India has renewed its demand for reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), arguing that the current structure does not adequately reflect contemporary global realities and is weakening the body's legitimacy and effectiveness. Addressing the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, India's Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni, said the Security Council was struggling to respond effectively to some of the world's gravest conflicts, nearly eight decades after the establishment of the United Nations. He argued that the international system created in 1945 could not continue to define the global order without accounting for the political, economic and demographic changes that have taken place since then. Parvathaneni made the remarks during a General Assembly discussion on the question of equitable representation and increasing membership of the Security Council.

The debate centres on whether the council's composition should be changed to better represent the present-day international community. India has consistently supported an expansion of the council, arguing that its existing membership reflects the circumstances prevailing at the end of the Second World War rather than the realities of the 21st century. The latest intervention reiterated New Delhi's position that meaningful reform is necessary if the United Nations is to remain credible and capable of addressing international crises. The Security Council was established in 1945 as one of the principal organs of the United Nations, with primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. It has 15 members, including five permanent members with veto power: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The remaining 10 members are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms.

The permanent members' veto powers have frequently become a subject of debate, particularly when disagreements among major powers prevent the council from adopting resolutions on conflicts and other security concerns. Critics of the current structure argue that it gives a small group of countries disproportionate influence over decisions affecting the wider international community. India's argument for reform is based partly on the view that the present composition does not adequately represent the world's changing political and economic landscape. Since the United Nations was founded, the number of independent countries has increased substantially, and countries across Asia, Africa and Latin America have assumed greater roles in international affairs. Yet the permanent membership of the Security Council has remained unchanged since its establishment.

Also Read: Bihar Teen Travels To 12 Jyotirlingas Following Mother's Recovery

India has argued that a more representative council would strengthen confidence in the multilateral system and give a wider range of countries a meaningful role in decisions concerning global peace and security. Parvathaneni's remarks also highlighted the generational distance between the circumstances in which the United Nations was formed and the world faced by people today. The international community has changed significantly since 1945, with new geopolitical alignments, economic relationships and security challenges emerging over subsequent decades. India's position is that institutions designed for the post-war period must adapt to these developments rather than continue operating under an arrangement that no longer fully reflects global realities. The demand for reform is therefore linked not only to representation but also to the Security Council's ability to respond to conflicts and maintain international peace.

However, reforming the Security Council remains a complicated diplomatic process. Any change to the council's structure would require broad international agreement and amendments to the UN Charter. The permanent members' positions, differences among regional groups and disagreements over the number and status of new members have made negotiations difficult. Countries also differ over whether an expanded council should include additional permanent members, more elected seats or a combination of both. These disagreements have contributed to the prolonged nature of the reform process despite repeated calls from member states for a more representative arrangement. India has been among the countries seeking a permanent seat on an expanded Security Council. New Delhi maintains that its population, international role and participation in UN activities support its case for a greater role in the body's decision-making. It has also supported broader representation for underrepresented regions, particularly Africa.

The question of equitable representation remains central to negotiations, as member states debate how any expansion should balance regional interests with the need for an effective decision-making process. The latest remarks at the General Assembly underline India's continuing push to make Security Council reform a priority in discussions about the future of global governance. Parvathaneni's criticism focused on the gap between the council's existing structure and the demands placed on it by contemporary conflicts. Whether that pressure leads to an agreement on reform will depend on negotiations among UN member states and their willingness to resolve longstanding differences. For India, the central argument remains that the international order cannot be shaped indefinitely by the arrangements established in 1945 if the United Nations is to retain its legitimacy and deliver on its responsibility to maintain peace.

Also Read: Israel Orders West Bank Lockdown Ahead of Parliamentary Elections Following Fatal Clash