UNSC: Reading India’s global signals right

India’s engagement with the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has a chequered history. It can be traced back to 1947. Soon after Independence, we failed in our first attempt to get elected to the SC as a non-permanent member.

Subsequently, it is well-known that we have been elected to the SC eight times. Of these, seven times were when there was no candidate in the race against us. What is not widely known is that even after 1947, we lost two more of the three attempts to get on the SC in contested elections. Put together, in four contested elections to the SC, we lost thrice in the first 50 years of our Independence. Additionally, our experience of the Council’s consideration of the India-pakistan question in the first two decades of our independent existence left us reticent about involvement with the SC.

This was many years ago. Yet, the scars of the past often get embedded in collective memories and take time to overcome. It appears that change is happening. In recent times, our approach towards engaging global organisations in matters of peace and security is evolving.

In 2017, reversing years of caution, India moved the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It leveraged a multilateral convention to seek settlement of a dispute about the judgment of a Pakistani military court to execute Indian national, Kulbhushan Jadhav. What was anathema, until then, ended in success.

Later in 2017, though not a member of the SC, India did not shy away from facing a permanent member of the Council in an election to the ICJ. It remained undeterred when all permanent members supported their fellow permanent member. The

Indian win upended a tradition that no nominee of a permanent member to the ICJ had ever lost an election.

In 2019, India was able to ward off another permanent member which ventured to team up with Pakistan to revive a matter that others in the Council concluded did not belong there. Not only did it end in a diplomatic win, but it also resulted in a public diplomacy win. These were indications of change in the making.

This month, the Indian presidency of the Council adds further impetus to that trend. The presidency of the SC is a matter of routine alphabetical rotation.we have presided numerous times. Something is different now. India is using the pulpit to indicate that its agenda is no longer defensive. India is not satisfied with merely ensuring that matters of immediate concern are kept out despite the efforts of those inimical to us. The intent is to highlight the positive agenda that India can bring to the table, and it is gaining attention.

Interestingly, India, which generally is averse to the pursuit of thematic items by the SC, has brought such an issue to the fore. It is correct that the Council has addressed various aspects of maritime security; however, it did not consider maritime security holistically earlier. Also, for the first time, a formal statement was adopted by the SC on the subject. Nevertheless, the argument that this is under a general rubric and may not be pursued by others is not invalid.

In evaluating technicalities, we tend to lose the broader political significance. The subject is important, as is the format and the outcome. More significant is that India’s political leadership is showing that it is keenly invested in serious engagement at the UN. It is confidently floating global initiatives at a forum where our high-level engagement was limited.

The only instance of our participation at the SC, at the highest level, goes back to the First Security Council Summit presided by the then United Kingdom Prime Minister (PM), John Major, in 1992. India, then a nonpermanent member, was represented by PM PV Narasimha Rao. SC meetings presided by heads of State/government in any format are rare. Many times, the outcomes do not stand the test of time. However, that is not necessarily the intent. The 1992 Summit signalled the beginning of an era of global cooperation in the SC, following the end of the Cold War.

PM Narendra Modi presiding over a virtual SC debate — a first for any Indian PM — is a sign of a new, more assertive Indian willingness to contribute positively to global peace and security issues at the highest political level. The external affairs minister (EAM)’S decision to preside over “in-person” meetings of the Council reinforce the thinking that this is not a one-off effort. The signals are consistent.

The longer-term significance is of an Indian political leadership invested in UN issues. Again, this is not entirely new. There are instances in the past of Indian political leaders taking initiatives in matters such as environment, the climate crisis and nuclear issues. That the current political leadership is willing to stake out new areas reflects intent to expand the canvas of India’s foreign policy. Expanding our objectives is to be welcomed. The choice of the forum means we are ready to exorcise the ghosts of the past.

Those who think activism as a non-permanent member undermines our quest for permanent membership need to remember that good performance is usually a means of moving up the ladder, not a demonstration of intent to stay stationary. Alas, the toxicity of India’s domestic politics results in foreign policy being viewed through a partisan prism. Consequently, the contours of beneficial change, even though discernible, are missed.