Why India Should be a permanent member in UN security council?

[Sparten80]

The short answer is no.

Population does not decide entry in the UN Security Council.

I think the biggest point being...., india refuses to hold a (read) UN issued Plebiscite on Kashmir which it forcibly occupies and continues to do so.
so why would it want a seat on it.

Its many social indices are lower than those found in Sub-Saharan Africa

Rampant caste distinction/racism, extreme and endemic poverty, chronic food shortages, internal chaos and abuse of Sikhs, Christians, Dalits(untouchables) and Muslims.

Disputes with each and everyone of its neighboors bar no exception

Involvement and sponsorship of terror groups within its own and in neighbooring and regional countries (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Panjab(sikh) etc..)

Someone mentioned responsible nuclear power? if you call diverting peaceful Canadian nuclear reactors into a ''secret'' nuclear program responsible, then you might have to look at the definition again. India unnecessarily introduced nuclear weopons and WMD into South Asia by detonating a nuclear device in 1974 near Pakistan's border and is encouraging an arms race. Infact, many countries including Pakistan have been willing to make South Asia a nuclear free zone, guess who opposes it.. india.

India does not even come close to being considered a responsible nation let along one that could be part of the UNSC.

Again, though, this thread is just ridiculous, but Im going to repeat it again: They are refusing to hold a UN sponsored plebiscite in Indian occupied Kashmir!

 

[satishkumarcsc]

The short answer is no.

Population does not decide entry in the UN Security Council.

I think the biggest point being...., india refuses to hold a (read) UN issued Plebiscite on Kashmir which it forcibly occupies and continues to do so.
so why would it want a seat on it.

Its many social indices are lower than those found in Sub-Saharan Africa

Rampant caste distinction/racism, extreme and endemic poverty, chronic food shortages, internal chaos and abuse of Sikhs, Christians, Dalits(untouchables) and Muslims.

Disputes with each and everyone of its neighboors bar no exception

Involvement and sponsorship of terror groups within its own and in neighbooring and regional countries (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Panjab(sikh) etc..)

Someone mentioned responsible nuclear power? if you call diverting peaceful Canadian nuclear reactors into a ''secret'' nuclear program responsible, then you might have to look at the definition again. India unnecessarily introduced nuclear weopons and WMD into South Asia by detonating a nuclear device in 1974 near Pakistan's border and is encouraging an arms race. Infact, many countries including Pakistan have been willing to make South Asia a nuclear free zone, guess who opposes it.. india.

India does not even come close to being considered a responsible nation let along one that could be part of the UNSC.

Again, though, this thread is just ridiculous, but Im going to repeat it again: They are refusing to hold a UN sponsored plebiscite in Indian occupied Kashmir!

But with all this you mentioned....rest of the world dosent think so. Lets see who all among the P5 support India's seat in the Security council:

France supports India's bid for UN Security Council seat | NetIndian | India News | Latest News from India | Breaking News from India | Latest Headlines

China supports greater role for India in UN Security Council

UK's new PM, David Cameron supports India's bid for permanent seat in the UN Security Council - India news, Manmohan Singh, LK Advani, Sonia Gandhi, Bharat news, India online news, Congress party, Rahul Gandhi, Chandrababu Naidu

US hints at support for India's Security Council bid (Roundup) - Monsters and Critics

Dang!!! all 5 support India's bid for security council seat. and numerous other countries too are behind our bid like Brazzil, SA and others....so they all think that we deserve a permanent seat in the security council. I think they have taken into consideration about all you have told before deciding on their support. I guess India does deserve a permanent seat in the UNSC.

Well about the UN sponsored Plebiscite..read the resolution of Jan 20 UNCIP resolution which clearly stated that the PA was supposed to withdraw to their poisitions before the 1948 war which you didnt tend to do thus leading to cancellation of the plebiscite.

