India tells UN General Assembly that the Security Council faces a 'legitimacy deficit'
In one line: On 22 October 2026, India told the UN General Assembly that the Security Council's authority from 1945 cannot make up for its present lack of legitimacy, and asked for real, text-based reform.
Published 24 October 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
India's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni, told the UN General Assembly on Thursday, 22 October 2026, that the "authority derived from a victory eight decades ago cannot compensate for the deficit in legitimacy" of an unrepresentative Security Council. He spoke in the Assembly's annual debate on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council. He described the UN as "crafted of the victors, for the victors and by the victors", said "we cannot reasonably drive into the future by constantly looking at the rearview mirror", and added that "reform is not the settlement of old scores."
India's demands were specific. It wants expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent categories, arguing that adding only non-permanent seats would leave the central imbalance untouched. On the veto, he said, "As long as it exists, it must be held by all permanent members, new and old alike", because "a two-tier permanent membership would only institutionalise inequality." He criticised the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN), the General Assembly process on Council reform: for well over a decade and a half, he said, members have "exchanged prepared statements" with no text, timeframe or end goal, and "convergences are not consensus." India wants text-based negotiations, a more transparent Council, and a stronger voice for troop- and police-contributing countries.
The Council has 15 members: five permanent members with a veto (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms. The speech noted that the Asia-Pacific Group holds more than 60% of the world's population but has one permanent seat and one or two elected seats a year, while Europe has two permanent and three elected seats. India, which is seeking a non-permanent seat for 2028-29, is part of the G4 with Brazil, Germany and Japan, which back each other's claims to permanent seats. The Uniting for Consensus group, which includes Italy and Pakistan, opposes new permanent seats. Any change needs a Charter amendment that all five permanent members must ratify, which is why reform has stalled since the only expansion, in force from 1965.
Prelims facts
- On 22 October 2026 India told the UN General Assembly that the Security Council suffers a 'deficit in legitimacy' that a 1945 victory cannot make up.
- India seeks expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories, and says any veto must be held by all permanent members, new and old.
- India called the Intergovernmental Negotiations an exchange of prepared statements without a text, and demanded text-based negotiations.
- The Asia-Pacific Group has more than 60% of the world's population but one permanent seat; Europe has two permanent seats.
- India is seeking a non-permanent Council seat for 2028-29; the G4 is Brazil, Germany, India and Japan.
Quick recall
- Who is India's Permanent Representative to the UN who spoke on 22 October 2026?
- Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni.
- How many members does the Security Council have?
- 15: five permanent with veto, ten elected for two-year terms.
- When was the Council last expanded?
- By an amendment adopted in 1963 that came into force in 1965, from 11 to 15 members.
- Which Charter article governs amendments?
- Article 108: two-thirds of the General Assembly plus ratification by two-thirds of members including all five permanent members.
- Members of the G4?
- Brazil, Germany, India and Japan.
- What does resolution 76/262 (2022) do?
- Requires the General Assembly to meet after a veto is cast in the Security Council.
- India's position on the veto?
- As long as it exists, it must be held by all permanent members, new and old alike.
- For which term is India seeking a non-permanent seat?
- 2028-29.
Prelims practice question
With reference to the United Nations Security Council, consider the following statements:
1. Its non-permanent members are elected for two-year terms.
2. An amendment to the UN Charter comes into force only after ratification by two-thirds of UN members, including all permanent members of the Council.
3. The Council has been expanded twice since 1945.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Show answer
Answer: (a) 1 and 2 only. Statement 1 is correct: the ten non-permanent members serve two-year terms. Statement 2 is correct: under Article 108, amendments need a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of members, including all five permanent members. Statement 3 is incorrect: the Council has been expanded only once, from 11 to 15 members, by an amendment adopted in 1963 that came into force in 1965.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Reform of the UN Security Council and India's quest for a permanent seat
Discuss the impediments India is facing in its pursuit of a permanent seat in UNSC.
How to use thisUse India's latest statement to list the structural, procedural and political impediments to a permanent seat.
- Article 108 needs ratification by all five permanent members, so any one can block a new permanent seat.
- Uniting for Consensus, including Italy and Pakistan, opposes new permanent seats; the G4 backs them.
- India says the Intergovernmental Negotiations have only 'exchanged prepared statements' for over 15 years without a negotiating text.
- How to use this
Use it to argue that reform is stuck as much by structure and regional blocs as by East-West confrontation.
- India: the UN was 'crafted of the victors, for the victors and by the victors'; legitimacy now lags authority.
- Asia-Pacific holds over 60% of humanity but one permanent seat; Europe has two.
