Nehru ceded India's permanent seat on the UNSC to China?

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Nehru wasn't Chinese. He didn't lie publicly.

Good one

 

[Maula Jatt]

Indians are very jealous of everything chinese, from olympic gold medals to gdp per capita to living standards and being respected instead of laughed at. The jealousy drives the indian to become a full retard unfortunately so don't waste your time debating indians lol, just do a drive by post and let them sit in their own filth lol.

No one can argue with Indians on the internet, it's literally a waste of time

Make your points and move on, they just have way too much time and excess retarted people to have a to the point argument

 

[kuge]

i just knew there is a 1945-british in the UN general assembly.
btw, many indians thought they are merciful & kind enough to let china the UN permanent seat.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Does it really matter now? China will never give UNSC to India or Japan.

 

[Han Patriot]

Absolute rubbish propagated by WhatsApp bhakts. India was never offered UNSC seat.

USA informally asked Nehru in 1953 if he would accept the UNSC seat replacing Taiwan and then China could be let in as a member but not on the Security Council.
Nehru refused as he realized this was a ploy to get India into the Western camp and alienate the USSR - Nehru was adamant on Non Alignment.

In 1955, the USSR again informally mentioned something to India about taking the UNSC seat in place of China. For similar reasons Nehru refused.

China should of course thank Nehru and his magnanimity.

Yeah I also heard Nehru was offered Alaska but he refused since it was too cold for him.

 

[MH.Yang]

Well, I've read some psychology books. Let me uncover the scars of Indians.

The truth is that Indians lack a sense of superiority and respect from others. They will be eager for other countries to respect them.

So they imagined that the USA and the Soviet Union had invited them to become permanent members of the United Nations.

Secondly, Indians suffer for their failures, and they need reasons to explain them. The reason why they cannot accept failure is their national incompetence and stupidity, so Nehru and China are used by them to comfort themselves.

 

[Han Patriot]

You were not a winner of WW2. You were a Japanese colony liberated largely due to India and others who actually fought and won WW2.


Lol. Beggar boy can't read history. Hahahha. Surprise surprise!

If China had not stopped the Japs, they dispensed almost all their main forces in mainland China, even then managing to conquer 1/3 coastal areas, you Indians would be greeting us konichiwa.

Good one

He was Indian and he lies even when he sleeps. Indians and snakes, you know the parable.

 

[master_13]

Indian are just jealous. They were forced to be British slaves to join WWII, even after their territories were essentially intact after WWII, they still managed to be the bottom tier country. Indian are basically whore of Asia, British, American, Chinese, Russian, they get F'ed by everyone.

 

[American Pakistani]

Since India was part of Britain in 1945, India and England are equally qualified to inherit the rights of Britain in 1945. And it is the United Nations General Assembly that decides who is qualified, not the Security Council.

Only Britain was because India was British colony. British being masters India had no say.

 

[GeraltofRivia]

The notion that the seat of permanent member of UNSC can be ceded to another nation is simply incorrect. The current permanent member of UNSC earned their qualifications by winning battles in MAJOR wars and are considered as the top miltary forces in the world.

US and Russia need little introduction as they were the main forces behind the fighter against nazi Germany and Japan in WWII, together with British, China and France. China has fought through WWII with Japanese and Korean War with coalition of UN forces. The fact that China managed to have a draw in Korean War, which involved 3 million combatants from both sides, showcased its military capability and earned its qualification into UNSC. It was not given by another nation, being India or others.

Any nation that has the inspiration to join this exclusive council has to show its military power by winning major wars involving million combatants. It will be “nominated” into the council once the performance is proven. Otherwise, no one will consider it seriously.

 

[MH.Yang]

The UN has rights because of P5, not P5 has rights because of the UN.

Why do P5 countries have veto power? Because P5 countries have the ability to prevent the action of the UN without the veto.

When a country is a force that the UN cannot lack, and when a country has the ability to prevent the UN from Implementing Security Council resolutions, the UN will take the initiative to allow it to become a P5.

