The UN Turns 79: Reforming the UNSC, If Not India, Then Who Should Be a Permanent Member?

Why was there a need to establish an organization like the UN??        

What were its objectives??        

Are the UN' goals and objectives being fulfilled??        

Is there a need for reforms within the UN??        

Do nations have equal standing and status in the UN??        

Is representation at the UN based on religion??        

Are the UN's policies acceptable and practical for all countries??        

Is UN membership dependent on power, race, color, or religion??        

Is proportional representation granted to all nations in the UN SC??        

Do the permanent members of the SC enjoy immunity??        

Is being a nuclear power a prerequisite for membership in the SC ??        

Has the UN succeeded in resolving global conflicts??        

Has the UN been able to win the trust of the Muslim world, which has long harbored skepticism towards it??        

Could a responsible Islamic country secure a permanent seat on the SC??        

Is making India a permanent member of the SC an act of justice and equality??        

Is India's inclusion as a permanent member of the SC a guarantee that global conflicts will be resolved??        

Does India pledge, along with its application for permanent membership, that it will grant Kashmir the right to self-determination as per UN resolutions??        

Does India guarantee that upon becoming a permanent member of the SC, it will grant religious freedom to Muslims, Christians, and other minorities within the country??        

Does India commit to announcing the end of Hindu extremism against Muslims, Christians, and other minorities on the UN platform after becoming a permanent member??        

Does India pledge to cease terrorist activities in neighboring countries??        

Does India guarantee that, after becoming a permanent member of the SC, it will refrain from intervening in the affairs of its neighboring countries??        

Does India pledge to bring individuals involved in the killing of Sikhs, Kashmiris, Christians, Muslims, and other minorities before the International Court of Justice after becoming a permanent representative??        

Does India guarantee that it will implement UN resolutions after gaining permanent representation in the SC??        

Are the lobbyists and advocates for India's permanent representation in the Security Council certain that they will achieve their objectives after India's inclusion??

These are some fundamental questions to which I am attempting to provide impartial answers.

?The United Nations (UN) was created after World War II with the goal of "saving future generations from the horrors of war." Its main purpose is to keep peace and security worldwide by working together to prevent and stop threats to peace, ending acts of aggression, and resolving conflicts peacefully, following international laws and principles of justice.

Since the UN was established, there haven't been any more world wars. However, between its founding and May 2021, there were 478 other wars, with a new war starting somewhere around every two months on average.

Most of the wars happening now are civil wars. Some people believe this has more to do with the fear of nuclear weapons than the role of the UN in preventing larger conflicts.

It has become clear that since the formation of the United Nations (UN), there have been approximately 478 wars and conflicts. Whether others acknowledge this UN or not, as an observer, a student, and a researcher, I salute the UN for its efforts, as 99% of these conflicts have been resolved due to the UN's interventions. This is no small achievement. If the UN hadn't worked to end these wars and conflicts, many of them might still be ongoing today. History bears witness to wars that lasted for centuries. In the past, most bloody wars were fought in Western countries, where millions of people lost their lives. Many wars and internal conflicts lasted for over 50 years, with generations perishing without the conflicts being resolved. One such prolonged war lasted 781 years, while another, known as the "335 Years' War," spanned from 1651 to 1986. Another conflict, the "Arauco War," lasted from 1536 to 1825, continuing for 289 years. Historians also recognize Afghanistan's conquests, lasting from 642 to 870 AD, as a war that spanned 228 years.

At that time, there was no modern technology or destructive weapons, yet millions of people were killed in these wars. Not too long ago, Russia fought in Afghanistan for over nine years. World War II also lasted seven years between various nations. If we remove the role of the UN, I can confidently say that wars would still be raging everywhere. I have already acknowledged the UN's role. However, there have been some failures as well, mainly due to the violation of UN laws and decisions. Two of the conflicts that currently pose a significant threat to global peace are the Kashmir issue and the Palestine issue.

