The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

The United Nation should grant India pernament membership on the security council

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
isabella7008 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 484 times Debate No: 120873
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




India Not Ready for UN Security Council Seat India shouldn't become a permanent member of the UN Security Council anytime soon. In reality, India is a relatively new rising country that can't even handle its own security gaps. Therefore, The country doesn't deserve a permanent spot on the Security Council. If India tackles its own problems, Then such an idea is feasible.


Here we go. . .
To begin, I am an American so I do not understand the issue the best, But I am going to try anyways.

The UN security council is a group of 15 nations working on the topic of international security. (But you probably knew that)
My opinion stems from this, With knowledge that the security council helps to solve problems happening in countries internationally. India should be granted permanent membership on this council. It is a country with 1. 3 billion people in it.

India is also older than the people's republic of china, And though it has a higher crime rate than many of the superpowers on the permanent council, It is lower than most of the non-permanent seats. Because of this, India is able to realistically solve its own problems. When India's problems are solved by its government, It will become a modernized, Well governed, High population superpower. If India is not granted a seat, And is forced to do everything itself, It will, And it won't be happy with the UN when it finishes.

The propositions for new security council members are: India, Brazil, Germany, And Japan. The four powers added to the council creates a total of nine, So there will be no stalemates during voting. The four powers are all deserving of the seats, But India is the most so. India has 17% of the world's population, It is the only proposed member with nuclear warheads, It is contributing 7. 5k peacekeepers to the council, And it has over a million active military. India working for the council will mean greater peace, More efficient solutions to problems, And less chances of war between superpowers.

One could say I have related personal experience of this. In the video game Stellaris, My star empire is part of the "United Star Federation". We have formed defensive pacts and federation fleets made for the purpose of protecting all of the smaller empires that are in need of help. This seems directly related to me, And in the game it is a constant case of "the more, The merrier. " If a new empire were to join the federation, It would contribute ships and men towards the common cause. India would be like that new member. If given a seat, It would be able to help more of the world and in doing so fix its own issues internally because of the people wanting to work together with other nations instead of only focusing on themselves.

In conclusion, The results from India joining the United nations security council would help the country and the world. Though there will be a rocky start, It will flatten out quickly in the foreseeable future and the Indian superpower will rise, Hopefully working with us.
Debate Round No. 1


Hi, Thanks for accepting this debate.

1) Many people say that because of the population in India, India should join. That doesn't really help. If you think about it, How can a country with a huge population help international security? Just because a country seems really powerful doesn't mean it could really help on international security.

2) Many say India is older than China. That doesn't prove anything. How can that help international security?

3) Although India's crime rate is lower than most of the non-permanent seats, It doesn't have the least crime rate. If you think about it, My opponent said: "most" which means that there are non-permanent members that have an even lower crime rate. Those members should join, Not India.

4) Ok. How can nuclear warheads help international security? I think it causes more people dying.

5) Having evidence of video games isn't really correct. Video games often change some things. Video games aren't accurate.

6) India may seem powerful because it has some successful developers. There's actually an uneven workforce. There are some incredibly poor people in India that the government hasn't dealt with yet. I believe that the government should solve its country problems first before dealing with the whole world.

7) Permanent members can block off any resolution going through the security council. If more and more countries join, Every single resolution will be blocked off, Because some of those countries are enemies, And some of them don't want to maintain peace for certain countries. For example, The US may say that the US wants to attack some country. Russia doesn't want the US benefiting from anything, So Russia will obviously say no. If more and more countries come in, Soon the chance of a resolution getting declined will be greater and greater, Because every country would want to benefit for themselves.


1. ) A country with a huge population can provide manpower and that can help international security. The other comparisons I made are to show that India is very similar to china and china already has a permanent seat. That covers your points 1, 2, And 4

2. ) I made an assumption area of the non-permanent seats having a higher crime rate than India because there have been so many countries since the forming of the council and currently that are just too confusing to attempt to make any comparisons beyond current crime rates among the current seats.

3. ) Unfortunately, You are right in the point that video games are not the most reliable source for politics. The game was only what sparked the idea to join this debate and has likely cut corners when it comes to politics.

4. ) India has an unemployment rate a full percentage lower than the united states. It also has 4 times the amount of people than the united states. That means that united states has roughly 15 million unemployed (4. 9 percent) and 310 million employed. India, Meanwhile, Has an unemployment rate of 3. 6%, Meaning that even though there are 46. 8 million unemployed, A higher number than the US, There are also 1. 25 billion people employed in India. That is the kind of workforce that can literally move mountains, Go to space, Create AI, And save millions of lives through peacekeeping and volunteer work.

5. ) A house divided against itself cannot stand. Cheesy as that may be to bring up, No sane world leaders would make it so that any one country is able to completely veto anything going through the council, Especially if they were at war. The most logical opportunity for all the seats to receive any help in the first place would be if there as some kind of voting system. A country should only have the ability to veto something if the something concerned itself, Such as a localized disease or a new terrorist threat. If that is not already what is in place, The reform should include that in its place.
Debate Round No. 2


1) What is the manpower?

2) If all your text was based on an assumption, Then isn't it kind of not accurate?

3) Wait. Just because India has an unemployment rate doesn't mean that India can just sit back and relax. India has a greater population, And India is supposed to solve it's own country's issues first. India needs to help those 46. 8 million first instead of trying to deal with the whole world.

4) We can't really do anything about the reform. In the charter, It said that if veto rules have to be changed, Every permanent member must agree before they change something. Would it be likely that China would agree with doing something that would help India? All other permanent members have supported the idea, But China didn't.


1. ) The man power is 1, 443, 921 active military personnel. Working in a permanent status with the UN will provide India with the help it needs and subsequently the world with the support it needs.

2. ) Yes, But I am not just guessing random numbers. I try my best to be accurate and factual in this debate, But since this issue is on the other side of the world from me, Some assumptions need to be made.

3. ) The small unemployment rate is already a great improvement. There used to be a rate of nearly 60 percent living below 3 dollars a day. The fact that it has gone down to only 3. 6 percent is very impressive. India is already on the right track to employ many of the other 46. 8 million soon. India is developing a space program, As well as putting gadgets into production that enable deliveries to hostile parts of the world and make water more accessible. India is already helping greatly towards the UNSC's benefit, Even though it is not a permanent member. It is always better for something to help you rather than hinder, And if india and the three other countries are not granted permanent membership, They might be a hindrance.

4. ) We can't really do anything about the reform, And if it is already underway that India is going to be granted permanent membership, Why work to stop it?
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Debaticus 3 years ago
I finally figured out what omar meant by that
Posted by Debaticus 3 years ago
I think you have the wrong debate. Either there is a glitch on my end or smth, But nobody has been insulted in either the debate or the comments
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
"hihihihi why do people insult me"
Because I can and I will and I want to.
More specifically want to call you out on your debate skills when yours is not even better. It is hypocritical.
Posted by Debaticus 3 years ago
Tick tock tick tock isabella
Posted by Debaticus 3 years ago
Isabella's profile picture is so cute!
Posted by K_Michael_Tolman 3 years ago
India is two year's OLDER than the People's Republic of China, But they have a permanent seat.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.