Europe appears to have lost its sense of proportion: unable to resolve its own issues, it now turns to champion India—enthusiastically. In a sudden move, four European nations collectively submitted a proposal urging that India be brought to the negotiating table. Prime Minister Modi, upon receiving the news, could hardly suppress his satisfaction. The joy was further compounded by a statement from Russia.

India has received strong backing from the Visegrad Group (V4), reigniting hopes for permanent membership in the UN Security Council. However, the positions of the five major powers remain clearly defined, and external support has failed to coalesce into a unified front. The reality is far less optimistic than it may seem.

On September 21, during the ongoing 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly, India held a joint foreign ministers’ meeting with the V4 countries—Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. The four nations explicitly expressed their support for India’s bid to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Evidently, India is accelerating its pursuit of a permanent seat on the Security Council.

From an objective standpoint, India does possess certain qualifications for such a position.

With over 1.4 billion people, India is the world’s most populous nation. Its GDP reached $3.96 trillion in 2025, placing it sixth globally. According to the Global Firepower Index published by U.S.-based GFP, India ranks fourth in overall military strength, behind only China, the United States, and Russia.

In terms of hard power, if the UN were to admit new permanent members, India would be among the most qualified candidates.

From the perspective of international support, India also holds a strong position. Since 2004, India has been part of the G4 grouping—alongside Japan, Germany, and Brazil—seeking to consolidate efforts toward securing permanent seats in the Security Council. Meanwhile, Russia has maintained close ties with India, aiming to strengthen its influence in the Indian Ocean region. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov publicly endorsed India’s candidacy earlier this month.

With backing from several major powers and now a united stance from the V4 bloc, India appears to glimpse a sliver of light beyond the door of permanent membership. Yet, when examined through multiple lenses, it becomes clear that India still faces formidable obstacles on its path to becoming a permanent member.

The UN Charter stipulates that any country seeking permanent membership must gain approval from all five permanent members and secure two-thirds support in the General Assembly. India’s prospects hinge on one of two paths: either fulfilling the procedural requirements or advancing constitutional reform.

The four V4 nations are non-permanent members with limited global influence. Their individual weight in international affairs is modest, and their statements in favor of India carry little substantive impact. At best, they reflect localized strategic calculations rather than decisive diplomatic leverage.

The ultimate decision rests with the five permanent members. The core issue remains the veto power—the exclusive privilege of permanent members. All parties recognize that granting India a permanent seat would dilute the value of this right and potentially compromise their own strategic interests.

Consequently, while each of the five permanent members has at various times expressed general support for India’s aspirations, no concrete plan has materialized.

In recent years, the United States proposed establishing a more “inclusive” Security Council—one that would admit India and others without granting them veto power. India rejected this proposal outright, underscoring the centrality of the veto right to its ambitions.

Subsequently, the U.S., Russia, the United Kingdom, and France each laid out conditions: any expansion should address the underrepresentation of African and developing nations, advocating instead for the inclusion of African states rather than singling out India. This approach clearly aims to broaden membership in a way that diffuses the impact of veto power and safeguards existing hegemonic interests.

In contrast, China has maintained a singular position: consistently opposing Japan’s bid for permanent membership.

China argues that Japan has persistently refused to confront its wartime history, shows no genuine remorse for its war crimes, continues to undermine international order, has lifted restrictions on collective self-defense, and seeks to revive militarism—factors that disqualify it from permanent membership.

While China’s demand is minimal, its implications for India are significant. India has been part of the G4 alliance with Japan, Germany, and Brazil for over two decades, investing substantial diplomatic effort into maintaining the coalition. A sudden withdrawal would strain bilateral relations and risk destabilizing regional alliances, leading to a downward spiral.

Given these dynamics, India is unlikely to abandon the G4. As a result, China’s position effectively constitutes an insurmountable barrier on India’s path to permanent membership.

Ultimately, India has yet to grasp a fundamental truth: control over global discourse is not conferred by veto power, but derived from material strength.

India’s inability to secure a permanent seat reflects its current limitations in comprehensive national capability.

Weak industrial foundations and deep-seated governance challenges indicate that India still has a long way to go before it can emerge as a top-tier global power. If, over time, India addresses these structural weaknesses, its influence could surpass that of many current powers—and a permanent seat would then be within reach.

But in the present context, where ambition exceeds capacity, continued insistence will inevitably lead to failure.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1877178639890440/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.