Should India be added as a Permanant UN member and why ?

by VM » Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:21 am

I think India should be added as a permanant member of UN if there is no discrimination of a human being in a developed country and a human being a third world country like ours. Since we are the second most populous country in the world and the 4th largest economy in hte world.
 
 I hope some people will add there views why India should be perm UN member.

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:44 am

I dunno which India you are talking about, but the India which I know of is definitely not Thirld World. Yeas we have a long way to go to be a developed country, but we are definitely past the Third world stage.
 
 Sorry for the deviation, back to the point.
 India definitely deserves a UNSC seat. If not for Nehrus stupid socialism, we would have been a Permanent member of UNSC. It was offered to India in the 60\'s and Nehru declined it saying that China deserves it more than India. What a short-sightedness it proved to be.
 We are a growing economy and already one of the best Militaries in the world, we may not yet have the power projection capabilities, but other than US no one else has that capability. We have over billion population, who, I think, should have a say in the world affairs. India has considerable clout in the SE-Asian region and have good ties with resot of world with an exception of the rogue nation next to our western borders. Added to that we are the only nation who religiously follow UN.

by **a relatively new student of world politi** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 6:49 am

What all does UN stand for ? What are the benefits of a member/a permanant member ? If India anyway follows religiously what all UN asks us to do, why would we need to be a member all over again ? any particular benefit to the UN as such on India becoming the member/permanant member ? If UN is supposed to be representing all the people/countries in the world, how come it never made such a huge democracy as India already a member, if not a permanant one after 1960 ? Does UN stand for what all you are going to say it stands for ? What about the politics in UN? or will you say do I find any place without politics

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 9:20 am

Since you are a new student to politik, I suggest you start from here http://WWW.GOOGLE.Com. You will find answers to your questions here.

by **relatively new** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 1:06 am

uh, oh! google seems to be severely biased and a leftist info center. If I seek ans from there wud obviously mean that I wud get similar ans !! not simple facts but colored ones.

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:34 am

AFAIK, google is a search engine, you will get websites with left, right and center POV .

by **relatively new** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:27 am

whats\' AFAIK and POV ? and ofcourse, its a seacrh engine and it will give all the sides of a situation except for \'miserable failure\' ?

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:20 am

AFAIK - As Far As I Know
 POV - Point of View.
 General Message Board Lingo (Language)
 
 Why do you want to talk about Miserable failure here?

by **Habitual Perfectionist** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 8:00 pm

First of all, India is already a member of the United Nations. Probably what you wanted to mention here was the security council, which has already been mentioned by MM in his post. I just wanted to make it clearer and avoid future confusion.
 
 As MM rightly pointed out, denying of the permanent seat was one of the many errors in judgement committed by the first family of Indian politics (An unfortunate chapter in the world\'s greatest democracy).
 
 But what now? Do we really need a permanent seat in the UNSC? How effective is that? The way the UNSC was sidelined before the Iraq war was a sorry comment on the effectiveness of the world body.
 
 I know for sure that our politicians suck up to the developed block and whatever I\'m suggesting here is something they would never have the guts to do. Why not form a new world order? Not the NAM...fill in the void created by the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
 
 I might sound negative, but look at this. During the cold war, the amount of strife was very less. We never had Bosnia, Bali, WTC and Dalal street. Don\'t really know whether there is a relation between the two events; but the wishful thinker that I am, I tend not to see this as a mere coincidence. All these complicated issues have come up TO THE FOREFRONT after the cessation of the Cold War.
 
 And it need not be a new world order bent upon defeating the allies. But something to keep them in check so that there\'s no more Afghanistan, no more Iraq.
 
 Just a thought........

Who is online