UN Losing Legitimacy Due to Unrepresentative Security Council, Says India

India has urged urgent United Nations reforms, arguing that the Security Council’s outdated structure undermines its legitimacy and fails to reflect contemporary global political realities.

India Says UN Security Council Lacks Legitimacy, Calls for Urgent Reforms

India has called for urgent reforms to the United Nations Security Council, arguing that its current structure does not adequately represent the realities of the modern world. The country warned that the organisation risks losing legitimacy by continuing to rely on a framework shaped by the outcome of the Second World War.

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly, India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, P. Harish, emphasised that the global institution must evolve to reflect contemporary geopolitical conditions. He also urged member states to remove procedural obstacles that have delayed negotiations on Security Council reform.

India Questions the Legitimacy of the Existing Security Council

India has argued that the Security Council’s composition remains heavily influenced by the political arrangements established after the Second World War, despite significant changes in the global balance of power.

P. Harish said that events from more than eight decades ago should not continue to determine the structure of international governance. He stressed that historical military victories cannot, by themselves, justify the continued concentration of decision-making authority among a limited number of countries.

According to the Indian envoy, the Council’s lack of adequate representation weakens its legitimacy and raises questions about its ability to address present-day international challenges.

India believes that a more representative Security Council would strengthen confidence in the United Nations and improve the institution’s capacity to respond to global issues.

India Highlights Its Contribution to the Second World War

During his address, Harish drew attention to India’s contribution to the Allied war effort, arguing that the country’s historical role has not been adequately reflected in the structure of the United Nations.

He stated that approximately 2.5 million Indians participated in the Second World War, with around 90,000 losing their lives in military service.

The envoy also referred to the Bengal famine, attributing millions of deaths to colonial wartime policies. He argued that the historical experiences and sacrifices of countries that were not included among the victorious powers have received insufficient recognition in the existing international framework.

Harish maintained that an institution established around the interests of the victors risks overlooking the concerns and perspectives of those who suffered the consequences of war and colonial rule.

India Criticises Obstacles to Security Council Reform

India has expressed concern that provisions within the UN Charter and existing procedural arrangements can be used to delay meaningful institutional change.

Harish argued that privileges established by the victorious powers in 1945 should not become instruments for indefinitely postponing negotiations on reform.

He specifically called for progress in the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN), the UN process through which member states discuss changes to the Security Council.

India wants the negotiations to move forward with a clear negotiating text, a defined timeline and a concrete direction. It maintains that procedural disagreements should not prevent countries from beginning substantive discussions about the Council’s future composition and functioning.

Disagreement Over the Negotiating Text

A major point of disagreement concerns whether a negotiating text should be adopted before discussions on Security Council reform can advance.

The Uniting for Consensus (UfC) group, led by Italy and including Pakistan, has opposed adopting a negotiating text without prior consensus among member states.

India has challenged this approach, arguing that requiring agreement before establishing a common negotiating document reverses the normal sequence of multilateral negotiations.

Harish maintained that a text provides the foundation for negotiations rather than representing their final outcome. In India's view, member states need a common document to identify areas of agreement, discuss differences and work towards possible solutions.

The disagreement illustrates the continuing divisions among UN members over the process and framework for reforming the Security Council.

India Calls for a More Representative United Nations

India has consistently supported comprehensive reform of the Security Council, including an expansion of both permanent and non-permanent membership.

New Delhi argues that the Council must better reflect the contemporary distribution of global influence and provide a stronger voice to regions and countries that remain underrepresented.

Reform advocates contend that a more inclusive institution could improve the legitimacy of UN decisions and strengthen international cooperation. However, reaching agreement remains difficult because member states have differing views on membership categories, representation and the decision-making process.

India has therefore urged countries to move beyond procedural disputes and engage in substantive negotiations on the Council’s future structure.

Conclusion

India’s latest intervention at the United Nations highlights its continuing demand for a Security Council that reflects present-day geopolitical realities rather than arrangements established after the Second World War.

By raising concerns about historical representation, procedural delays and disagreements over negotiations, New Delhi has renewed its call for meaningful institutional reform. The challenge ahead will be to build sufficient agreement among member states to advance changes that make the Security Council more representative, credible and effective.