India is campaigning for a UNSC seat. Here is why it matters

India has begun its campaign for a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for the 2028-29 term.

Although the immediate objective is to win election to the Security Council in June 2027, New Delhi's long-term goal remains unchanged: obtaining permanent membership in a reformed Security Council that it argues should better reflect today's realities rather than the global order that emerged after the Second World War.

The campaign was officially launched by External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on July 13, where India introduced its guiding framework, SHANTI — Securing Holistic Advancement through Norms, Trust, Integrity — and the campaign identifier #India4UNSC before ambassadors, diplomats and senior UN officials.

More from Explainers

World Population Day 2026: Why my spouse and I chose to be DINKs, and don't regret it

The old Quad is dying, time for a new Quad

India's push comes at a time when the world is facing simultaneous crises, from the continuing war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza to the wider regional instability caused by the US-Israel war against Iran.

These developments have once again raised questions over whether the Security Council, whose permanent membership has remained unchanged since 1945, is capable of addressing contemporary global challenges.

Why has India launched its UNSC campaign now?

India officially unveiled its candidature nearly a year before elections are scheduled to take place in June 2027. Unlike several previous campaigns in which India secured broad consensus within its regional grouping, the upcoming election is expected to be significantly more competitive.

The Asia-Pacific Group has only one non-permanent seat available for the 2028-29 term, and India will face Tajikistan in a direct contest.

The contest is expected to attract close attention because of the changing dynamics within United Nations elections. Recent voting patterns have demonstrated that even countries with considerable diplomatic influence cannot take victory for granted.

Germany's unexpected defeat to Portugal and Austria in a recent Security Council election has become a reminder that traditional diplomatic weight no longer guarantees success, even for major powers.

New Delhi enters the race with publicly known support from several partners, including the United States, Austria, Fiji and Sri Lanka.

Tajikistan, however, is expected to benefit from support across the 57-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), making the Asia-Pacific contest one of the most closely watched races in the upcoming election cycle.

If elected, India would return to the Security Council for the ninth time. The country previously served as a non-permanent member during 1950-1951, 1967-1968, 1972-1973, 1977-1978, 1984-1985, 1991-1992, 2011-2012 and most recently during the 2021-2022 term.

While another two-year tenure would allow India to participate directly in deliberations on international peace and security, the campaign also serves a broader purpose by keeping the debate on Security Council reform firmly on the international agenda.

What is India's SHANTI vision for the United Nations?

At the centre of India's campaign is SHANTI, an acronym that stands for "Securing Holistic Advancement through Norms, Trust, Integrity."

According to the government, the framework represents India's vision for a more representative, effective and responsive multilateral system capable of addressing modern security and development challenges.

Speaking at the launch event in New York, Jaishankar outlined the broad principles that India intends to champion if elected to the Security Council.

"India's focus will be on working for a secure, peaceful, and equitable world-a world where the voice of the Global South is heard in equal measure. A world where peacekeeping is ready for contemporary and future challenges. A world where multilateralism reflects contemporary realities and provides effective solutions, not remaining a bystander," he said.

The emphasis on the Global South has become a defining feature of India's recent foreign policy.  Successive international engagements have seen New Delhi advocate greater participation for developing countries in global governance.

Jaishankar also identified technology and maritime security as central components of India's proposed agenda for the Security Council.

"A world where the promise of technology is fully realised while safeguarding against its misuse and misapplication. A world as well whose oceans are safe and secure, so that maritime lifelines are not threatened," Jaishankar added.

He also underlined India's focus on counter-terrorism, sustainable development and climate-related challenges.

"A world where the scourge of terrorism is countered by choking the resources that feed it, and a world where climate action and climate justice, clean energy transitions, and sustainable growth hold value," he said on Monday.

The campaign launch also formed part of Jaishankar's wider diplomatic engagements. After concluding an official visit to Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman between July 5 and July 10, he travelled to New York where he met United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

Following that, he is en route to Brussels for the third India-European Union Trade and Technology Council meeting, where he is also scheduled to meet his Belgian and European Union counterparts.

