India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni, reiterated on Monday that all permanent members of a reformed Security Council must have veto powers as long as the provision continues to exist. He stressed that fairness and justice demand equal rights and responsibilities for every permanent member.
“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,” Parvathaneni said.
Addressing the Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) plenary on the ‘Cluster Debate on the Question of the Veto’ in the UN General Assembly, the Indian envoy argued that expanding the Council by creating another category of long-term members without veto powers would not alter the existing decision-making dynamics dominated by the permanent five, or P5.
He said such a reform would effectively create “second-class” members while leaving the existing power structure unchanged.
Creating a new category of permanent members, whether with or without veto powers, would further complicate an already difficult discussion and “entrench the very inequity we are seeking to correct”, Parvathaneni said.
“Periodic elections and the concept of permanency are fundamentally contradictory,” the diplomat added.
Recalling the history of Security Council expansion, Parvathaneni said the only expansion took place in 1965, when the number of non-permanent members increased from six to 10 while the five permanent members retained their positions.
“History has a lesson for us,” he said.
According to Parvathaneni, the change shifted the ratio of permanent to elected members from 5:6 to 5:10, further strengthening the relative power of the P5.
India has consistently called for expanding both the permanent and non-permanent categories of Security Council membership. New Delhi has warned that reform efforts would border on “failure” if they focused solely on increasing the number of non-permanent members.
India has been at the forefront of efforts to reform the Security Council over several years, arguing that the body, established in 1945, is not fit for purpose in the 21st century and does not reflect contemporary geopolitical realities.
New Delhi has repeatedly maintained that it deserves a permanent seat at the Security Council’s horse-shoe table.
Alongside its demand for permanent membership, India is also seeking a non-permanent seat for the 2028-29 term. Elections for the term are scheduled for June next year, when India and Tajikistan will contest the sole seat allocated to the Asia-Pacific Group.
India last served on the Security Council in 2021-22, marking its eighth term. Its previous terms were 1950-51, 1967-68, 1972-73, 1977-78, 1984-85, 1991-92 and 2011-12.
Parvathaneni also emphasised that the veto, currently a prerogative of the five permanent members, must be exercised with “great restraint”, particularly on matters concerning international peace and security.
“It should not be an instrument of narrow political expediency,” he said.
The Indian envoy argued that the question of limiting the veto could not be addressed in isolation from other aspects of Security Council reform. These include membership categories, regional representation, the Council’s size and its working methods.
“India reiterates its call for a comprehensive approach towards Security Council reforms. The starting point is early commencement of text-based negotiations, with clearly defined timelines and milestones,” he said.
Addressing the Council’s working methods, Parvathaneni pointed out that the veto was not limited to formal votes cast by permanent members.
He said an “effective or de facto veto” could also be exercised by any Council member over presidential statements, press statements and decisions of sanctions committees. Under the “unwritten rule” of consensus, a single member can block a proposal, often without providing an explanation.
His remarks referred to the functioning of UNSC sanctions committees, which designate and de-list terror outfits and individuals.
Parvathaneni also criticised the use of consensus in the Intergovernmental Negotiations process itself, describing it as a “disguised, de facto veto”.
Referring to the UN General Assembly resolution that established the framework for the negotiations, he said the guiding principle was the widest possible political acceptance rather than consensus.
Delivered India's statement at the UNGA Plenary on the use of the Veto Highlighted: ➡️ Veto is a responsibility, not a tool of narrow political expediency. We note that two of the P5 have not exercised veto for over three and a half decades. Most vetoes or threats of vetoes have emanated from three of the P5. ➡️ Piecemeal reforms will not work. All five clusters of UNSC reform must be addressed together. ➡️ Veto initiative of 2022 was seen as a harbinger of change. However, actual record of large number of vetoes cast since UNGA 76/262 tells a contrary story. ➡️ Unwritten consensus rules enable de facto vetoes in Council decisions and sanctions committees. ➡️ Consensus cannot become a disguised veto in the Inter Governmental Negotiations (IGN). ➡️ India aligns with the Common African Position: As long as the veto exists, all permanent members must enjoy equal rights. ➡️ New long-term seats without veto powers would create second-class members and perpetuate inequity. All permanent members, including new ones, must enjoy equal rights. ➡️ Begin text-based negotiations with clear timelines. The UNSC must reflect today's realities, not those of 1945.
— Parvathaneni Harish (@AmbHarishP) October 26, 2026
“Seventeen cycles later, we have no outcome to show for it,” he said.
India called for text-based negotiations to begin at the earliest, with clearly defined timelines and milestones. It argued that addressing the veto alone would not be sufficient to restore the Security Council’s credibility, legitimacy and effectiveness.
“The questions of credibility, legitimacy and efficacy that hang over the Security Council will not be answered by managing the veto alone. They will be answered by a Council fit for purpose, whose architecture reflects today's realities and not that of the outcome of a war eight decades ago,” Parvathaneni said.
India’s position underscores its demand for comprehensive Security Council reform, with equal rights for all permanent members and a decision-making structure that reflects contemporary geopolitical realities rather than preserving the existing balance of power.
About The Author
.jpg)
Comment List