India has told the United Nations that new permanent Security Council members without veto power would be “second-class” members. As long as the veto exists, India says, it must apply to all permanent members equally.
Updated: October 28, 2026, 11:15 AM IST
Quick Read:
- India’s UN ambassador P. Harish told a UN General Assembly debate on October 27 that a veto-less permanent seat would be second-class.
- India opposes creating any new category of permanent members, with or without veto, saying it would entrench the same inequity.
- The Council today has 15 members: 5 permanent members with veto power, and 10 non-permanent members elected for two-year terms.
What India said
India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Parvathaneni Harish, spoke on Monday at a UN General Assembly plenary on reform of the veto. His words, reported by PTI and carried by The Hindu BusinessLine, The New Indian Express and ETV Bharat, were blunt. “India’s position on the veto is principled and well known. We reiterate that as long as the veto exists, it must be held by all permanent members of a reformed Council,” he said. Then came the line that made headlines: “A reform that expands the Security Council by creating another category of long-term members without the veto effectively makes them ‘second-class’ members and would not change the decision-making dynamic of the P5.” P5 means the five current permanent members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Each holds a veto. One veto can block a resolution, even if the other 14 members support it.
Also read: Jaishankar on India and China
Why India rejects a middle category
Some reform proposals suggest a compromise: add new permanent seats, but without veto power — at least at first. Supporters say this is realistic, since the current P5 will not easily share the veto. India rejects that compromise outright. Harish said creating a new category of permanent members, with or without veto powers, would “entrench the very inequity we are seeking to correct”. In simple words: a permanent seat without the veto looks equal but is not. The real power stays with the same five countries. He added another point: “Periodic elections and the concept of permanency are fundamentally contradictory.” A seat that must be won again in an election is not permanent in any real sense. So India wants full permanent membership, with the same rights, not a halfway house. India also warned that reform focused only on adding non-permanent members would “border on failure”. Adding more two-year seats without touching permanent membership leaves the core imbalance in place.
The history in one paragraph
The Security Council has expanded only once. In 1965, the number of non-permanent members rose from six to 10, while the five permanent members stayed the same. Harish cited that history in his speech: “History has a lesson for us.” Since then, the world has changed far more than the Council has. India argues the Council must reflect today’s world, not the world of 1945, when the UN was founded after the Second World War. India, the world’s most populous country and a major troop contributor to UN peacekeeping, has long sought a permanent seat.
What this means for India
Nothing changes tomorrow. UN reform moves slowly, and no new permanent member will be added by one speech. But India’s line matters for a different reason: it sets the terms on which India will accept reform at all. If a reform package offers India a permanent seat without veto power, India’s answer, on this speech, is no. New Delhi would rather wait for full equality than accept a seat that leaves the P5 in control. That is a firm position, and it puts India at odds with countries that favour a gradual, veto-less expansion. For Indian readers, the practical point is simple: when you hear “India may get a permanent UNSC seat,” ask the next question — with veto power, or without it? On India’s own stated position, the two are not the same thing. One is equality. The other, in Harish’s word, is second-class. On the bilateral front, see Rajnath, Hegseth review 10-year India-US defence pact.
Elsewhere, election outcomes can also leave big questions unsettled: read about Israel’s election deadlock and what it could mean for India.
Also read: Lula win and what it means for India
FAQ
Q: What did India actually say at the UN?
A: Ambassador P. Harish told a UN General Assembly debate on October 27 that as long as the veto exists, it must be held by all permanent members of a reformed Council, and that veto-less permanent seats would be “second-class” members.
Q: Who holds the veto today?
A: Five countries: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Council has 15 members in total, including 10 non-permanent members elected for two-year terms.
Q: Has the Security Council ever expanded?
A: Only once: in 1965, non-permanent members rose from six to 10. The five permanent members have never changed.
Sources: PTI reports via The Hindu BusinessLine, The New Indian Express, ETV Bharat, DT Next (October 27, 2026); UN General Assembly IGN plenary on the veto question.
Pingback: Likud first, no winner: Israel heads for deadlock
Pingback: Jaishankar: Big Neighbours Will Have Issues