Recently there is a
noise around the 4 corners of India saying India must get the permanent Seat in
the Security Council of the United Nations Organisation along with the 5
permanent members wielding Veto Power.
First of all, the
permanent seats for the 5 members in the Security Council were given because of
their direct involvement in the last World War II and coming out as victors. To
gain the victory they have suffered also too much while India as a sovereign
nation was not directly involved in this war and India as an independent nation
was not even born during this war. Besides,
the UN Charter was drafted in 1945 when India was still the colony of the Great
Britain.
With lot of excuses,
India feels it must get the veto power seat in the Security Council; one of the excuses is that India is the most
populous country in the world. This is a shallow excuse having no weight in
favour of India.
Excuses or no excuses,
according to my observation India does not deserve a permanent seat in the
Security Council because India is an immature and arrogant country capable to
use veto power parochially and recklessly with bias intention. India is not a decent country
following decent norms. India is a
selfish country capable to act recklessly and arrogantly for its selfish ends because Indian leders and rulers are such.
On 17th
December 1961 on the eve of invasion of Goa, during the debate in the UN Security
Council on Goa when it was decided that India must withdraw its troops from
Goa, India’s permanent representative to the UN Mr. Jah said somewhat like
this, "go to hell with Security Council and UN, India must not care for this
decision of withdrawal from Goa, India must complete its mission of invading
Goa by force with the support of Russian veto".
Finally India in a pure "dadagiri", invaded Goa by using violence, discarding its principle of Non-Violence
thereby giving a solid kick on the back of the father of the nation, Ghandiji. With the support of Russian Veto, India
invaded Goa but if India acquires Veto power for itself then India would even
venture to invade Pakistan also. For this reason Pakistan is strongly opposing
giving Veto power to India because Pakistan knows India will misuse it against
weaker nations. India and its leaders are not judicious in their assessment of the situation.
See what India did to Sikkim
in 1975 when India swallowed Sikkim without caring for anything. India claims to be the greatest democracy in
the world but in reality India is purely a Hitlerian State ruled by Hitlers who
will surely misuse given the veto power for its hegemonic ambitions. Not only this, India may even rent its Veto power for the highest bidder, so corrupt are Indian leaders.
See another example,
following the invasion of Kuwait almost
the entire free and democratic world minus India, spoke in favour of democratic
Kuwait by condemning Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein for invading Kuwait. India had no guts to condemn this invasion because India itself was guilty of the sin of invasion with regards to Goa, Sikkim and other princely states. When such is the case, how India can be
trusted to do justice to veto power?
Veto power is meant to be used very judiciously by the seasoned nations
governed by the matured leaders. India is not having matured leaders of
international reputation, Indian leaders are parochial leaders in thoughts and
in actions. When India is in the hands of
such parochial leaders, having veto power in the hands of India is very
dangerous. Hence, I say India does not deserve a Veto Power Seart in the Security Council.
A. Veronica Fernandes,
Candolim Goa.
Tel: 7507394349.
