India has intensified its push for reforms in the United Nations Security Council, with its Permanent Representative to the UN, Parvathaneni Harish, calling for negotiations to be conducted on the basis of a written text.

Speaking at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiations framework on Security Council reforms, he criticised the co-chairs’ Elements Paper for failing to accurately reflect the strong support among member states for expanding the Council’s permanent membership.

Harish stressed that the IGN process should not deviate from the established practice of other UN negotiations, which are always text-based. He argued that without a written text, discussions risk becoming vague and inconclusive. He stated firmly that “the IGN cannot be fundamentally different from other UN processes, wherein negotiations are held based on a text.”

He raised objections to the Elements Paper’s suggestion that the concept of permanency requires further clarification. Harish pointed out that the UN Charter already makes a clear distinction between permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council. Article 23, he noted, categorises members into these two groups, leaving no room for ambiguity. He emphasised that the definition of a permanent seat is already established and does not require further elaboration.

The Indian envoy highlighted that groups such as the African Group, the G4, and the L69 Group all recognise permanent membership strictly in accordance with the Charter. He underscored that these coalitions treat both current and future permanent members within the framework of the Charter’s provisions, reinforcing India’s position that permanency is a settled matter.

Harish also criticised the Elements Paper for failing to adequately reflect the broad support for increasing African representation in the Security Council. He recalled that during an IGN meeting focused on the African model, supportive views from all key stakeholders were made clear.

Yet, the document omitted this consensus, thereby understating the importance of regional representation.

He further argued that the Elements Paper downplays the level of support among member states for expanding the permanent category of Council membership. He noted that the majority’s backing for expansion has been reduced in the document to “a significant number of delegations.”

This, he said, misrepresents the categorical position expressed by most member states, whether through national statements at the IGN or through association with groups such as L69, G4, CARICOM, and others.

India has consistently advocated comprehensive reforms of the Security Council, including expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories. Harish reiterated that the current structure no longer reflects contemporary global realities or the aspirations of developing countries. He warned that continuing with an outdated arrangement undermines the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council.

India’s intervention comes at a time when calls for reform are gaining momentum across the Global South. The African Union has long demanded permanent representation for Africa, while the G4 nations—India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan—have pressed for their inclusion as permanent members. The L69 Group, representing a broad coalition of developing countries, has also consistently supported expansion.

By insisting on text-based negotiations, India aims to move the reform process beyond abstract discussions and towards concrete outcomes.

The demand reflects frustration with the slow pace of progress and entrenched resistance from some permanent members. For India, the issue is not only about securing its own place at the table but also about ensuring that the Council reflects the realities of a multipolar world and the voices of developing nations.

ANI