I couldn't believe that India would turn down a seat on the Security Council so I did a google search and it seems that Nehru himself said in 1955 that the U.S. had 'informally' suggested that India take China's permanent seat.
I seriously doubt that the Islamic world or the USSR would have allowed that to happen.
You would also think that Nehru would have loved the forum provided by a Permanent Seat at the UN.
Still the decision pales in comparison to his decisions to socialize the Indian economy.
on the contrary, the soviet union suggested the same thing, and nehru turned it down. the seat in question was held by taiwan, and the P5 would rather have given it to india than to red china. i doubt if the islamic world's sentiments were considered that important in 1955. after all, nobody was much bothered with arab sentiment during the arab-israeli wars. remember, this is way before the 1973 oil shock which made the arabs important and wealthy.
here is the extract about bulganin's conversation with nehru:
From the Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Series II, Volume 29, Minutes of meeting with Soviet Leaders, Moscow, 22 June 1955, page 231, here are the minutes of the conversation between Jawaharlal Nehru and Soviet Premier Marshal Bulganin, as quoted in Claude Arpi's Born in Sin: The Panchsheel Agreement (Mittal Publications, Delhi, 2004, ISBN 81-7099-974-X):
'Bulganin: While we are discussing the general international situation and reducing tension, we propose suggesting at a later stage India's inclusion as the sixth member of the Security Council.
Nehru: Perhaps Bulganin knows that some people in the USA have suggested that India should replace China in the Security Council. This is to create trouble between us and China. We are, of course, wholly opposed to it. Further, we are opposed to pushing ourselves forward to occupy certain positions because that may itself create difficulties and India might itself become a subject of controversy. If India is to be admitted to the Security Council it raises the question of the revision of the Charter of the UN. We feel that this should not be done till the question of China's admission and possibly of others is first solved. I feel that we should first concentrate on getting China admitted.'
2 comments:
I couldn't believe that India would turn down a seat on the Security Council so I did a google search and it seems that Nehru himself said in 1955 that the U.S. had 'informally' suggested that India take China's permanent seat.
I seriously doubt that the Islamic world or the USSR would have allowed that to happen.
You would also think that Nehru would have loved the forum provided by a Permanent Seat at the UN.
Still the decision pales in comparison to his decisions to socialize the Indian economy.
on the contrary, the soviet union suggested the same thing, and nehru turned it down. the seat in question was held by taiwan, and the P5 would rather have given it to india than to red china. i doubt if the islamic world's sentiments were considered that important in 1955. after all, nobody was much bothered with arab sentiment during the arab-israeli wars. remember, this is way before the 1973 oil shock which made the arabs important and wealthy.
here is the extract about bulganin's conversation with nehru:
From the Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Series II, Volume 29, Minutes of meeting with Soviet Leaders, Moscow, 22 June 1955, page 231, here are the minutes of the conversation between Jawaharlal Nehru and Soviet Premier Marshal Bulganin, as quoted in Claude Arpi's Born in Sin: The Panchsheel Agreement (Mittal Publications, Delhi, 2004, ISBN 81-7099-974-X):
'Bulganin: While we are discussing the general international situation and reducing tension, we propose suggesting at a later stage India's inclusion as the sixth member of the Security Council.
Nehru: Perhaps Bulganin knows that some people in the USA have suggested that India should replace China in the Security Council. This is to create trouble between us and China. We are, of course, wholly opposed to it. Further, we are opposed to pushing ourselves forward to occupy certain positions because that may itself create difficulties and India might itself become a subject of controversy. If India is to be admitted to the Security Council it raises the question of the revision of the Charter of the UN. We feel that this should not be done till the question of China's admission and possibly of others is first solved. I feel that we should first concentrate on getting China admitted.'
Post a Comment