UN Security Council, an old club with set of members who don't want to be questioned: EAM Jaishankar
Bengaluru, Dec 17: Expressing his displeasure over India not getting permanent membership in the UN Security Council, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar on Sunday said the UN Security Council is like an old club with a set (of) members who do not want to let go of their grip and not keen to have their practices questioned.
He also said that the countries in the world want reform of the UN because it is not fair if "You don't want to change the original promoters of the business.".
"The UN Security Council is like an old club where there are a set (of) members who don't want to let go of the grip. They want to keep control over the club and not keen to admit more members and are not keen to have their practices questioned," Jaishankar said during an interaction after a lecture on the topic A decade of change', organised by the Rotary Institute.
Replying to a question on when India will get a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, Jaishankar said, "In a way it's a human failing, but I think today it is harming the world because of the key issues confronting the world and the UN getting less and less effective."
Speaking about global sentiment, he said the nations in the world are keen on reforms in the UN.
"If you ask the 200 countries of the world that do you want reform or you don't want reform? They will say yes, we want reform because that was invented at a time when the membership of the UN was about 50 countries. Imagine a business which has grown four times. Yet you don't want to change the original promoter of the business. It's not fair," the minister said.
He said there is a realisation that India should be a permanent member of the UN.
"I think there is a realisation of that. I am sure it will happen. We will keep at it but I do believe that history is on our side in that regard," he added.
Regarding the future of BRICS, Jaishankar said it will grow and gain influence as six more members will join next time.
"I think it will grow. It will gain influence and members because we have agreed to expand the BRICS by six more the next time we meet," he said.
Explaining the reason behind its possible growth, he said the world is a diverse place where there are about 200 countries and many cultures.
"What has happened over a period of time is that the domination of some countries and some cultures is tended to suppress others. Not everybody got the due say, the due weight, the due role, and what BRICS tried to do was Hey look. We are there. The world cannot be run by seven countries, which are from one part of the continent or two of them'," the minister said.
According to him, BRICS, in a way, is a message of diversity, a message of independence, the natural expression of cultures, economies and politics of the world.
"I think history in that sense would go in that direction and I think BRICS will go a long way," he added.
The grouping took shape in September 2006 and it originally comprised Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC). It was renamed as BRICS after South Africa was accepted as a full member in September 2010.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC upholds inclusion of ‘secular, socialist’ in Preamble of Constitution
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the inclusion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution, confirming their retrospective application from November 26, 1949. The court ruled that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 extends to the Preamble, which is an integral part of the document.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna stated, “The power under Article 368 cannot be curtailed. It will equally apply to the Preamble.” The 42nd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced these terms in 1976 during the Emergency, was challenged on grounds of its retrospective application and the lack of states’ ratification.
The petitioners, including BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, argued that the amendment forced a particular economic theory on the nation and violated the original intent of the Constitution. Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay contended that the Preamble reflects the will of the people at the time of adoption in 1949 and is therefore unalterable.
The court dismissed these objections, affirming that both socialism and secularism are part of the Constitution's Basic Structure. The Bench clarified that socialism refers to a welfare state ensuring equality of opportunity without negating private sector participation or individualism. It emphasised that secularism is embedded in the Constitution, particularly in the principles of equality and fraternity.
Chief Justice Khanna remarked, “Secularism has always been a core feature of the Constitution.” He added that the amendment did not impose socialism as dogma but aligned with the welfare goals enshrined in various constitutional provisions.
