Revision summary
A permanent seat is claimed as overdue Council reform. India cites size, democracy, economy, and peacekeeping contribution. G4 diplomacy presents the claim as a package, not a vanity seat. Nuclear responsibility and Indian Ocean weight are security arguments. P5 inertia, especially China’s, is the political obstacle.
Model answer
Introduction
India seeks a permanent UN Security Council seat as part of reformed multilateralism. The claim is that 1945 power no longer matches 21st-century contribution and legitimacy.
Body
Contribution factors
- Population and democracy: a large, constitutionally democratic State whose inclusion would widen the Council’s representative base beyond the 1945 victors.
- Economy and peacekeeping: a major economy and one of the UN’s largest historical troop contributors, which Article 23 already lists as a criterion for elected seats.
- Diplomacy: NAM founder, G20 member, and a regular elected member of the Council with a record of drafting and mediation attempts.
Security and order factors
- Nuclear-weapon capability outside the NPT, plus a no-first-use-style public doctrine, is used to argue that India is a responsible stakeholder, not a spoiler.
- Indo-Pacific and Indian Ocean geography make Indian consent useful for any Council claim to speak for Asian peace.
- G4 coordination with Japan, Germany, and Brazil frames the claim as Council reform, not a solo demand.
Justice of the map
- Africa and Latin America lack a permanent seat. India’s claim is often paired with wider expansion so that the veto club is less a 1945 museum.
- The P5 veto, which Waltz would call polarity written into the Charter, is exactly what India says must be updated.
Obstacles that do not cancel the justification
- China, and sometimes others, can stall text. Pakistan campaigns against India. These are power facts. They do not erase the representative case.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD F[Population democracy economy] --> C[Claim to permanent seat] PK[Peacekeeping G20] --> C G4[G4 reform] --> C P5[1945 veto map] -.blocks.-> C
Conclusion
India’s claim rests on population, democracy, economy, peacekeeping, and Asian security weight, plus the datedness of the 1945 P5. Justification is contribution plus representativeness. The veto politics of the present Council is the barrier, not the absence of a case.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
How does India-Israel bilateral ties reflect the autonomy of India's foreign policy choices?
Next question in the 2022 paper (Q8). View answer →
-
Would a seat without veto be enough?
India has discussed transitional models. A seat that cannot affect substance would be status without the power the claim is about.
-
Does NPT non-signature block the claim?
Opponents say so. India answers that the NPT hierarchy is part of the same 1960s order the Council should not freeze.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2024 · Q5(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
"India must strive to become a semi-permanent member of the UNSC, rather than a permanent member without the right to veto." Comment. -
2023 · Q1(e) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the structure and functions of UN Security Council. -
2023 · Q2(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
How does the regime change and political crisis in Myanmar threaten regional security and peace? -
2023 · Q6(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Discuss the importance of India's role in UN peacekeeping operations as a ground for its claim to a permanent seat in the UN Security Council
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the main limitations of the comparative method to the study of Political Science.
Comparative Politics
Comparison substitutes for experiment, as Lijphart argued. Mill’s designs fail when variables outnumber cases. Galton’s problem and conceptual stretching are standing limits. Official data and Eurocentric concepts add political distortion. The method is disciplined inference, not a controlled trial.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
What are the main challenges faced by the developing countries in the era of globalisation?
Globalisation
Globalisation opens markets and tightens external rules. Wallerstein’s hierarchy and Prebisch’s trade concern still describe many late developers. Capital flight, TRIPS, and farm subsidies in the North cut policy space. Inequality, informality, and climate costs are domestic faces of the same pressure. Regional and South–South bargains are the usual reply, not autarky.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the commonalities between the Marxist and Realist approach to the study of International Politics.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
Both approaches deny that trade and law automatically pacify world politics. Carr’s critique of utopia feeds realist and Marxist readings. Morgenthau and Waltz stress State power; Lenin and Wallerstein stress capital and hierarchy. Institutions are treated as masks or tools, not as a world government in waiting. The commonality is conflictual materialism; the split is State versus class.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.