There are a number of pros and cons as to why India should have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

The current composition of the UN Security Council is outdated, and as global geopolitics becomes increasingly complex and multipolar, there is an urgent need to reform the Security Council structure to address contemporary challenges. Including a country like India would be crucial for maintaining global peace and security.

To understand why India’s potential membership in the Security Council matters, we must first ask why this question exists. India has emerged as a leading performer on the global stage in various areas, including economic development, nuclear power, demography, global leadership, and significant contributions to international organizations. Most importantly, as the most populous country and the center of the world’s largest diaspora, India’s inclusion in the Security Council seems not only logical but necessary.

In 2010, during a visit to India, then-President Barack Obama mentioned that India should get a permanent seat in the Security Council, saying, “In the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed United Nations Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.”

In 2017, former President Donald Trump supported India’s bid for a permanent seat, and in 2023, President Joe Biden made similar remarks, which now seem like routine statements from the U.S. side.

Before debating the necessary reforms to the Security Council, we should ask which countries deserve to take a seat. The answer is straightforward: states that have played major roles in the world and have significantly contributed to the UN system. In Asia, India stands out as a major player in the global political arena as the world’s largest democracy and the fifth-largest economy.

Moreover, India is increasingly seen as a de facto leader of third-world countries. While India is often perceived as a recipient of aid from developed countries, it is also a donor to other developing nations. For instance, during Sri Lanka’s economic crisis, India provided $4 billion in aid. New Delhi also played a pivotal role in Sri Lanka’s steady economic recovery and has been consistent in addressing issues concerning the Tamil minority community.

Bangladesh has initiated three major projects with Indian assistance, including two railway projects and a power plant. During the COVID-19 pandemic, India helped more than 150 countries by providing medicines, vaccines, and other medical equipment. India’s goal for a permanent seat is not just about national pride but about ensuring the Security Council structure reflects the current global order. India’s strategic location and geopolitical role in regional stability in South Asia further bolster its case for a permanent seat.

Germany, Japan, and Brazil are also strong contenders for a permanent seat on the Security Council. Germany and Japan are among the largest contributors to the UN budget. Brazil, a part of BRICS, has a long history of participating in UN peacekeeping forces and has a diverse society similar to India.

However, each of these countries faces opposition from neighboring nations. Brazil’s bid might be complicated by Argentina and Mexico. Likewise, India faces opposition from Pakistan and China, both of which have strategic reasons for opposing India’s permanent membership.

Several reasons support India’s candidacy over other major countries like Germany, Brazil, and Pakistan. As the world’s most populous country, India serves as a significant representative on the global stage. While Germany has substantial potential among European countries, Europe is already overrepresented in the Security Council. Brazil, although influential in South America, primarily exerts regional influence, whereas India’s role extends globally. Pakistan’s struggling economy and involvement in terrorism undermine its candidacy. India’s demographic significance, global reach, and stability make it a more deserving candidate for a permanent seat.

Another argument is why not replace Russia with India? Russia’s actions during the Ukraine war, including its missile attack on a children’s hospital in Kyiv, conflict with Security Council principles of peace and security. This could open the door for more deserving nations like India, which upholds democratic values and supports a just global order.

What perhaps further complicates the case for India is its approach to Kashmir.  New Dehli has routinely ignored UN resolutions focusing solely on Kashmir and the region’s goal of self-autonomy. Its human rights violations in Kashmir are also well documented, so these issues would need to be addressed by India.

Reforming the Security Council structure is crucial to addressing criticisms of it being “useless” and “lacking proper representation.” Increasing the Security Council membership to include members from different continents is essential. UNGA 78th session President Dennis Frances has stated that the current P-5 membership is not in harmony with contemporary geopolitical conditions.

The rising popularity and political influence of the G20 also pose a threat to the UN. Therefore, instead of declaring the UN irrelevant, we should seek ways to make it more suitable for the current global scenario. As Dr. Shashi Tharoor aptly said, “We should aim for a renewed, not a retired UN.”

As demands for UN Security Council reform gain traction, New Delhi is enhancing its global support and influence through strategic ties and bilateral talks. The time to amend the UN charter is now, and its legitimacy depends on its ability to adapt to the realities of the contemporary world.