To all Indian members here. A question...

[favabeans]

This was a rather well-argued thread. Now with chauvinists like @favabeans involved, it is going to be increasingly messy going forward.

Such a pity.

Of course, your ad hominem attacks immeasurably improves this thread.

 

[Nan Yang]

This myth has been around for years so Book mark this site for future occurrence of this myth.

dated September 28, 1955: UN seat: Nehru clarifies

Prime Minister Nehru has categorically denied any offer, formal or informal, having been received about a seat for India in the UN Security Council. He made this statement in reply to a short notice question in the Lok Sabha on September 27 by Dr. J.N. Parekh whether India had refused a seat informally offered to her in the Security Council. The Prime Minister said: "There has been no offer, formal or informal, of this kind. Some vague references have appeared in the press about it which have no foundation in fact. The composition of the Security Council is prescribed by the UN Charter, according to which certain specified nations have permanent seats. No change or addition can be made to this without an amendment of the Charter. There is, therefore, no question of a seat being offered and India declining it. Our declared policy is to support the admission of all nations qualified for UN membership.''

The Hindu : Miscellaneous / This Day That Age : dated September 28, 1955: UN seat: Nehru clarifies

India is a country of myth. Just like the myth of 36% of NASA scientists are Indian or the myth of 34% of Microsoft employees are Indian etc etc.

 

[favabeans]

This myth has been around for years so Book mark this site for future occurrence of this myth.

dated September 28, 1955: UN seat: Nehru clarifies

Prime Minister Nehru has categorically denied any offer, formal or informal, having been received about a seat for India in the UN Security Council. He made this statement in reply to a short notice question in the Lok Sabha on September 27 by Dr. J.N. Parekh whether India had refused a seat informally offered to her in the Security Council. The Prime Minister said: "There has been no offer, formal or informal, of this kind. Some vague references have appeared in the press about it which have no foundation in fact. The composition of the Security Council is prescribed by the UN Charter, according to which certain specified nations have permanent seats. No change or addition can be made to this without an amendment of the Charter. There is, therefore, no question of a seat being offered and India declining it. Our declared policy is to support the admission of all nations qualified for UN membership.''

The Hindu : Miscellaneous / This Day That Age : dated September 28, 1955: UN seat: Nehru clarifies

India is a country of myth. Just like the myth of 36% of NASA scientists are Indian or the myth of 34% of Microsoft employees are Indian etc etc.

LOL!

Wow, the mental retardation involved with perpetuating this myth is something to behold.

 

[Pride]

Did you even read? Nehru recommended that the United States and Soviet Union grant the PRC a UNSC permanent seat. The ones who had the power to grant the seat were the US and the Soviet Union, NOT Nehru.

I seriously don't understand your issue. The post was from "The Washington Post" and after you confirmed, I rechecked and accepted that this was flaw from "The Washington Post" so forget about Nehru. Regarding Power, Lets not go on to that route as that is again complex. After winning WWII, It was mutual decision by the founding members to give "Friend Nations" as Permanent Seat so again by your logic no one "granted" the seat if this word is troubling you. You are also wrong that PRC was given seat in 1971, It was ROC who was having seat which after fight with Taiwan, discussed and changed because PRC was mainland and legitimate owner and not ROC as Taiwan.

Did you even read? I said UNSC permanent seats were given to the FIVE victorious allies of WWII, of which India is NOT a member. In fact, India was a colony the UK during WWII.

You are again not reaching to the point, Even India was colony of UK, India was treated as exception and included as separate nation.

 

[favabeans]

I seriously don't understand your issue. The post was from "The Washington Post" and after you confirmed, I rechecked and accepted that this was flaw from "The Washington Post" so forget about Nehru. Regarding Power, Lets not go on to that route as that is again complex. After winning WWII, It was mutual decision by the founding members to give "Friend Nations" as Permanent Seat so again by your logic no one "granted" the seat if this word is troubling you. You are also wrong that PRC was given seat in 1971, It was ROC who was having seat which after fight with Taiwan, discussed and changed because PRC was mainland and legitimate owner and not ROC as Taiwan.

You are missing my point again. Here, read this: The Hindu : Miscellaneous / This Day That Age : dated September 28, 1955: UN seat: Nehru clarifies

Do you understand now?

You are again not reaching to the point, Even India was colony of UK, India was treated as exception and included as separate nation.

What are you talking about? I was talking about the UNSC permanent seats, not ordinary UN membership. The UNSC permanent seats were given to the five victorious allies of WWII.

Was India one of the FIVE Allied Powers that prevailed over Germany and Japan in World War II? Was it? NO! India was NOT one of the five.

Are you retarded? Why is this so difficult to understand?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Of course, your ad hominem attacks immeasurably improves this thread.

Shotgun charges of 'retardation' being perfectly acceptable, of course. But then that is not intended ad hominem, only ad pecuram, presumably.

 

[favabeans]

Shotgun charges of 'retardation' being perfectly acceptable, of course. But then that is not intended ad hominem, only ad pecuram, presumably.

Of course it's acceptable. You don't think you are the only one allowed to do it, do you?

 

[Pride]

You are missing my point again. Here, read this: The Hindu : Miscellaneous / This Day That Age : dated September 28, 1955: UN seat: Nehru clarifies

Do you understand now?



What are you talking about? I was talking about the UNSC permanent seats, not ordinary UN membership. The UNSC permanent seats were given to the five victorious allies of WWII.