- 24 vetoes on 20 drafts since resolution 76/262 show restraint efforts have failed, India noted in April 2026.
Mains practice question
"Authority derived from a victory eight decades ago cannot compensate for the deficit in legitimacy." Examine India's case for reform of the UN Security Council and the obstacles to it. (250 words)
Model answer
On 22 October 2026, India told the UN General Assembly that the Security Council, shaped by the victors of 1945, suffers a deficit in legitimacy in today's world.
India's case
- Representation: the Asia-Pacific Group holds over 60% of humanity but one permanent seat; Europe has two. Africa has no permanent seat.
- Effectiveness: India argues the Council's inability to act on conflicts is eroding the UN's credibility.
- Both categories: expanding only non-permanent seats, as in the 1960s, leaves the imbalance intact. India's April 2026 IGN statement noted the ratio moved from 5:6 to 5:10 without diluting veto power.
- Veto equality: 'as long as it exists' it must be held by all permanent members; a two-tier membership 'would only institutionalise inequality'.
- India's credentials: about 2.5 million Indians served in the Second World War (as India's envoy noted); India seeks a 2028-29 seat and backs the G4 claim.
Obstacles
- Article 108: amendment needs ratification by two-thirds of members, including all five permanent members, who can block change.
- Rival blocs: Uniting for Consensus, including Italy and Pakistan, rejects new permanent seats.
- Process: the IGN has run without a negotiating text; India says members only 'exchanged prepared statements'.
- Veto restraint has limited bite: India noted 24 vetoes on 20 drafts since resolution 76/262 of 2022.
Way forward
- Push text-based negotiations with a timeframe.
- Build cross-regional coalitions with the African Group and L.69.
- Improve working methods meanwhile: transparency and a voice for troop contributors.
Reform is about making the Council fit for today's world, which is ultimately in the interest of the UN's own credibility.
The basics
Why this matters
Security Council reform is one of India's oldest foreign policy goals and one of UPSC's most repeated themes. India's speech of 22 October 2026 restated its case sharply: the Council's authority comes from winning a war in 1945, but its legitimacy today depends on representing the world as it is.
How the Council is built
The Council has 15 members. Five are permanent and hold a veto. Ten are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. Decisions on substantive matters need nine votes and no veto from a permanent member. See The veto for how that power works.
- 1China, France, Russia, UK, USFive permanent members, each with a veto
- 2Ten elected membersChosen by the General Assembly for two-year terms, by regional groups
- 3Nine votesNeeded to adopt a decision; on substance, no permanent member may vote no
Only one reform in eighty years
The Council grew from 11 to 15 members through an amendment adopted in 1963 and in force from 1965, when only non-permanent seats were added. India's April 2026 statement to the IGN noted that this changed the ratio of veto-holders to elected members from 5:6 to 5:10 without diluting the veto. Since then UN membership has grown to 193, but the Council has not changed. The reason is the amendment rule in Article 108 of the UN Charter.
- 1945UN Charter creates an 11-member Council with five veto-holders
- 1965Amendment adopted in 1963 comes into force; Council expands to 15
- 2009Intergovernmental Negotiations begin in the General Assembly
- 2022Resolution 76/262: General Assembly to meet after every veto
- 22 October 2026India calls out the Council's 'deficit in legitimacy'
The rival models
India and its G4 partners want new permanent and non-permanent seats. A rival group rejects new permanent seats. The details are in G4 and Uniting for Consensus.
- Expand both permanent and non-permanent seats
- Support each other's claims to permanent seats
- Better representation for Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America
- No new permanent members
- Add more elected seats instead
- Argues new permanent seats entrench privilege
Why the process is stuck
Reform talks happen in the Intergovernmental Negotiations, which have run in the General Assembly since 2009 without an agreed negotiating text. India says members have only 'exchanged prepared statements' for over a decade and a half. Its envoy put it simply: 'convergences are not consensus.'
Go deeper
Why it matters for UPSC
GS2 asks about the structure and mandate of international institutions and India's place in them. UNSC reform questions appeared in 2015 and 2025 Mains, and Council structure is a regular Prelims topic.
The core idea
The Council is small, and five permanent members hold The veto. Changing that needs a Charter amendment under Article 108 of the UN Charter, which every permanent member must ratify. Reform talks run in the Intergovernmental Negotiations, where India and the G4 face a rival bloc described in G4 and Uniting for Consensus. India's message: expand both categories, give any veto to all permanent members, and start negotiating on a text.
Numbers and dates to remember
- 15 members: 5 permanent, 10 elected for two-year terms.