In both these conflicts, on one side, there are two states, and on the other, there are more than 57 Muslim countries and their people. Regarding Israel, the responsibility of enforcing UN resolutions rested and still rests with the global community. To prevent a third world war, the international community must resolve the Palestine-Israel conflict as soon as possible, according to UN resolutions. The second issue is Kashmir, where India has not only rejected the UN resolutions but has also disrespected the UN itself. Aside from these two conflicts, most of the other major global disputes have been resolved. If the international community successfully enforces its laws, these conflicts too can be resolved.

As for the UN, it appears to be growing weaker each day, becoming less capable of enforcing its decisions. Considering the current circumstances, the future of global affairs demands that the UN take bold steps to preserve its existence. Those who refuse to comply with the UN’s resolutions and decisions must be brought before the international community. Where there are weaknesses and mistakes, they must be corrected. New laws and policies need to be formulated through the UN platform to promote interfaith harmony.

The current state of affairs shows that Muslims, both as a nation and a religion, are being ignored within the UN. This approach and misconception must be addressed. The 57 Islamic countries are nowhere to be seen in terms of representation. Merely assigning positions is not enough; their presence in key decision-making stages is vital for the UN's health and integrity. Strict punishments should be enforced for the disrespect of religions, religious followers, holy books, sacred figures, and holy sites to prevent global conflicts based on religion.

I am not blaming anyone here; I am simply presenting some facts. Currently,? two countries are seen as allies by over 50 of the 57 Islamic countries. These Islamic countries perceive the West and the UN as being anti-Islam and consider these two countries their supporters. Keep in mind, this shift in thinking is not insignificant — it is this mindset that will now influence global affairs. I am referring to Russia and China.

On the Ukrainian front, Russia enjoys the covert support of over two dozen Islamic countries, including the Central Asian states. Similarly, China has strong relations with all Islamic countries, and rightfully so, based on economic prosperity. However, the Islamic world's growing tilt toward China and Russia is due to the discriminatory behavior of the UN and Western countries. This shift could soon deprive the U.S. and its allies of not just millions, but billions of supporters, and there may come a time when the UN might not even be able to maintain its existence.

Therefore, it is essential that the concerns of the Islamic world are addressed as soon as possible.

A question also arises: After becoming a member of the UN, do all countries truly hold equal status and position? The answer to this can be found by looking at the structure of the UN. I have already mentioned that the UN was not established based on religion, which was a good practice. But is that practice still in place today? Unfortunately, it is not. On the surface, positions within this global organization are not divided based on religion, nor should they be. However, when we examine its structure, it becomes clear that within the SC, five countries hold a position that has established their superiority over all other member states, giving them certain privileges.

It is acknowledged that when this Council was formed, no one foresaw that it would become so controversial in the future. Or you could say that the misuse of veto power would raise questions about the very existence of the SC. This is why, even if 194 out of the 195 countries on Earth agree on an important issue, a single member of the SC — whether it be the U.S., China, Russia, France, or the UK — can veto the decision, rendering the opinions of the other 194 countries meaningless. Their views would hold as much value as scraps of paper. This is not fiction; we are all witnessing it happen.

Such incidents make the countries that feel their status within the UN is less than that of a "tissue paper" start to wonder if there is any point in remaining part of this community. This is no minor thought; it is a sentiment that can turn into a boiling lava, eventually leading to a revolution. Such attitudes pose a threat to the very existence of a major institution.

My point here is that in order for the UN to assert its status and respect, it needs to establish a comprehensive constitution that addresses these long-standing concerns. This would allow the UN to transform into a revolutionary institution and truly assert its authority on the global stage.

Is it a requirement for a country to be a nuclear power in order to secure permanent membership in the UNSC? Now, coming to this point: if being a nuclear power is necessary for permanent membership in the SC, then looking at the nuclear status of the permanent members — the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China — all are nuclear nations. If countries that are allies of France and India want to grant India permanent membership in the SC based on its nuclear status, then Pakistan should also be given permanent membership. Pakistan is also a nuclear power and a representative of the global Islamic community. This is the answer to a question, not my personal opinion. It is a logical response based on reasoning.

Is the permanent membership of the UNSC dependent on power, color, race, or religion?

Earlier, I was discussing similar questions and the concerns that experts around the world are currently debating, as well as the opinions and fears of the general public. However, the question I am now posing to the global community, especially to the major nations within the UN, is very sensitive. I urge you to try and understand its sensitivity.

These are the questions and concerns that I have heard from major Islamic countries. As I have already explained, when this institution was established, religion or religious sentiments were not allowed to become an obstacle, which was a commendable action. But the UN has not been able to maintain this principle. Currently, there is a growing discussion within the Islamic world, and the central points of this debate are as follows: Within the UN SC, other religions are represented through their respective countries. Some Muslim experts believe that the United States, the United Kingdom, and France are primarily Christian nations, while Russia is communist, and China promotes Buddhism. I have heard from the big influencers and personalities of the Islamic world that the three permanent member countries of the SC are completely Christian and Russia and China are partially Christian, Christianity has complete control, while Communists and Buddhism also represent

Christians make up 30.7% of the world's population, while Muslims account for 24.9%. So, why don’t Muslims have a permanent seat in this institution? I want to make it clear that this concern is not only found among Muslim countries but also among Muslims living in non-Muslim governments. They claim that this is a conspiracy against Muslims. If the global community asserts that all groups have been given proportional representation, then where are the Muslims?

There is also a growing sense of deprivation in the countries associated with the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation). While it is acknowledged that the OIC is a representative organization of Muslims, it cannot be called a global organization, as its decisions are not recognized outside the Muslim world. So, what does that say about its credibility? Shouldn’t the UN address this sense of deprivation? Don’t Muslims make up nearly 25% of the world's population? I will further clarify some points ahead to work towards a practical solution.

The selection of permanent members of the SC was based on the circumstances and global context at the time of the institution's formation, taking into account the global significance, political influence, and balance of power of these countries. After World War II, global powers like the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China held prominent positions on the world stage. At that time, it was believed that giving permanent seats to these powerful countries would help maintain global peace and stability more effectively.

However, the world today has undergone significant changes in terms of circumstances and the balance of power. Other nations with global importance and influence, especially Islamic countries, are also stressing the need to reassess the permanent seats of the SC so that this global institution can reflect the current realities and new balance of power in the world. A common grievance among Muslims is that they constitute almost one-fourth of the world’s population, yet they still lack permanent representation in the SC.

This sense of deprivation further intensifies when it is observed that the five permanent members of the SC are the world's major powers, who often prioritize their own interests over global issues. Additionally, the disproportionate use of veto power obstructs the resolution of conflicts in various parts of the world. Hence, the debate continues today over whether the structure of the SC should be reformed to ensure that all nations in the global community receive fair and balanced representation.

Now, let’s come to the point: Is India eligible to become a permanent member of the SC? Does making India a permanent member of the SC fulfill the principles of justice and equality? These are fundamental questions that must be answered before the issue can be resolved.

As far as India’s bid for permanent membership in the SC is concerned, experts believe that India does not meet the criteria by any standard. These experts argue that there is no quality in India that warrants its inclusion as a permanent member of the SC.

If population is the basis, that is not a valid criterion. If it is based on land area, that too is not a standard. And if France, along with other countries? believe that India is the world’s largest democracy, then it’s unfortunate that their information, expectations, and thoughts are so misguided. On what grounds is India considered a great democratic country?

Democracy is a system of governance where justice, religious freedom, protection of minority rights, human rights, personal freedoms, media freedom, and law and order flourish. If we look at democracy in the context of current events, some of its core principles also include a system of government that serves people based on humanity rather than religion. Now, I ask the global powers this: can you tell me which of these democratic qualities India fulfills?

Does India guarantee that upon becoming a permanent member of the SC, it will grant religious freedom to Muslims, Christians, and other minorities within its borders?? Have France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, Japan, Germany, and other countries not witnessed Christians being forcibly? being converted to Hinduism in India? Were over 250 churches not attacked in Manipur and more then 200 churches in other regions of India ? Have extremist Hindu zealots not sexually assaulted teen age Christian girls and elderly Christian women of 80 years old? under the guise of religious revenge against Christianity? This has all been witnessed by the world; why then are their eyes closed? Has the UN or the SC taken notice of these atrocities?

Moreover, the genocide of Indian Muslims continues unabated. Muslim women face atrocities, and the world is well aware of the Gujarat riots. The level of persecution against Muslims and Christians is intolerable. India has been engaged in genocide of Muslims for 75 years. On November 6, 1947, millions of Muslims were slaughtered in Jammu, where the Indian army and Hindu extremists massacred Muslims in a manner unprecedented in history. In the last thirty years, one lakh more Kashmiris have become victims of Indian terrorism. This is not only the case with Muslims but Dalits, Sikhs and other minorities are also facing similar situations.

Has the UN or the SC ever held India accountable or will they ever do so? Is it not the responsibility of the United Nations and the SC to stand up against tyranny and brutality?

Does India guarantee that after becoming a permanent member of the SC, it will comply with the UN resolutions? If India wishes to secure a permanent seat on the SC, it must take the lead by granting the Kashmiri people their right to self-determination in accordance with United Nations resolutions. Additionally, India must publicly commit to honoring UN resolutions and pledge that under no circumstances will it deviate from the decisions of the United Nations.

These were just a few fundamental questions and concerns raised by international experts, which have been presented to the global community and the UN. However, I have a question for the President of France: Why is he so actively supporting India's bid for permanent membership in the UN SC? Does France not want India to first fulfill the promises it made to the United Nations? Does the French President not want the Indian extremists involved in the massacre of minorities in India to be brought before the International Court of Justice?

Can the UN really strive to make a country with a history full of human rights violations a permanent member of theSC? I cannot even imagine that the UN could think of such a thing. It is a global organization; how could it be part of such a sin? That is simply impossible.

Furthermore, if France, the United States, and the United Kingdom believe that making India a permanent member will increase their power, they are mistaken. If this trio thinks they can use India against China, they are also wrong. Let's assume that India, as a permanent member of the SC, will prove to be a strong barrier against China, or that the international community believes India is the West's best frontline against China. That, too, is a misunderstanding. India is cunningly playing a game with everyone.

Those who want to see India as a permanent member of the SC should also be aware that India is not viewed favorably by the Muslim world. I can confidently say that 83.36% of the population of the 57 Islamic countries is deeply angry with India's genocide of Christians, Muslims, and especially Kashmiris. If India becomes a permanent member of the SC, it will be understood that a few countries are deliberately creating distance between themselves and the Islamic world due to Indian support.

Now let's move to the most critical point. India, which interferes in neighboring countries and is involved in acts of terrorism, openly kills Sikhs, Kashmiris, and those who advocate for the implementation of UN resolutions. It is directly involved in terrorist activities in Pakistan, and the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav is a major piece of evidence. In addition to that, there are many other proofs. The international media also acknowledges that India is directly involved in the killings of Kashmiri and Sikh leaders in Pakistan. The global community is well aware that India is involved in the assassinations of Sikhs and Kashmiris in countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, the UAE, the US, Australia, and others.

What is perplexing is why the international community continues to turn a blind eye to these facts. Does India provide any guarantee that it will stop interfering in neighboring countries and cease supporting terrorism? If India were to admit its wrongdoings on the international stage, perhaps the global community would be compelled to reconsider its stance.

Is India not interfering in Bangladesh? Is India not interfering in Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, the Maldives, and Pakistan? Indian Prime Minister Modi has openly admitted that he played a significant role in the creation of Bangladesh. Is this not considered interference by the international community? Why doesn’t the global community take a stance on this? It should at least present its position.

Has the international community forgotten that just a few days ago, Indian generals and officials were openly threatening Pakistan on Indian media, and are still issuing threats, saying that India will kill Kashmiri leaders and those supporting the Kashmiri cause inside Pakistan? like as in the same way Israel entered Iran and killed Ismail Haniyeh.

Look at India's cunning; it is confidently telling the Islamic world that Israel was involved in the killing of Ismail Haniyeh, a claim which Israel has denied. By placing the blame for this killing on Israel, India is trying to prove that Israel is involved in the assassination of global Islamic leaders.

Isn't India's statement akin to pouring fuel on the fire? And isn't India's open declaration to enter Pakistan and kill Kashmiris and their supporters an outright act of terrorism? Shouldn't the international community at least respond to this?

The global community must dispel any misunderstandings, correct its course, and work to uphold the significance, status, and power of the UN. I am presenting some undeniable facts—read them repeatedly, and if they are true, corrective actions must be taken. If they are not, then I need a logical argument against them. The current global circumstances demand that the credibility and authority of the United Nations be maintained at all costs. Countries that do not comply with UN decisions should have their membership suspended, so they can experience the consequences of their disloyalty to the organization. TheSC should ensure this enforcement, so that nations, communities, and citizens affected by the defiance of UN resolutions can be reassured that the United Nations truly represents the powerless and oppressed.

If most of the major countries in the UN, particularly the permanent members of the SC, believe that by making India a permanent member of the SC, global conflicts and issues will be resolved, then yes, it might seem like a good idea. But this is not just a thought—it is wishful thinking. Personal desires or affections cannot be regarded as the preferences of an institution or nation.

Now, let's consider those who believe that making India a permanent member of the SC will strengthen their lobby and enable them to use India's support against opposing countries or forces. This is a grave mistake. The global community is well aware that India is involved in the massacre of Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, Dalits, and other minorities. Is the international community also not aware that 86% of the world's population is troubled by the actions of the 14% Hindus? So, how can India be granted membership in the face of such vast opposition and humanity's outcry?

Those advocating for India's permanent seat in the SC are deliberately diminishing their value and respect among affected communities. Is the global community not aware that supporting a criminal leads to a loss of support from the rest of the world? Do they not know that India repeatedly violates UN resolutions on Kashmir and that due to its oppression in Kashmir, more than 2 billion Muslims around the world harbor deep resentment and hatred towards India's brutal actions?

Does the global community not realize that supporting India's permanent membership in the SC will generate intense? anger and hatred towards the international community in the Islamic world? The world is already heading towards a global religious conflict. Instead of working to prevent this impending war, it seems that the international community is oblivious to the dangers that would result from supporting India.

The international community must also rid itself of the misconception that because some Muslim countries have diplomatic relations and economic dealings with India, this signifies approval. Remember, when it becomes a matter of life and death, or when religion and faith are at stake, no one is more passionate and emotional than Muslims. They see standing up against injustice as an act of righteousness and consider it a religious duty to bring down the whole world for their beliefs.

Therefore, those who support India's permanent seat in the SC should not forget that by aligning themselves with India, they risk losing the remaining respect and credibility of the UN and the rest of the world in the hearts of billions of Muslims. Another aspect to consider is that if pro-India global powers believe that India is a strong defensive front against China, serving as a strategic ally for the U.S. and other global forces, then this is even more nagetive thinking.

India is never ready to sacrifice itself for anyone else's cause. Not long ago, on the global stage, India has been playing a cunning game of alliances. It has skillfully maintained its relations with Russia while also appeasing the West. In fact, it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that India is like a cunning beloved, who simultaneously maintains relationships with several admirers, each one believing in her claims of true love and convinced that she loves no one but them. In truth, she is loyal to no one, deceiving everyone for her own self-interest.

At this point, there are many arguments and facts that suggest those advocating for India's permanent membership in the SC are unaware of the ground realities. They need to assess and understand how much unrest and discontent this could cause within the UN and across the world.

