Why do we want a permanent seat at UNSC? If we get it, what will we do?

A permanent, veto-wielding seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is India's right, according to India. The anger, irritation and frustration at not being accorded this entitlement shows up on occasion as it did last week in New York.

On August 22, our representative said: “How can we aspire for common security, when the common good of the global South is continued to be denied representation in its decision-making”; and that “a truly representative Security Council is the most pressing need of the hour”.

Such reports also often tell us why there is no progress on reforming the Security Council. The fact is that we are not the only contenders for a position at the high table. Argentina opposes Brazil’s claim; Italy and Spain oppose Germany; and Australia opposes Japan. China will also oppose Japan, of course, as it does India. This reform cannot be done without a total consensus, especially of our rivals. China has a veto on our entry and the idea that it will want us to share its power on the global stage formally is delusional. Holders of power do not want to dilute it unless they are compelled to. France is a second-rate power today, as is the United Kingdom. They have lost a lot of power since their colonial period. Why would their governments want to voluntarily let go of whatever they have remaining or in some way let other nations share it? They will not, of course.

What can India do? Not much, other than express frustration. Our field of vision is narrow. Going through the annual appearances of India at the UN General Assembly, if we were to remove the carping about Pakistan from the speeches of the Prime Minister and external affairs minister, little of substance would remain.

The question to consider is why India wants a position on the Security Council. The Jan Sangh's first manifestos said the party would seek a place on the Security Council, but offered no path to getting there or explaining why it was important that the place be secured. It appears that we want the honour for two reasons, of which one is defensive.

After India rescinded from its promise to conduct a plebiscite in Kashmir (this was conditional on Pakistan military vacating western Kashmir, which it did not do), we tried for decades to ensure that UN resolutions on a plebiscite in Kashmir died or became dormant. Many Indians might not know of the existence of the United Nations Military Observer Group, and its presence in India to oversee our dispute with Pakistan. In 2014 the Narendra Modi government ordered it to vacate its office on Purana Qila Road in New Delhi, without knowing that this was simply not possible. The office still exists, of course.

India has always felt the pressure of its oppression in Kashmir globally, and has tried to head it off through securing a veto. There appears to be no other reason that we want the position. What will we do on the Security Council that we cannot do today outside it?

Germany and Japan wield far more influence in the world than France but neither has a place in the Security Council or even a proper army.

China's rise in the world has not come because of its place on the P-5. It has come because of its economic growth and its ability to project its power through trade and giant global infrastructure projects, which is more than its ability to wield a veto. India's problem is that it has a fifth of China's economic power, not so much that it doesn't get to sit at the high table. If we had China's economic power, it would not matter as much that we didn't have a permanent seat in the Security Council. The other reason we want to be in the P-5 is our sense of entitlement, based on our population size and the notion that we are a civilisational entity of higher quality than others. The first is a non-starter because the United Nations is a gathering of nation states not ranked by population. On the second there's not much to say, other than even if it's in some small measure true, India's behaviour over the past few years has done much to undo it. We don't have to go there today.

The fact is we don’t really even know why we want to be on the UNSC or what we would do with the veto power if we were suddenly handed that bauble. We cannot bind our region economically, we have hostile or borderline hostile relations with all our neighbours, and if we had any chance of being the great power in South Asia, we have ceded much of that space to China. We are one of the poorest nations on earth, and contribute $23 million to the UN annually, which is less than Australia, Canada, South Korea, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden and Turkey. Britain and France pay five times more than us, Germany seven times, Japan 10 times more, China 15 times. In 2018, the United States gave $10 billion, which is 400 times what we give. That is why they have power.

India has had no proper discussion internally on why we want to be in the Security Council, what we will do with the position once we get it and what the cost and obligations and responsibilities of the position will be if we were to get it. We know only that we want it, and we demand to be given it.

The writer is the chair of Amnesty International India. Twitter: @aakar__patel