India on Monday rejected proposals to add permanent United Nations Security Council members without veto rights, saying such a plan would create “second‑class” members and perpetuate unfairness in the world body.
Harish Parvathaneni, India’s permanent representative to the U.N., made the comments during discussions in New York about reforming the Security Council. He said any expansion of permanent membership must include the same veto powers enjoyed by the current five permanent members — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
“Fairness and justice demand that all permanent members enjoy the same rights and responsibilities,” Parvathaneni said.
India has long been a leading voice in calls to reform the Security Council to better reflect global demographics and geopolitical realities. Parvathaneni noted that the Asia‑Pacific accounts for more than 60% of the world’s population, yet the region has only one permanent seat, and that Africa and Latin America currently lack permanent representation.
what India and others are proposing
- India and its G4 partners — Brazil, Germany and Japan — have urged negotiations to expand both permanent and nonpermanent seats on the council.
- The African Union has presented a model calling for at least two permanent Security Council seats for Africa, with veto rights.
- India opposes creating permanent seats that would lack veto powers, arguing they would entrench inequality within the council.
Parvathaneni framed his position as a call for equal rights for all permanent members “as long as the system exists,” repeating a long‑standing objection to proposals, first floated in the 1990s, that would add permanent seats without the veto.
Russia has publicly backed expanded permanent seats for countries such as India and Brazil, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said during the U.N. General Assembly in September, according to Russian statements. The push for change, however, faces high legal and political hurdles: amending the U.N. Charter would require ratification by member states, including agreement by the council’s current permanent members.
Reform advocates say expansion would make the council more representative of today’s global balance of power and demographic weight. Critics warn that extending the veto or enlarging the club of veto holders could complicate the council’s ability to act and make consensus harder to reach.
India’s stance underscores the continuing differences among member states over the shape and terms of any Security Council enlargement, and it places veto rights at the center of the debate.
