security under chapter seven of the UN Charter. Secondly, any decisions taken under chapter seven by the Security Council are binding on all the UN member States. The permanent five (P5), China, France, Russia, UK and USA, also enjoy veto power, one of the most controversial aspects of the UN system, which requires concurrent vote of all permanent members on all except procedural matters. For this reason, the Security Council is considered as an undemocratic institution vested with the significant function of maintaining international peace and security, where P5 States can prevent any substantive decision being taken with their negative vote. Thus, there has been discussion to reform the Security Council and bring new members into it to make it more representative and transparent. There have been several proposals for reforming it. India is one of the prominent contenders for the permanent membership along with countries like Brazil, Germany and Japan. Some of the arguments in favour of India’s case are that it is the largest democracy in the world, with a sizable geographical area and population and also it is a growing economy. This chapter attempts to critically evaluate India’s position in relation to the UN Security Council reform.