- 1963 amendment, in force 1965: Council expanded from 11 to 15.
- 2009: Intergovernmental Negotiations begin.
- 2022: resolution 76/262 requires a General Assembly meeting after a veto.
- 24 vetoes on 20 drafts since 76/262, India said in April 2026.
- 2028-29: term for which India seeks a non-permanent seat.
Where to go next
- The veto: the power at the centre of the reform fight.
- Article 108 of the UN Charter: why reform is so hard.
- Intergovernmental Negotiations: the process India calls stuck.
- G4 and Uniting for Consensus: the rival reform camps.
Go deeper: why does reform never happen?
India's argument. India links legitimacy to effectiveness. A Council that does not reflect today's world, India argues, cannot act credibly on today's conflicts. It points to history too: India's envoy noted that about 2.5 million Indians served in the Second World War and about 90,000 died, yet India had no place among the victors who wrote the rules.
The veto problem. India's position is that The veto, as long as it exists, must be held by all permanent members. Others argue that more veto-holders would paralyse the Council further. India answers that a two-tier permanent membership would 'institutionalise inequality'. In April 2026 India noted that resolution 76/262 had not deterred vetoes: 24 were cast on 20 draft resolutions since its adoption.
The procedural trap. Under Article 108 of the UN Charter, the five permanent members can each block an amendment by not ratifying it. Inside the General Assembly, the Intergovernmental Negotiations work by consensus and have no negotiating text, so a determined minority can stall them. India's demand for a text is a demand to move from speeches to bargaining.
The rival camp. The Uniting for Consensus group, which includes Italy and Pakistan, opposes new permanent seats and prefers more elected seats. Its argument is that new permanent members would add to privilege rather than reduce it. India's reply is that the 1960s expansion of only elected seats left power with the veto-holders. See G4 and Uniting for Consensus.
What India can do meanwhile. Seek elected terms (it is campaigning for 2028-29), build coalitions with African states and the L.69 group, and press for better working methods such as transparency in sanctions listings and a voice for troop contributors.
The veto
The power held by five states that sits at the heart of the reform fight.
In one line: The veto is the power of each of the five permanent members to block any substantive Security Council decision by voting against it.
How it works
A Council decision needs nine of 15 votes. On substantive matters, a negative vote by any permanent member blocks it, even if all others agree. Abstention does not count as a veto in practice. The five holders are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Attempts to restrain it
In 2022 the General Assembly adopted resolution 76/262, under which the Assembly meets after a veto is cast to discuss it. India said in April 2026 that 24 vetoes had since been cast on 20 draft resolutions, showing the resolution has not deterred their use.
India's position
India says that as long as the veto exists, it must be held by all permanent members, new and old.
Where to go next
Article 108 of the UN Charter
The amendment rule that lets any permanent member block reform.
In one line: Article 108 says a Charter amendment takes effect only when adopted by two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratified by two-thirds of UN members, including all five permanent members of the Security Council.
Why it matters
Expanding the Council or changing the veto means amending the Charter. Because ratification by all five permanent members is required, each of them has a de facto veto over reform itself.
The only precedent
The Council was expanded once, from 11 to 15 members, through amendments adopted in 1963 that came into force in 1965. Only non-permanent seats were added.
Why it is in the news
India's 22 October 2026 speech argued that adding only elected seats again would leave the central imbalance untouched.
Where to go next
Intergovernmental Negotiations
The General Assembly process on Council reform that India calls stuck.
In one line: The Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) are the General Assembly's process, running since 2009, for negotiating Security Council reform.
How they work
The IGN cover five clusters of issues, including categories of membership, the veto, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Council and its working methods, and the relationship between the Council and the General Assembly. They work by consensus and have no agreed negotiating text.
India's criticism
On 22 October 2026, India said that for well over a decade and a half members have only 'exchanged prepared statements', without a text, timeframe or end goal. It wants text-based negotiations, saying a text should be the starting point of talks, not the outcome.
Where to go next
G4 and Uniting for Consensus
The two rival camps whose split keeps reform stuck.
In one line: The G4 (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan) want new permanent seats, while the Uniting for Consensus group, which includes Italy and Pakistan, opposes them.
The G4
The four support each other's bids for permanent seats and stress better representation for Africa, Asia-Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean. India aligns its statements with the G4 and with the L.69 group of developing countries.
Uniting for Consensus
This group argues that new permanent seats would add to privilege. It proposes more elected seats instead.
Why it matters
With both camps holding firm and amendment requiring broad support, neither model has the numbers to pass.
Where to go next
Take the 24 October 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers