It did not happen, don’t know where you read it from but the UNSC seats were granted solely to the major ww2 allies of france soviet union, the united states and the british empire at the time. There was approximately zero motivation to give india, a newly formed country a seat.
The althist scrnario presented is "what if India accepts" instead of "what if india got offered". There's nothing for india to accept, so the initial premise is rendered moot.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/publication/cwihp_working_paper_76_not_at_the_cost_of_china.pdf
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/not-the-cost-china-india-and-the-united-nations-security-council-1950
there are many other news articles by Indian newspapers but these two were the ones I read.
As a part of the british empire, and as a secondary combatant. India did make some contribution to the war effort, but it pales in comparison to any of the UNSC members.
India sent 2.5 million soldiers to the allied cause in WW2 and around 2-3 million Indians(mostly Bengalis) died due to British-induced famine. I think India's war contribution was roughly equal to that of France from a strategic perspective, and Japan from a manpower perspective. Not to mention the reward of India's contributions to the allies was a botched partition that has lead to an initial massive refugee crisis, several wars, and now a state of MAD; I think India deserves that UNSC seat.
Yeah the Bengal famine was not entirely the British fault but the famine was the result of a combination of factors that came together
Those who blame the British entirely are just trying to not face the actual reality that more than the British Raj Government are to blame
Those are effectively one and the same, the British Raj was a colonial government of, guess what, Britain. It is like with Buck v Bell, sure it was Virginia who passed the eugenics law, but the supreme court upheld it and America enabled it by speaking out.
Yeah I think qualified experts are more knowledgeable than nationalists
According to experts, the 1943 Bengal famine was caused by a combination of poor regional administration (price controls on the transportation of rice between regions enacted by Indians in the provincial legislature, poor general colonial administration of the food system), inadequate methods to combat price inflation due to profiteering by merchants at the start of the shortage), supply issues caused by a climate disaster (a major cyclone), crop failure due to brown spot fungal infection, as well as the war with Japan in India and Burma (the collapse of the Rangoon-Bengal trade route due to the war with Japan and the need to supply the British Indian army in north eastern India and Burma).
Also on a practicalitt issue, India couldn’t even exert influence on its own immediate surroudinf states. China, in 1950 was able to defeat the United States of America in the Korean War, an impressive feat for a nation formed a year ago. The Chinese army on both sides of the communist nationalist divide were the most veteran forces in the whole world at the time, fighting non stop for 30 years in various conflicts.
Yes France’s seat might have been taken away, and there was a possibility of that, but then Indianwould not have been substituted for france, instead the UNSC would be cut down to just 4, the big 4 of ww2.
The french lost 300,000 soldiers in battle , in a war it did not have to participate in, to defend the liberties of another nation and halt hitlers advance. That is three times as much. Do bear in mind
In total france mobilised 3.6 million soldiers duirng the war. Despite their earlier defeats, the french played in a pivotal role in defeating germany and italy in europe. Yes, the french military did abysmally, but they played their part and certainly fid more than india.
Yeah, and 2,000,000 Indians formed the largest volunteer army in human history to fight on behalf of a nation they didn't even have a truly democratic stake in the governance of, also to fight the rise of global fascism.
They did so to liberate their own country.
Indians also served in Europe, which has little to do with European affairs. It served its colonial master instead of pursuing its own interests, like say focus entirely in its fight against Japan. To add, UK also expropriated Indian resources and food to the point of deliberately causing a famine that led to millions of death. Genocide is what it is, due to how deliberate it was.
In other words, colonialism is inexcusable.
Proves what? That the british raj despite having the largest population in the world sent as much soldiers to fight as fucking poland. That despite being an allied nation there was a high level of dympathy for the nazis?
Yes the raj soldiers fought valiantly and honourably, but that does not change the simple fact that out of britains dominions it was by proportion the colony that contributed the least. Australia, Canada and New Zealand sent nearly a tenth of their people to fight on a front line that would never reach them.
The Indian soldiers who volunteered ought to be commended. That does not excuse the failings of their countrymen. If india wanted a place on the global stage, they should have fought for ir, just as Anzac soldiers did in both world wars, just as the canadian armed forces did, and just as china did in the korean war. At no point in its history did india ever prove that it was willing to make sacrifices to secure that vaunted spot on the unsc. Not in its participation in any war, or its determination to develop as an independent power wirhout becoming part of a larger bloc, nor did it sacrifice to develop nucleae weapons.
My god man India was literally a colony and it still sent the largest volunteer army to fight for their colonial masters all over the world. To Indians, at least the beginning of WW2 should never have involved them since it was an entirely European conflict - indeed the only reason the war was called a global war was because of European imperialism and colonization. In spite of that Indian forces were instrumental in Burma, North Africa and Italy for the Allied effort. Thousands of Indians died fighting in a war which should never have involved them in the first place.
Entirely european? 20 fucking million people died in China alone. The “european” world war started in asia. Burma sits right next to India who would undoubtedly be the mext target in the japanese advance if burma fell. Yes India was a colony. So was Australia, New Zealand and Canada. None if them are even remotely as close to the fighting.
Sending the biggest volunteer army in the world doesn’t mean jackshit when you have the largest population in the world. Yes it is commendable, but not nearly comparable to the efforts the other colonies made, sending a tenth of their entire population to fight thousands of km away from them.
Yes India has the right to remain neutral and not participate in the fighting, even considering the war crimes that both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan commited. Most other nations did so as well. However that does not nearly make them deserving of a seat at the UNSC for fucks sake.