 

[Sparten80]

But with all this you mentioned....rest of the world dosent think so. Lets see who all among the P5 support India's seat in the Security council:

France supports India's bid for UN Security Council seat | NetIndian | India News | Latest News from India | Breaking News from India | Latest Headlines

China supports greater role for India in UN Security Council

UK's new PM, David Cameron supports India's bid for permanent seat in the UN Security Council - India news, Manmohan Singh, LK Advani, Sonia Gandhi, Bharat news, India online news, Congress party, Rahul Gandhi, Chandrababu Naidu

US hints at support for India's Security Council bid (Roundup) - Monsters and Critics

Dang!!! all 5 support India's bid for security council seat. and numerous other countries too are behind our bid like Brazzil, SA and others....so they all think that we deserve a permanent seat in the security council. I think they have taken into consideration about all you have told before deciding on their support. I guess India does deserve a permanent seat in the UNSC.

Well about the UN sponsored Plebiscite..read the resolution of Jan 20 UNCIP resolution which clearly stated that the PA was supposed to withdraw to their poisitions before the 1948 war which you didnt tend to do thus leading to cancellation of the plebiscite.

I dont understand your logic, or where your coming from:

is india a member of the UNSC............. NO
are there any talks/negotiations in this regard... NO
just because some countries support it, does that mean it ''deserves'' to be....again NO
The UN resolution on the Kashmir Plebiscite is still ongoing infact there is still a UN Kashmir mission on the line of control(the 2nd oldest UN mission since the creation of the UN organization)

Pakistan, the international community and the Kashmiri people continually ask for the plebiscite to be held, and Pakistan is ready to abide by any UN sponsored plan to carry out the plebiscite, the problem is india which has a large number of troops (the largest troop to civilian ration in the world) with a large number of paramilitaries and irregulars and it is india who refuses to hold the plebiscite.

I have read the resolution many times, I suggest you should read the ''entire'' resolution in its original form. Also, since you seem so interested in the resolution, you should also check out the following sites (if you ever really had any genuine concern about the Kashmiri people or a heart let along principals for that matter)


Auschwitz in Kashmir: Atrocities on Women and Children

A Catalogue of Indian Atrocities in Kashmir

Images of Indian barbarism against Kashmiri civilians

 

[Jade]

The short answer is no.

Population does not decide entry in the UN Security Council.

I think the biggest point being...., india refuses to hold a (read) UN issued Plebiscite on Kashmir which it forcibly occupies and continues to do so.
so why would it want a seat on it.

Its many social indices are lower than those found in Sub-Saharan Africa

Rampant caste distinction/racism, extreme and endemic poverty, chronic food shortages, internal chaos and abuse of Sikhs, Christians, Dalits(untouchables) and Muslims.

Disputes with each and everyone of its neighboors bar no exception

Involvement and sponsorship of terror groups within its own and in neighbooring and regional countries (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Panjab(sikh) etc..)

Someone mentioned responsible nuclear power? if you call diverting peaceful Canadian nuclear reactors into a ''secret'' nuclear program responsible, then you might have to look at the definition again. India unnecessarily introduced nuclear weopons and WMD into South Asia by detonating a nuclear device in 1974 near Pakistan's border and is encouraging an arms race. Infact, many countries including Pakistan have been willing to make South Asia a nuclear free zone, guess who opposes it.. india.

India does not even come close to being considered a responsible nation let along one that could be part of the UNSC.

Again, though, this thread is just ridiculous, but Im going to repeat it again: They are refusing to hold a UN sponsored plebiscite in Indian occupied Kashmir!

However, don’t be surprised if one fine day India is made a permanent UNSC member

 

[RescueRanger]

^^

There is no surprise to be had; no one with half a brain is loosing any sleep over this. If you consider that apart from India G8 nations such as Japan, Germany, have been hammering for seats.

Consider the 2004 member reforms proposed by Mr. Anan, where the G4 nations: Germany, Brazil, Japan, India were considered for their contributions:

Consider that Japan contributes to the UN as the 2nd largest donor, and Germany's importance within EU because of the Bunder's Bank and it's financial support to the UN.

