India's permanent seat on the UNSC

[ito]

You feel P6 is just around the corner? Wow good news to India indeed isn't it, around when?

P9, you forgot Japan, Germany and Brazil

 

[doppelganger]

1) India was not a country during WW2. You're a British colony, Indian troop fought for the Queen, not India.

Does not change the fact that it was Indian blood and treasure that turned the tide of the war and killed Imperial Japan, the US merely putting the final nail (plural if you count both strikes) into the coffin.

2) British Indian troop didn't fought in China, only in SEA where they mostly surrendered to the Japanese.

Please read more. Its embarrassing trying to engage in a debate in the face of monumental ignorance such as yours.

3) If not for China holding the Japanese into a war of attrition, which lasted 10 years, British India too would've been invaded.

Quite the opposite really. Were it not for Indian blood and treasure, both China as well as Korea would have been destroyed far worse than they already were. The two million strong BIA did not come in time to save Nanking. But it sure as hell prevented a repeat of many more Nankings.

 

[Fattyacids]

Does not change the fact that it was Indian blood and treasure that turned the tide of the war and killed Imperial Japan, the US merely putting the final nail (plural if you count both strikes) into the coffin.

Please read more. Its embarrassing trying to engage in a debate in the face of monumental ignorance such as yours.

Quite the opposite really. Were it not for Indian blood and treasure, both China as well as Korea would have been destroyed far worse than they already were. The two million strong BIA did not come in time to save Nanking. But it sure as hell prevented a repeat of many more Nankings.

1) There was no nationality called Indian during WW2. Any blood British Indian troop bled was for Britain, not India.

2) British Indian troops did NOT fight Japanese in China.

3) British Indian troops only fought in South East Asia, but they disgracefully surrendered. South East Asia were all lost to the Japanese.

 

[topgun047]

I can only imagine the level of ignorance of chinese posters talking about disappearance of France in WW II
You are terribly misinformed.

Google Vichy France if you wish to educate yourself.

Don't bother participating in any meaningful debate, your lack of knowledge has been exposed.

 

[doppelganger]

1) There was no nationality called Indian during WW2. Any blood British Indian troop bled was for Britain, not India.

2) British Indian troops did NOT fight Japanese in China for China.

3) British Indian troops only fought in South East Asia, and they disgracefully surrendered. South East Asia were all lost to the Japanese.

You are repeating yourself.

Do you get 50 cents each time you do so?

 

[Genesis]

Regardless.

China was invaded, ravaged, and brought to its knees by Imperial Japan. India helped kill Imperial Japan.

The closest the Japanese army came to invading India was the bloody campaign of Kohima and the takeover of the Andamans. They could never breach into mainland India, in spite of Tojo throwing everything into the Burma campaign.

And you guys actually have the gall to call China a "winner" in the context of the great war?

Laughable, if not pathetic.

dude, ask one person that thinks India won the Asian campaign. On the eve of the Atomic bomb, China was about to launch a major offensive to recapture half of the country, America destroyed the then strongest fleet, and destroyed most of the Japanese elite in her campaigns.

India was simply too far away, Japan without being able to consolidate her holdings and was on her last leg simply can't handle another campaign.

You don't know much about the war, I can see from your views, obviously it's from a Indian source, I can see how that, while valid, it's a very narrow view, it only wants to talk Indian accomplishments, which btw, was not much in terms of the entire Asian theatre.



Anyways as to P5, India joining, you seriously need to listen to what the other nations has to say about India's military, economy, and such.

You call France and UK irrelevant, they both have bigger economies, Pound is third biggest international currency, both also spend more in military than India, in fact India buys equipment from both. So, as much as some like to paint them as irrelevant, they are not.

Your reasons for Japan and Germany isn't good enough, and if they are not in, India shouldn't be in.

I can only imagine the level of ignorance of chinese posters talking about disappearance of France in WW II
You are terribly misinformed.

Google Vichy France if you wish to educate yourself.

Don't bother participating in any meaningful debate, your lack of knowledge has been exposed.

dude people knows what Vichy france is, which begs the question do you. Vichy France is not an ally nation, if you were to say that, then Japan didn't incorporate any of China, they were all puppet states, then China was not conquered at all.

 

[Gijoe]

If India want to be in p5 or p6, first they need to start a war with the p5 and win it otherwise STF up. Hey read below, lol stop giving me negative. Lol lol


India for UNSC, lol they will serve cow dung and cow urine for everyone at UN council. No no it bad idea.

So tell me does cow dung and cow urine cure your cancer? Lol why eating cow dung and cow urine you Indian still died with cancer. Lol lol lol lol lol lol

 

[ruby007]

What Obama said, are they feel good sound bites, or does the US feel its time now?

What does it mean for India to become a permanent member of the UNSC?

I saw this as the biggest takeaway from the just concluded US Presidential visit. If it happens, Modi ji has cemented his place in history.

Empty words

 

[christian warrior]

Wow she is hot.
Do you look like her?
Don't tell me you are a guy ...

She's a **** star

 

[Soumitra]

It was originally a post war P4 before an exception was made for China to enter.

India is the natural next entrant. And a precedent is already there.

And it was stupid Nehru who gave away India's seat to China

 

[Shotgunner51]

P9, you forgot Japan, Germany and Brazil

You didn't say the others, I remember that.

