India’s push for a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resurfaced this week after China conveyed that it “understands and respects” New Delhi’s aspirations for permanent membership,
the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said.
The issue figured during the India-China Strategic Dialogue between Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri and China’s Executive Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu, who was in India for the BRICS Sherpa Meeting from February 8 to 10.
Beijing’s own statement did not mention the matter, referring instead to broader support for the UN and multilateral cooperation. The reference in India’s readout has once again brought attention to a campaign that has been central to Indian foreign policy for several decades.
India’s Long Campaign For A Permanent Seat
India’s demand for a permanent seat rests on its argument that the Security Council does not reflect present-day realities. The Council’s structure was conceived in the aftermath of the Second World War, when global power was concentrated in a handful of countries.
India maintains that the world has changed dramatically since then, but the Council’s composition has not. The only adjustment in the Council’s membership structure came in 1965, when the number of non-permanent seats increased from six to ten. The five permanent members, however, have remained unchanged.
India accounts for the largest share of the world’s population and ranks as the fourth-biggest economy, giving it considerable global weight. Despite being a nuclear-armed nation and having participated in several conflicts, India has consistently contributed to international peacekeeping operations.
It is also part of the G4 grouping with Japan, Germany and Brazil, which has long pushed for expanding the Security Council in both the permanent and non-permanent categories.
Why A Permanent Seat Matters To New Delhi
A permanent seat offers institutional power that non-permanent membership does not. India has held a rotating seat several times, most recently in 2021–22, but these terms do not give countries the ability to shape the Council’s agenda consistently or influence outcomes in the long run. Permanent membership comes with both continuity and veto power, enabling states to participate in all deliberations on peace and security and to block resolutions when necessary.
India argues that its presence would strengthen the Council’s capacity to address global challenges because it represents constituencies and interests that are currently underrepresented. Many nations of the Global South see India as a trustworthy voice for their interests, particularly on issues such as climate justice, fair trade and reform of international institutions. For India, a seat is therefore both a matter of influence and of correcting a structural imbalance in global governance.
Indian Leadership’s Calls For UN Reform
The demand for reform has been repeatedly articulated by Indian leaders. In an interview with French media in July 2023, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had questioned how the Council could claim to represent global interests while excluding major regions and India itself. He asked: “How can we talk of it as a primary organ of a global body, when entire continents of Africa and Latin America are ignored? How can it claim to speak for the world when its most populous country, and its largest democracy, is not a permanent member?”
External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has also described India’s permanent membership as a matter of global consensus that is gradually strengthening. In 2024, he said that India’s eventual inclusion was “inevitable.” He said, “There is a feeling across the world that this (five permanent countries) should change, and India should get a permanent seat. I see this feeling increasing every year. We will definitely get it. But nothing big is ever achieved without hard work…we will have to work hard, and this time we will have to work even harder.”
India has conveyed its reform message in multilateral settings as well. At last month’s Security Council debate on the international rule of law, India’s Permanent Representative Harish Parvathaneni said the Council’s structure reflected “a geopolitical reality of a bygone era.” He argued that global governance frameworks must evolve in line with contemporary conditions, noting that the credibility of multilateralism depends on the UN’s ability to adapt to changing power dynamics and global challenges.
He said: “The rule of law is at the very heart of the core mandate of the United Nations Security Council – maintenance of international peace and security.” He added that “the rule of law is barren without enforceability. The focus must shift from arcane constructs to pragmatic solutions and outcomes that positively impact the daily lives of our citizens.”
He also stressed the need for continuous review of international structures, stating: “Continuous review, updation and reinvigoration are an imperative to avoid obsolescence.” Parvathaneni warned against selective use of legal principles, saying: “International rule of law should not be weaponised to question state sovereignty and interfere in internal affairs of states.”
Concluding his remarks, he said the UN system’s effectiveness rests on consistency and fairness: “The application of international rule of law calls for consistency, objectivity and predictability with no double standards.”
The Breadth Of Support For India’s Bid
India’s campaign has gathered broad international support. Four of the five permanent members — the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Russia — have expressed their backing for India’s candidature in various statements over the past decade.
Russia reaffirmed its support in 2024, describing global power distribution as fundamentally different from when the UN was founded. France has advocated for India’s inclusion alongside Germany, Japan, Brazil and representation from Africa. The United Kingdom endorsed India’s membership during Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s visit in 2025, while the United States has issued multiple expressions of support under different administrations.
Backing has also come from other major partners. Japan and Germany, India’s fellow G4 members, consistently support its candidature. Countries across Africa, including the African Union collectively, have welcomed India’s bid in the context of broader demands for representation from developing states.
Portugal, Kuwait, Mauritius, Bhutan, Brazil and several others have also endorsed India, underscoring that sentiment for reform is widespread across regions.
China’s Position
China remains the only major power that has not explicitly backed India’s bid for permanent membership. Its previous statements have stopped at acknowledging India’s wish to play “a greater role” in the United Nations. In 2014, during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit, the two sides issued a joint statement in which Beijing said it “supports India’s aspiration to play a greater role in the UN, including in the Security Council,” but without committing to India’s candidature.
This time too, the Chinese foreign ministry’s readout made no mention of India’s push for permanent membership.
Vinay Kaura, an assistant professor at Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice in India, told the South China Morning Post that China is determined to remain the only Asian country in the Council’s permanent category and has not been influenced even by Russia’s consistent backing of India.
“Since China is the only Asian power represented in the UN Security Council, it does not want any other Asian country to share this privilege,” he said.
China also sees India as a close competitor and is unwilling to share the political space and prestige associated with permanent membership. As a result, China remains the sole permanent member that has not endorsed India’s aspirations, making it the primary obstacle to any reform proposal requiring agreement among the existing P5.
A Campaign That Remains Central To Indian Foreign Policy
India’s UNSC’s bid remains a key element of its foreign policy agenda. New Delhi continues to place the issue on the table in bilateral conversations and multilateral forums. The support of most major powers strengthens India’s argument that global governance must evolve, but the absence of consensus among the P5 keeps the reform process slow and politically complex.