In the BRIC nations: Brazil is also the popular "choice" for a permanent UNSC seat, it is seen as just as critical as India due to its massive commitment to troops to peacekeeping operations and will be keeping their non permanent member status till 2011.

But since 2004, non of the G4 members have secured a seat, despite Germany's commitment to the EU, despite JICA's work for UNICEF and UNDP and despite the tens of thousands of soldiers Brazil and India commit to CIVPOL operations around the world.

Consider this, that since 2004 the seat promised to Kenya / Botswana (Africa Region) and (Arab League Seat) still remain empty... Consider the inability of the UNSC to concur on matters relating to Chapter 6&7 of the charter or the enforcing of Security Council Resolution 1674 in conflict zones.

Add to that the all powerful "American VETO" and all you have is less of a council and more of a committee, and fred allen said it well

A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling to do the unnecessary.

So as far as im concerned, the world does not revolve around India, there are bigger fish in the pond with more to prove, and when India gets a seat in the near future, its actual significance is merely a novelty.

 

[Ras]

I don't understand the obsession to be a UN security council member..what exactly does India achieve with that? Absolutely nothing!

 

[Ras]

dear brother Whole world knows,that the world economy is driven by India & China,there no need to be jealous,read the writing on the wall

Not by India...not yet at least. The Indian economy has to be a lot bigger than the 1.5 trillion at present.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I don't understand the obsession to be a UN security council member..what exactly does India achieve with that? Absolutely nothing!

Ego and an petty elitist mindset to get special treatment - the same mindset that drives India to demand elitist treatment for itself in obtaining an NSG exemption for nuclear trade, despite not signing the NPT, while opposing the same sort of exemptions for Pakistan.

Quite frankly the entire mindset behind the Security Council is one of 'class divide' - in essence it seeks to establish a small elitist group with a large amount of power (especially with the Veto), and relegates the majority to second class status. The goal of reforming the UNSC should be of movement away from the Veto for the five perm. members, not of expanding an elitist club.

If the UNSC is supposed to be a 'reward' of some sort, then future permanent membership should have a set criteria (sustained democracy, good measurable record on human rights, etc.) and any nation that fulfills that criteria should be able to apply to become a member.

 

[Ras]

Ego and an petty elitist mindset to get special treatment - the same mindset that drives India to demand elitist treatment for itself in obtaining an NSG exemption for nuclear trade, despite not signing the NPT, while opposing the same sort of exemptions for Pakistan.

Quite frankly the entire mindset behind the Security Council is one of 'class divide' - in essence it seeks to establish a small elitist group with a large amount of power (especially with the Veto), and relegates the majority to second class status. The goal of reforming the UNSC should be of movement away from the Veto for the five perm. members, not of expanding an elitist club.

If the UNSC is supposed to be a 'reward' of some sort, then future permanent membership should have a set criteria (sustained democracy, good measurable record on human rights, etc.) and any nation that fulfills that criteria should be able to apply to become a member.

Other than the ego part...being a UNSC member gives no special concessions of any kind. That is why I don't understand India's weird obsession from the last few years about being a UNSC member.

Lets face it the UN is a powerless organization....the organizations with the power are the World bank and the IMF. I would imagine nations would want to downplay the UN while trying to get more influence elsewhere.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Other than the ego part...being a UNSC member gives no special concessions of any kind. That is why I don't understand India's weird obsession from the last few years about being a UNSC member.

Lets face it the UN is a powerless organization....the organizations with the power are the World bank and the IMF. I would imagine nations would want to downplay the UN while trying to get more influence elsewhere.

Permanent membership of the UN is a 'status issue' when seen in the context of how the UNSC is 'ineffective' in so many areas - and because it is a 'status issue', it is a 'petty, ego' issue.

Of course India will not be too happy with perm. UNSC membership without the Veto, which would allow it to protect its interests in issues brought in front of the UN.