Was India one of the FIVE Allied Powers that prevailed over Germany and Japan in World War II? Was it? NO! India was NOT one of the five.

Are you retarded? Why is this so difficult to understand?

Mr Intelligent, Here is your statement.

"Where did you learn your history? The UN was founded in 1945, BEFORE India was even a country.
The permanent UN Security Council seats were given to the five victorious allies of World War II, which are the U.S., U.K., France, the Soviet Union, and China. India was a colony of Britain and contributed very little to allied victory over Germany and Japan.

I see, Nehru continues his lies through history textbooks.

What did you Indians do to deserve such the disastrous Nehru family of cronies and idiots?"

Now tell me what you were talking when you said India was not even a COUNTRY. By your logic, India should not be UN member forget the rest.

Rest, Nehru Clarified- I agreed, Article was bogus- yes it was, agreed by me, China was in P5 as ROC- yes it was. I understood everything and any sane person can go by that logic but you are unnecessary trying to save your statements and want to argue about word "Granted". I think you are the one who is retard. Discussion over from my end.

Apart from all this, I still feel that Nehru was major reason for Indo-China war and this sobbing backstabbing story is made up by Nehru.

 

[fallstuff]

Maybe it's time to reawaken this thread in light of the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report. This is proof that healthy conversation can be had between Chinese and Indian members if people put aside their reflexive feelings of nationalism.

Wow, back after a while, good to see you again !!!!

 

[favabeans]

Now tell me what you were talking when you said India was not even a COUNTRY. By your logic, India should not be UN member forget the rest.

Was India a country in 1945? Was it? It was NOT.

You really are Mr. Retard, aren't you?

 

[Pride]

1. Was India a country in 1945? Was it? It was NOT.
   
   You really are Mr. Retard, aren't you?

   This is for you Mr Idiot, from Wikipedia. Don't try to expose yourself further :-
   "In principle, only sovereign states can become UN members. However, although today all UN members are fully sovereign states, four of the original members (Belarus, India, The Philippines, and Ukraine) were not independent at the time of their admission.[7]India signed the Declaration by United Nations on 1 January 1942 and was represented by Girija Shankar Bajpai who was the Indian Agent-General at the time. Afterwards the Indian delegation led by Sir Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar signed the United Nations Charter on behalf of India during the historic United Nations Conference on International Organization held in San Francisco, United States on 26 June 1945.[8] Sir A. Ramasamy Mudaliar later went on to serve as the first president of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Technically, India was a founding member in October 1945, despite it being a British colony. India, Canada, Union of South Africa, New Zealand and Australia were all British colonies but were given independent seats in the UN General Assembly. India gained full independence in 1947."

 

[favabeans]

1. 
   This is for you Mr Idiot, from Wikipedia. Don't try to expose yourself further :-
   "In principle, only sovereign states can become UN members. However, although today all UN members are fully sovereign states, four of the original members (Belarus, India, The Philippines, and Ukraine) were not independent at the time of their admission.[7]India signed the Declaration by United Nations on 1 January 1942 and was represented by Girija Shankar Bajpai who was the Indian Agent-General at the time. Afterwards the Indian delegation led by Sir Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar signed the United Nations Charter on behalf of India during the historic United Nations Conference on International Organization held in San Francisco, United States on 26 June 1945.[8] Sir A. Ramasamy Mudaliar later went on to serve as the first president of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Technically, India was a founding member in October 1945, despite it being a British colony. India, Canada, Union of South Africa, New Zealand and Australia were all British colonies but were given independent seats in the UN General Assembly. India gained full independence in 1947."

Dumbass, did you even bother to read your own source?

"In principle, only sovereign states can become UN members. However, although today all UN members are fully sovereign states, four of the original members (Belarus, India, The Philippines, and Ukraine) were not independent at the time of their admission."

According to your own quote, India was not a sovereign state in 1945.

Wow, you are absolutely the most retarded member here in a long, long time.

 

[Vinayak Tiwari]

god knows why but zhou en lai once stated that the dalai lama was also one of the causes of the war

 

[Pride]

Dumbass, did you even bother to read your own source?

"In principle, only sovereign states can become UN members. However, although today all UN members are fully sovereign states, four of the original members (Belarus, India, The Philippines, and Ukraine) were not independent at the time of their admission."

According to your own quote, India was not a sovereign state in 1945.

Wow, you are absolutely the most retarded member here in a long, long time.

You are an epic case and need to quickly check yourself for Mental asylum. Not sure why Mods are not taking care of you . What I am mentioning is that though, India was "NOT" Independent country does not make a case for UN Permanent Seat or Security council or stopping it from being Founding member. So legitimizing China (ROC in this case) only because it was independent Country is wrong assumption at your end but your peanut size brain is beyond capable of understanding that. You need fresh air, go and buy bags of fresh air.

 

[favabeans]

You are an epic case and need to quickly check yourself for Mental asylum. Not sure why Mods are not taking care of you . What I am mentioning is that though, India was "NOT" Independent country does not make a case for UN Permanent Seat or Security council or stopping it from being Founding member. So legitimizing China (ROC in this case) only because it was independent Country is wrong assumption at your end but your peanut size brain is beyond capable of understanding that. You need fresh air, go and buy bags of fresh air.

Man, you are a retard. Nobody cares if India is a 'founding' member of the UN.

Was India or Nehru in a position to 'grant' RoC or PRC a permanent membership to the UN? Obviously NO. That's my point.

Man, you are such a retard, I bet you'd kill a fish by drowning it.