Why is India seeking more than another non-permanent seat?

Although the immediate focus remains winning the 2028-29 election, New Delhi has repeatedly made it clear that a non-permanent seat represents only one stage in a much larger diplomatic effort aimed at restructuring the Security Council itself.

The current structure of the Council, established in 1945, gives permanent membership and veto powers to five countries — the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France — while the remaining ten seats rotate among member states for two-year terms.

India contends that this arrangement fails to account for profound changes that have taken place since the end of the Second World War, including decolonisation, the emergence of new economic powers, demographic shifts and the increasing influence of developing nations across Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently reiterated this position during his address to the Parliament of Indonesia, where he linked Security Council reform to broader changes taking place in global governance.

"The global order is changing rapidly, and in this context, developing countries like ours are seeking equal participation and a greater role in global affairs."

He went on to highlight that institutional reform could no longer be postponed. "In this evolving global landscape, India firmly believes that reforms in the United Nations Security Council can no longer be delayed.”

According to New Delhi, simply increasing the number of temporary seats would do little to alter how decisions are ultimately made because the five permanent members would continue to retain exclusive veto powers and disproportionate influence over global security matters.

This position has also been reinforced by India's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni.

Last month, he cautioned that reforms limited only to expanding the non-permanent category would effectively amount to a "failure" because they would leave the Council's decision-making architecture fundamentally unchanged.

India has also expressed concern over the slow pace of negotiations on Security Council reform. Discussions have continued for decades under the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) framework without producing consensus on a concrete reform model.

New Delhi has increasingly criticised the negotiating formula that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed," arguing that it has become a procedural mechanism allowing countries opposed to reform to indefinitely delay meaningful progress.

As Parvathaneni recently observed, "Status-quoists have tried to use this argument in their favour and thereby, entrench the existing inequities in the Security Council.”

India continues to work alongside Brazil, Germany and Japan through the G4 grouping to push for text-based negotiations that would move discussions beyond procedural debates and towards concrete proposals for restructuring the Council.

Why does India deserve permanent membership?

India argues that the existing structure of the Security Council excludes the world's most populous nation and its largest democracy from permanent decision-making.

As one of the fastest-growing major economies and an increasingly influential actor across multiple international forums, New Delhi believes its continued exclusion weakens the representative legitimacy of the Council.

Indian policymakers have repeatedly argued that the international system has evolved dramatically since 1945. Dozens of countries have emerged following decolonisation, global economic power has shifted significantly towards Asia, and developing nations now account for a much larger share of the world's population and economic activity than when the United Nations was founded.

India has also increasingly projected itself as a leading voice of the Global South.

Through various multilateral engagements, it has advocated greater participation for developing nations in global governance while calling for more equitable representation in institutions responsible for international peace, security and economic decision-making.

One of the strongest pillars supporting India's campaign for permanent membership is its longstanding contribution to United Nations peacekeeping operations.

Successive Indian governments have pointed to the country's operational commitment to UN missions as evidence that it has consistently supported the organisation's core mandate of maintaining international peace and security.

According to the figures highlighted during the campaign, India has contributed nearly 300,000 military personnel to around 50 United Nations peacekeeping operations since such missions began.

Its involvement has therefore extended across several decades and numerous conflict zones, making India one of the largest contributors in the history of UN peacekeeping.

That contribution continues today. India currently maintains more than 4,300 personnel deployed across ten active UN peacekeeping operations around the world, serving in some of the organisation's most volatile theatres.

New Delhi argues that such sustained operational participation demonstrates not only its willingness to shoulder global responsibilities but also its commitment to the principles on which the United Nations was founded.

Indian officials have often contrasted this record with the fact that several existing permanent members contribute comparatively fewer personnel to peacekeeping missions despite holding permanent decision-making authority within the Security Council.

Alongside peacekeeping, India has increasingly portrayed itself as a diplomatic bridge capable of engaging with competing geopolitical camps.