 

[dbc]

According to the Yalta conference, China is a founding member.

that’s Republic of China and not People’s Republic of China. ROC(Taiwan) retained its membership and security council seat until resolution 2758.

 

[lchsod1975]

极度自卑的印度人永远不会相信真相！即使他们生活在肮脏的下水道里也会相信印度是一个未来的超级大国，印度是一个失败的绝望国家

 

[K_Bin_W]

No one can argue with Indians on the internet, it's literally a waste of time

Make your points and move on, they just have way too much time and excess retarted people to have a to the point argument

I learned that lesson long time ago, Indians live in absolute denial and they are delusional.

 

[Jackdaws]

You are wrong.

India was formally offered the UN permanent seat twice by the US.

Before August 1950 an offer was made to assist India in assuming a permanent seat at the UN Security Council.

The proof is in the letter from the Indian Ambassador to the US , Mrs. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, Nehru’s sister and is part of Indian official record held at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (NMML), New Delhi.

The letter says,

"One matter that is being cooked up in the State Department should be known to you. This is the unseating of China as a Permanent Member in the Security Council and of India being put in her place. I have just seen Reuter’s report of your answer to the same question. Last week I had interviews with [John Foster] Dulles and [Philip] Jessup, reports of which I have sent to Bajpai. Both brought up this question and Dulles seemed particularly anxious that a move in this direction should be started. Last night I heard from Marquis Childs, an influential columnist of Washington, that Dulles has asked him on behalf of the State Department to build up public opinion along these lines. I told him our attitude and advised him to go slow in the matter as it would not be received with any warmth in India. "

"Dulles" mentioned here is John Foster Dulle who later became Secretary of State in 1953.

Nehru's response was also quite startling, THIS is what he wrote back,

"In your letter you mention that the State Department is trying to unseat China as a Permanent Member of the Security Council and to put India in her place. So far as we are concerned, we are not going to countenance it. That would be bad from every point of view. It would be a clear affront to China and it would mean some kind of a break between us and China. I suppose the state department would not like that, but we have no intention of following that course. We shall go on pressing for China’s admission in the UN and the Security Council. I suppose that a crisis will come during the next sessions of the General Assembly of the UN on this issue. The people’s government of China is sending a full delegation there."


This move by the US was after the June 1950 Korean War which china supported and India opposed.

Also to be noted here is the China's membership was still pending since it was the ROC (Taiwan) who was the founding member and not PRC (china).

PRC membership was kept in limbo right till 1971.

Also to be noted was the fact that USSR was not attending the UN till August 1950 (it had Boycotted the UN) and till then US called the shots in the UN.


USSR made the offer of adding India as the Sixth UN Permanent member in 1954-55. This is part of USSR official record. This was after USSR serious differences with china. India till then had full support of the US and with USSR warming up this could have fructified if it wasn't for the paranoia of Nehru.

Nehru's official response is also part of recorded history,

Nehru: “Perhaps Bulganin knows that some people in USA have suggested that India should replace China in the Security Council. This is to create trouble between us and China. We are, of course, wholly opposed to it …”

This offer was made in the context of the Charter envisaged a General Conference before the tenth annual session of the General Assembly. If this was not done, article 109 mandated ‘the proposal to call such a Conference shall be placed on the agenda of the session of the General Assembly’. This deadline was fast approaching in 1956. USSR wanted to push India before this time frame.

If India had negotiated a understanding with both the US and USSR by 1955-56, we would have been a permanent member. But for the obstinate Nehru.

In fact India continued to support china's seat as permanent member EVEN AFTER CHINA ATTACKED INDIA in 1962.

This too is part of our official record and is documented in various world media. In fact this question was directly put the Indian govt. by the US media when we went to attend the UN post India china war and our reply was that it was two separate issue and Indian stand was based on its "moral conviction".


In fact you might want to read up on Dr. Ambedkar's view on Nehru and his foreign policy w.r.t China. He was blunt and contemptuous of Nehru's cowardice and fence sitting. Hence it has been white washed from history.

True. You are merely reiterating what I stated. They were informal feelers sent.