Permanent Mission of India
New York
--

IGN meeting on Security Council reforms

Statement by Ambassador Yojna Patel, Charge d'Affaires
20 February 2026

Distinguished co-Chairs, Excellencies and Colleagues,

          I place on record India’s sincere appreciation to the co-Chairs for convening this important meeting on categories of membership.

2. India fully aligns with the statements delivered by the PR of Saint Lucia, on behalf of L.69 and PR of Japan, on behalf of G4. In addition, I would like to make the following points in my national capacity.
   
   
3. Groups and member states in this room broadly agree that the current framework of the Security Council does not effectively serve its purpose. Its failure has been glaring in delivering on its core responsibility of maintenance of international peace and security. Barring a few member states with vested interests, the wider membership agrees that the time for reforming the Security Council was yesterday!. The world cannot wait any longer for this essential change. The topic of today’s discussion gains particular relevance in this backdrop.
   
   
4. India would like to make the following specific points in this regard:
   

          First, India has been consistent in its call for expansion in both categories – permanent and non-permanent. This is central to achieving meaningful reforms. It may be recalled that 113 member states out of the 122 that had given submissions for the 2015 Framework document supported an expansion of the permanent category. This is the prevailing sentiment even today. Therefore, any reform that does not result in the expansion of the permanent category would be incomplete, unjust and ignorant of the aspirations of an overwhelming number of member states, particularly various reform-centric groups.

          Second, the need for expansion of both categories is self-evident. The number of permanent to non-permanent members changed from 5 vs 6 to 5 vs 10 during the only marginal reform of the Council – more than six decades ago. Even then, there was no expansion in the permanent category. This resulted in accentuating the imbalance between the two categories, disproportionately enhancing the salience of the permanent category. Expansion of the permanent category concomitant to the expansion in the non-permanent category would improve this ratio, by striking a  better balance between the two categories of membership. Further entrenching the authority of the existing permanent members should not be the final outcome of this decades-long IGN process. We deserve a Security Council that reflects contemporary geopolitics and not outdated power equations stemming from the conclusion of the Second World War.

          Third, working methods have been cited as one of the main reasons by those who do not favour an expansion in the permanent category. The Council still operates by the provisional rules of procedure. However, the working methods and practices of the Security Council could be reviewed and reformulated in order to meet the requirements of a reformed Council, with increased presence of more member states in both categories.

          Fourth, let us be explicit - historical injustices towards Africa are only limited to their lack of representation in the permanent category, because as on date there are three African members among the ten elected members, constituting 30%.

          Fifth, the lack of progress in the IGN for the last 18 years stands out. In fact, active discussions regarding UNSC reforms pre-dates the IGN and have been taking place over the past several decades in different formats. It is disappointing that even incremental progress could not be achieved with regard to the existing two categories over these decades. Therefore, consideration of a third category is a red herring that is intended to delay the process further and derail the path towards reforms entirely, or deliberately seek a sub-optimal outcome that would push real reform many decades into the future to the detriment of the legitimacy, credibility and relevance of the UN.

          Sixth, regarding Fixed Regional Seats, the current geographic basis for election to the non-permanent category represents Fixed Regional Seats without veto for 2-year terms. Let us be clear – a veto can not be granted to a group with no clarity on which country will exercise it and in what manner.  This new idea seems to be deliberately intended to complicate an already difficult discussion and indirectly entrench opposition to expansion of the permanent category.

          Finally, as India once again reiterates its view that expansion in both categories is central to reforms, it is for the wider UN membership to decide on the modalities, including the questions related to size and composition. I would like to underscore that resolution 62/557 stipulates that what we need is widest political acceptance by member states and not consensus.

         In closing, we reaffirm India’s willingness to engage with the co-Chairs, groups and other member states towards identifying the best way forward on achieving progress in the path towards realizing reforms. India has always approached IGN in a forward-leaning and flexible manner in order to realize the vision of real reforms. While exploring options, it is important to ensure that the issue of underrepresentation and nonrepresentation of  regions such as Asia-Pacific, Africa and GRULAC in the permanent category remains central. Further, like all UN processes, a real solution could be achieved only through text-based negotiations.  Efforts that are not aligned with these cardinal principles do not reflect an approach that is rooted in a genuine desire to achieve reforms.

Co-chairs, Excellencies,

Generations of diplomats have discussed the issue of reforming the Council. We have a choice to make: are we willing to be the generation that delivered on reforms? Or are we happy being consigned to the footnotes of history as those who came, spoke and disappeared, without as much as making a dent in the entrenched power structures? Posterity will judge us for our actions or inaction today.

          I thank you, co-Chairs.

*****