As international divisions have deepened over the war in Ukraine, the conflict in Gaza and heightened tensions involving the United States, Israel and Iran, New Delhi has consistently advocated dialogue and diplomacy while pointing out the importance of ensuring energy, food and fertiliser security for developing countries.

Supporters of India's candidature argue that this ability to maintain engagement with multiple sides during international crises positions the country as a constructive actor within an increasingly fragmented international order.

What continues to block India's ambitions?

Despite receiving expressions of support from several major powers, India's path towards permanent membership remains one of the most difficult institutional challenges within the United Nations.

The principal obstacle lies within the UN Charter itself. Any proposal to create additional permanent members requires an amendment to the Charter under Article 108.

The amendment process involves multiple stages, each presenting its own significant hurdle.

First, any proposed amendment must receive the backing of a two-thirds majority in the United Nations General Assembly, requiring approval from at least 129 of the organisation's 193 member states.

Even if that threshold is achieved, the amendment cannot take effect immediately. It must subsequently be ratified by the domestic legislatures of two-thirds of UN member states.

Most importantly, every one of the five existing permanent members — the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France — must also ratify the amendment.

In practical terms, even overwhelming support from the wider UN membership would not be sufficient if a single permanent member declined to ratify the amendment.

Beyond these legal requirements, India also faces sustained diplomatic resistance from several organised blocs.

Among the permanent members, China is widely viewed as the most significant obstacle. Beijing has generally stated that it supports increasing representation for developing countries within the United Nations.

However, it has stopped short of endorsing India's permanent candidature and has consistently opposed moves that would formalise reforms through text-based negotiations.

China's approach has often been described as one of strategic ambiguity. Rather than publicly opposing India's candidature outright, Beijing has continued to support broader discussions on reform while avoiding commitments that could facilitate India's entry into the permanent tier.

Analysts have frequently linked this position to China's regional strategic calculations as well as its close relationship with Pakistan. From India's perspective, this has remained one of the principal diplomatic challenges facing comprehensive Security Council reform.

Resistance to expanding permanent membership is not limited to the existing permanent members. India also encounters opposition from a coalition known as the Uniting for Consensus (UfC) group, originally established in 1995 as the "Coffee Club."

The grouping includes countries such as Italy, Pakistan, Mexico, Canada and Spain, and its central objective has been to oppose the addition of new permanent seats to the Security Council.

Instead of creating more permanent members, the UfC advocates expanding only the non-permanent category, including proposals for longer renewable terms of three to five years.

The coalition argues that increasing the number of permanent members would simply create additional privileged states without addressing broader concerns regarding equity and accountability within the Council.

Several members of the group also have specific regional reasons for opposing individual G4 candidates:

India's membership of the G4 grouping — which also includes Brazil, Germany and Japan — has strengthened its diplomatic campaign by allowing the four countries to advocate reform collectively.

At the same time, the arrangement has also created additional complications. Because the four countries campaign together, opposition directed at any one member often affects the entire grouping.

China and South Korea strongly oppose Japan's bid, several European countries remain unconvinced about Germany obtaining another permanent European seat, while many African countries continue to argue that any reform package must adequately address Africa's own demand for permanent representation.

As a result, India's campaign frequently becomes entangled in disagreements that are unrelated to New Delhi's own credentials.

Another unresolved issue concerns the veto.

Although the United States, Russia, France and the United Kingdom have each expressed bilateral support for India's permanent membership at various points, they have indicated that they would continue to do so provided new entrants initially forgo veto powers.

India has consistently rejected that proposition. According to New Delhi, creating permanent members without veto authority would merely establish a second tier of permanent membership while leaving the existing power imbalance fundamentally unchanged.

Also, some Western powers offer rhetorical support precisely because they know the Chinese veto or the UfC blockade will prevent reform from ever materialising, allowing them to score bilateral diplomatic points with India without risking their own exclusive privileges.

With inputs from agencies