“India” did ALOT in WW2. India often doesn’t get a lot of credit in western popular history of the war.
In my mind it is undeniable that biases and/or prejudices played a part in that.
That said- there are some issues.
I will skip over the often cited “India turned down the offer to join because they didn’t want to upset China” because it is more complex and according to wether you take Nehru at face value that no informal or formal offer ever came or believe any of the other persons who have some type of evidence or conjecture that an informal offer was made but not in good faith- the fact is that there is NO historical evidence to support that a FORMAL offer to join the UNSC permanent members was ever made and no evidence suggests that India had the support of more than one member at any time to get a seat even IF an informal offer was made. In short- we can ignore that claim because whatever one believes there was never a formal offer or a serious effort to get an offer.
Of course this ignores the question of Pakistan. There wasn’t so much, from the perspective of the larger global powers, an “India” during WW2, there was a “British Indian Empire” which included Pakistan. The history and unpacking all this can get quite complex.
China was granted a permanent seat of course… well… in the 1970’s the PRC was given the seat that belonged to the ROC previously. It turns out “permanent” maybe isn’t as permanent as one might think in that…it’s complicated but before the Communists took defacto control of the country, China had a different recognized government. THEY were given a permanent seat but… well… Taiwan is another subject that can be complex but not everyone- especially the PRC, recognizes Taiwan as a nation let alone the “true” government of “China.”
But Canada, Australia, other important players in the anti axis war efforts didn’t get a permanent seat. What country from Africa has a permanent seat despite the fierce fighting and strategic importance of the region? What South Pacific nation has a permanent seat despite… well… again- it’s naive to think prejudice and bias don’t play some sort in who exactly ended up with a permanent seat but…. Politically the choices make sense.
China was originally granted a seat for several reasons. Something that often comes up when discussing the claims India was at least informally courted for a permanent seat to the UN is that there are two alleged incidents of questionable veracity- in one alleged incident the US hinted the offer- as a way to fill the vacant seat of the ROC (China) and deny the communists another permanent member with the PRC. It is almost certain that Russia would not have allowed that to occur as it didn’t serve their interests and would likely be seen to counter their interests. The other alleged consent occurred when Russia made the offer at a time when India had a warm relationship with Russia and the PM visited Russia. By most accounts if this occurred it is likely the US and certain others would have voted against it for their interests.
A popular view is that IF such incidents occurred India was potentially wise to turn them down because each case involves filling the seat of China. Through most of the 20th century india was in a difficult position of balancing relations with powerful western nations like the USA and European countries, while also balancing relations with Russia and Communist China. Economically those ties have all had importance but tactically Russia and China have traditionally posed a large potential threat to India. With Cold War and other frictions between the “west” and the communists and all the other politics of relationships between other countries- not backing “one side” was difficult without potentially angering another. The US had its desires and demands for example but often those things would upset Moscow and so India had to be careful about walking a tightrope of not alienating or turning hostile one or more super powers with almost every move.
So taking “chinas seat” on the council wouldn’t perhaps be a prudent move for India at the time- even if there was some sort of offer. but we have to understand that the PRC came aboard the PUNSC in the early 70’s. The Sino Soviet split was at its proto stages so Russia would have every reason to want another communist at the table and the USA was pitching in to what would be be a period of relative good will between the USA and China including “nixons historic visit to China” which ended a long history of isolationism between China and America and leading to trade as well as shifting politics and deepening the sino Soviet rift.
In other words the US and Russia had simultaneous reasons for accepting the PRC in place of the ROC on the UNSC, and to deny the PRC that seat would be… difficult since the PRC considers themselves the “rightful and sole” Chinese government. So to not give them the seat, and opposing nation or organization would be essentially questioning the legitimacy of
the PRC- beyond all the other feo political factors in the decision. But why wasn’t India originally written into the UN charter for permanent members? Well- we covered this. Surely biases and prejudices played a part, but there are practical issues of precedent. Consider that given their administrative status and political/cultural relationship it would be very difficult to grant India permanent status and not grant it to Pakistan since during the war the two were considered one. That opens all sorts of doors and the more “permanent members” you have the more diluted the power becomes. Getting so many nations to agree to accept certain nations is itself a challenge due to politics and history and various factors.
We can also- no offense meant to anyone- notice that permanent members of the UNSC happen to also be global super powers on the post war era- and while one can argue their UN status helped- realistically it was plain at the time that these nations had good odds based on history and or their at the time status of being so. India as a country didn’t even exist when the UN was formed. So it might have been a bit troublesome or problematic to write up a charter that left empty permanent seats or reserved permanent seats for if certain countries became independent nations. There’s alot to it. In the end it’s all politics and pettiness. Human nature we can call it.
Security council status asides, India, it’s people, and many others deserve credit and recognition for their deeds and fortitude through a difficult and brutal period of history.
In my mind it is undeniable that biases and/or prejudices played a part in that.
That said- there are some issues.
I will skip over the often cited “India turned down the offer to join because they didn’t want to upset China” because it is more complex and according to wether you take Nehru at face value that no informal or formal offer ever came or believe any of the other persons who have some type of evidence or conjecture that an informal offer was made but not in good faith- the fact is that there is NO historical evidence to support that a FORMAL offer to join the UNSC permanent members was ever made and no evidence suggests that India had the support of more than one member at any time to get a seat even IF an informal offer was made. In short- we can ignore that claim because whatever one believes there was never a formal offer or a serious effort to get an offer.
China was granted a permanent seat of course… well… in the 1970’s the PRC was given the seat that belonged to the ROC previously. It turns out “permanent” maybe isn’t as permanent as one might think in that…it’s complicated but before the Communists took defacto control of the country, China had a different recognized government. THEY were given a permanent seat but… well… Taiwan is another subject that can be complex but not everyone- especially the PRC, recognizes Taiwan as a nation let alone the “true” government of “China.”
In other words the US and Russia had simultaneous reasons for accepting the PRC in place of the ROC on the UNSC, and to deny the PRC that seat would be… difficult since the PRC considers themselves the “rightful and sole” Chinese government. So to not give them the seat, and opposing nation or organization would be essentially questioning the legitimacy of