A footnote on Japan, China is clear - veto

US, Russia, France and UK have explicitly stated that they are going to support India's candidature. China has not explicitly stated that it would not support India's candidate fearing that it push India into US camp. But China has probability less options to say no to India.

Is veto is lesser option?

I feel India's membership just round the corner.

I share your optimism, when?

 

[Soumitra]

I dunno what Chinese eat, lol but they don't eat cow dung and urine for miracle cancer cure. Only Idiot nation called India.

India for UNSC, lol they will serve cow dung and cow urine for everyone at UN council. No no it bad idea.

So tell me does cow dung and cow urine cure your cancer? Lol why eating cow dung and cow urine you Indian still died with cancer. Lol lol lol lol lol lol

Do not troll. Reported

 

[Keel]

It won't happen because China won't let it.

Not just China
Not any of the permanent members would like to see the weight of their own or collective vote(s) getting unnecessarily diluted by a swing state

By electing India to be the 6th member, they will be running endless jeopardies of having hung-decisions
Obama is a fixed-term president. So are his successors of USA and his counterparts of France and UK

They can promise anything during their terms which dont need to be held accountable to any voters except to very few nationalistic ethnic Indian citizens but then it is only several or a couple of years away from somebody's diplomatic concerns

Take anything a visiting head of state with a grain of salt. Clinton and bush also called India a superpower.

For India was to be admitted, it has a long way to go in terms of involvement in global affairs. Countries like Germany would have a stronger case to be admitted to the P5 before India.

The Brits or France wont allow Germany

 

[Mujahid Memon]

I think Germany, Japan and Brazil are better candidates than india for permanent seat

 

[Razia Sultana]

What Obama said, are they feel good sound bites, or does the US feel its time now?

What does it mean for India to become a permanent member of the UNSC?

I saw this as the biggest takeaway from the just concluded US Presidential visit. If it happens, Modi ji has cemented his place in history.

Giving 50-50 weightage to military power and GDP, pick up top ten countries and make them part of UNSC. Other than that UN will have no relevance whatsoever. If any nation drops from the top 10 will lose the membership of UNSC and will be replaced by the new entrant. The world is realizing it.

 

[ashok mourya]

In fact, India's endeavour for permanent membership in UNSC began in 1955 when the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru reportedly turned down the coveted status offered to India which was then grabbed by China. While the reason for Nehru's inadvertent gesture—which he repeatedly denied—still remains a mystery (there are those who believe that he trusted China a bit too much), it proved to be costlier for India.

Why India deserves a permanent place in UNSC?
The reasons are aplenty. First, with a population of a tad more than 1.2 billion, India will soon overtake China as the most populous country of the world. So no one can deny its ubiquitous physical presence in the world stage and the resultant need for adequate representation in a strategic forum like UNSC. Second, barring nagging problems including inequality, illiteracy, poverty and corruption, India is the largest democracy in the world. Excluding the 21-month interlude of 'emergency' during 1975-77 under Indira Gandhi, it religiously adhered to the norms of democracy since gaining independence from the British In 1947. Third, it is the 10th largest economy in the world and its army is the third-largest globally. Fourth, India has been a member of the UNSC for six terms totaling 12 years besides being a member of G-77 and G-4; therefore, a permanent membership in UNSC seems a logical extension. Fifth, it is the third-largest contributor of troops (close to 160,000 soldiers) to more than 40 UN peacekeeping efforts including those in Korea, Egypt, the Congo, Somalia, Angola, Haiti, Liberia, Lebanon, Rwanda and South Sudan and more than 150 Indian soldiers lost their lives while serving in UN missions.

Prerequisites that will lead to India's permanent membership of the UNSC
First, for the UNSC should be enlarged to 25 members from 15 currently, possibly ensuring geographic representation (for instance, Africa and South America are excluded from permanent membership). Considering UNSC's slow, conservative demeanour, this seems unlikely in the near future. Second, all the five permanent members—the US, the UK, France, Russia and China which enjoy veto power—should endorse India's candidature. US President Barack Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron recently said they would support India's case for permanent UNSC membership. France and Russia too are not averse to supporting India. This means than India's bigger Asian counterpart China is the real stumbling block in its quest for permanent UNSC membership.

But why China is vehemently opposed to India's permanent entry in the august body? Well, for one, it doesn't want to lose its coveted status as the only Asian country in UNSC permanently. Second, China opposes Japan's bid for permanent UNSC membership while India supports Japan and China is not likely to support India as long as India supports Japan. India's is unlikely to withdraw support for Japan as being part of the G4 nations—Brazil and Germany besides India and Japan—it is committed to support each other's bids for permanent seats in UNSC.
Given this labyrinthine situation, it is to be seen how the Narendra Modi government coerce China to convert Jinping's recent diplomatic rhetoric to concrete action supporting India's decade-long quest for a permanent UNSC seat.

It won't happen because China won't let it.

Not only China there is the coffee club to oppose un expansion.
Uniting for Consensus (UfC) is a movement, nicknamed the Coffee Club, that developed in the 1990s in opposition to the possible expansion of theUnited Nations Security Council. Under the leadership of Italy,[1][2] it aims to counter the bids for permanent seats proposed by G4 nations (Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan) and is calling for a consensus before any decision is reached on the form and size of the Security Council.
In which pakistan, Argentina, Italy, Spain, Turkey, indonesia and South Korea , mexico are members.