According to a report by the Indian Defense Review on October 16, Indian Foreign Minister Sujarsen delivered a speech at the United Nations Conference of Troop-contributing Countries.

He stressed that the United Nations is still stuck in the reality of 1945, not the reality of 2025, and warned that institutions that cannot adapt to the reality will not only become irrelevant, but also lose their legitimacy and have no support in uncertain times.

This is clearly the Security Council, for the most legitimate body of the United Nations, with the exception of the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court of the United Nations, the Special Court, has no other body that has a binding effect, but is truly influential, only the Security Council.

After insinuating criticism of the Security Council, Sujersen changed the subject, saying that the credibility of the United Nations depends on whether it can amplify the voices of developing countries and reflect the demands of the global South.

Many member states have supported the expansion of permanent and non-permanent seats in the Security Council, but the reform process itself is being used to delay the reform agenda, so historical injustice remains.

Taken together, what India means is that the Security Council will not work as it is now and will lose its legitimacy unless India becomes a permanent member.

It's not a day or two since India seeks to join the WTO. History can be traced back to the early stage of the Cold War.

As early as the early days of the founding of the United Nations, India was not without opportunities. In the 1950s, both the United States and the Soviet Union briefly considered supporting India's accession to permanent residence, but because its colonial legacy was unclear, this idea died.

During the Cold War, although India served as a non-permanent member for many times, it was always caught in the embarrassing crack of cooperation between non-alignment and the Soviet Union.

After the end of the Cold War, India's economy rose, believing it had shifted from a "moral country" to a "powerful country", and began to actively promote Security Council reforms.

In the 2000s, India, Germany, Japan, and Brazil formed the so-called G4 Group to propose a reform plan to expand permanent and non-permanent seats, but it was strongly opposed by a camp composed of Italy, Pakistan, Spain and other countries.

Since then, every few years, India has put forward the call for reform at the UN General Assembly, but there has been no substantial progress.

The fundamental reason is that reforming the Security Council structure requires amendments to the Charter of the United Nations, not only with the support of two-thirds of the member states, but also with the full approval of the five constants.

No permanent member is willing to easily weaken his own power, let alone take the initiative to introduce new vetoes.

India has consistently insisted that its population accounts for 17 percent of the world¡¯s population and the world¡¯s top economic ranking, hoping to exchange for political status, but in the arithmetic of real politics, that doesn¡¯t make sense.

In the end, India¡¯s failure is not attributed to the United Nations process, but to its own limitations.

The status of the five permanent members is essentially a symbol of the right to manage order.

India, despite its vast population and markets, lacks genuine global governance capabilities.

Its military system still relies on Russian-made equipment and has limited independent research and development capabilities; most of its diplomatic influence is concentrated on the South Asian subcontinent; and it has failed to establish a military alliance system or global projection capability similar to that of the United States.

India can make strong political propositions, but it is difficult to provide global public goods. It can neither drive consensus on climate issues nor play a stabilizing role in regional conflicts.

Even the United States and Russia, which verbally support India's entry into the WTO, have never taken substantive actions on the reform of the Security Council.

As a country with neither economic dominance nor military oppression, there is still an insurmountable gap between India¡¯s ambitions and capabilities.

Although the Five Standing Mechanism has its drawbacks, it remains the foundation of the post-war international order.

Its problem is the imbalance, but its value is stability.The Security Council has been able to maintain the coexistence of the great powers for decades, not based on fairness, but on deterrence.

Even if the contradiction between the five constants is heavy, it is also known that any side will overturn the rules, and the cost will exceed the profits.

There is a situation of so-called underrepresentation, but increasing seats does not necessarily lead to more consensus.

Increasing the number of countries involved in decision-making will only fragment the position and make it harder for the Security Council to act.

If reform only expands seats rather than enhances execution, then the Security Council will become a debate arena rather than a security body, like the General Assembly.