Now, turning to the idea presented by France: that, in light of global events and conflicts, the number of permanent members in the SC should be increased. I very much appreciate France's position and agree that it is indeed advocating for a broader inclusion of global perspectives in decision-making, encouraging consensus-based decisions and their implementation. This is a sincere and revolutionary step by France for the betterment of the global institution, and I applaud France's positive thinking.

But again, the question arises: which countries should be included as permanent members of the SC, so that the eight billion people living on this planet feel satisfied and content with this decision?

Now I come to the final point, summing up these facts and bringing the global community to a conclusion. France's proposal is commendable, and the rest of the world should stand with France to this extent. However, I am presenting some additional suggestions that should not be ignored, as disregarding them would come at a cost. Acting upon them would greatly enhance the SC and the UN .

As I have already demonstrated, considering global events and circumstances, India is in no way eligible for permanent membership in the SC. The serious accusations against India cannot be overlooked, and it cannot absolve itself of any of these charges. Therefore, the global community must reconsider its expectations regarding India. This is a settled issue.

But now the question arises: if not India, which country should be included alongside Japan and Germany to expand the permanent membership of the SC in a way that satisfies the 195 nations, earning their trust and confidence?

No country can be eligible for permanent membership of the Security Council more than Saudi Arabia        

Having observed global events and conflicts for the past 26 years, I have come to the conclusion that if any country is currently worthy of permanent membership in the SC, it is first and foremost Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a country that enjoys the allegiance, respect, and even faith of 57 Islamic countries. With the exception of Iran, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and the current government in Syria, all others regard Saudi Arabia as a big brother in the Islamic world. Economically, Saudi Arabia is becoming so stronger that in the next few years, it might emerge as the nation with the highest GDP in the world, and this possibility is quite solid.

Saudi Arabia is the center of Mecca and Medina, the heartbeats of over two billion Muslims. It extends help to millions of distressed and suffering people worldwide, regardless of their color, race, religion, region, or class. Saudi Arabia aids refugees, earthquake victims, and those affected by wars and conflicts. In the coming years, Saudi Arabia will become the world's largest economy. As a central figure of Islam, it also seeks peace and prosperity in the Muslim world. Through its esteemed position in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), it maintains control over the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia has always supported the global stance at forums such as the UN and the SC.

If today there is no severe reaction from the Muslim world regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict, or if the Muslim world is being kept from plunging into a global war, it is due to Saudi Arabia. Don't the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, China, and other global powers know that Saudi Arabia is making genuine efforts to resolve the dangerous Palestine-Israel conflict through negotiations? What greater responsibility could Saudi Arabia possibly bear?

Saudi Arabia also stands firmly by a nuclear power like Pakistan. What Saudi Arabia desires, Pakistan supports. It can be clarified that Saudi Arabia is a responsible state that holds the key to 57 Islamic countries. Simply put, if Saudi Arabia is granted permanent membership in the SC, it would mean that the UN gains the full support of these 54 nations through Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia will be able to lead these nations in cooperation with global institutions, opening up a new direction and a new hope that can be embraced with confidence.

Additionally, if Saudi Arabia secures permanent membership, the concerns of the Islamic world will also be addressed. These Islamic countries will be pleased with the representation of the Muslim world in the UN , marking the start of a new era of global prosperity. The looming religious wars between Islam and other religions—whether near or far—will be averted, and, dare I say, the world will gain more time for survival. Even the global conflict arising from the Palestine-Israel issue would be resolved, and thus, a new era will begin.

Therefore, the proposal from France and other countries regarding the expansion of permanent membership in the SC should be considered. Countries seeking permanent membership must first demonstrate adherence to U.N. resolutions, decisions, and basic human rights. If global powers attempt to ignore truth, nature, reality, and humanity, peace and prosperity cannot be expected. Move forward and protect the life of this planet, for it is where our survival lies, the survival of humanity. Long live humanity!