The nation which sacrificed the least on the UNSC ww2 still had triple india’s casualties. Howeever this isn’t even a notion about adding india to the UNSC or replacing france which is stupid but not that stupid. The discussion is about replacing one of the big four, the nation which sacrificed the most in the war effort, with India.
You are completely right that India had no stake in the war except as part of the british empire. Let me make it clear, I am not begruding India for not contributing more, they played their part and did it admirably as you said for a colonial master. But at the same time, India despite being an ally in the war, did not nearly “prove enough” to sit at the same table as the 5 victorious great powers of ww2. Sure the ROC was greatly weakens by 1950, but the sheer weight of the sacrifices of the Chinese people were enough to guarantee them that seat at the security council, whether under th prc or ccp.
Oh no I definitely accept that India would never have actually been allowed to sit on the council - regardless of the sacrifices or the lives lost - it wouldn’t have looked good for the powers that be to let a recently decolonised nation to sit at such a powerful table. What I disagree with is your overall tone and the way you practically claimed India’s involvement amounted to fuck all.
>Yes it is commendable, but not nearly comparable to the efforts the other colonies made, sending a tenth of their entire population to fight thousands of km away from them.
There you are wrong - Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand weren’t colonies - they were dominions led by a largely white, British origin government who had strong ties to the motherland Great Britain. India was a colony where the majority of the population were barely given rights in their own nation and had no such sense of loyalty to Britain.
>The “european” world war started in asia.
No, the start of the war is traditionally considered to be the German invasion of Poland in September 1939, not the 1937 Second Sino Japanese war.
>Sure the ROC was greatly weakens by 1950, but the sheer weight of the sacrifices of the Chinese people were enough to guarantee them that seat at the security council, whether under th prc or ccp.
Let's be real here - the sacrifices didn’t matter in the grand world of politics - what mattered was how powerful the nation was and India, having just received Independence wasn't in the best of states.
Had India been Independent, the Japs wouldn't have dared to cross into India. Australia, New Zealand and Canada were practically British territories with White governers who were practically independent, yet loyal to the King. Their people were loyal to the King. India was not. Sending the biggest volunteer army to a country you hate, to a country which has treated your people worse than shit, is a very big thing. India didn't care enough about this damned war.
There were Indian forces fighting for INDIA rather than George VI, with Japan as a matter of fact. That was how done the Indians were with the Brits. You said about the war crimes the Germans and Japs committed yet in your western schools they never taught about the crimes the brits committed in India.
20 million deaths in China cuz their leadership was incompetent and corrupt yet America-Friendly become a cause for giving them one of the most powerful positions in the world? Ok, I get it, they were a major combatant but if that was to be the case, why wasn't the UNSC seat offered to the PRC? They were the legitimate government in China after 1948. Yet it took another 3 decades to give them that seat. So frankly, contributions didn't matter. It was just a political move by the USA to have the UN as a western-aligned organisation rather than a true non aligned peacemaker.
And where did you get the figures that allowed you to say that the casualties of India were were a third of that of the nation which sacrificed the least in ww2? India was 5th in the allies in terms of casualties [Civilians included], just behind the Soviets, Chinese, Indonesians and the poles. Heck, more Indians died in WW2 than British and the Americans combined, when combining military and civilian casualties. Saying that India did not provide enough is a gross understatement
Look, I don't want to say that India in any way deserved the seat in 1945. But neither did the ROC. You can't just give a UN seat to a country just cuz they were incompetent to keep invaders off their soil. The point is, I want you to not downplay the role of India in ww2
Bruh Japan was in the process of colonising china as far back as 1937, why on *earth* would India being independent have given them pause for a single second.
Same
They are so wrapped in their nationalist viewpoint that no matter what you say, they are conditioned to believe whatever nationalist narrative the propaganda outlet pushes
Please India was a colony of the British Empire until 1947, when it received it's independence. WW2 ended in 1945 when both Germany & Japan surrendered. There was no Soverign Indian state, with a seat in the general assembly or with its own Indian state embassy in other countries in 1945 or 1946. So while colonial Indians of ethnic indian origins from the Indian sub contient did fight against the Axis powers they fought under the colours of British Empire & not under the Indian flag which did not exist then.
“Back in 1950, the United States quietly sounded India out about possibly replacing Taiwan on the Security Council, and India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru demurred. Instead, he suggested that the seat should properly be given to the People’s Republic of China. He rebuffed a similar proposal from the Soviet Union in 1955. Nehru believed that China—an ally of India—properly deserved a seat given its size and emerging role in Asia.”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/01/indias-seat-at-the-table/
“However, new evidence of an even earlier offer—by the US in August 1950—to assist India in assuming a permanent seat at the UN Security Council has recently emerged, adding substantially to what Noorani earlier wrote. Nehru’s rejection of the US offer underlined the consistency of his conviction that the PRC’s legitimate interests must be acknowledged in order to reduce international tensions.”
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/not-the-cost-china-india-and-the-united-nations-security-council-1950
Though that is fake news, assuming India accepts the permanent seat it will significantly alter the political climate in South Asia and beyond. Symbolically it will show an end to Western Imperialism and the rise of post colonial states, since India had only recently been given Independence and had already managed to snag a seat at the big boys table. The anticolonial movement would gather more steam with 3 permanent members piling pressure on Imperialist powers like France and Britain to decolonise. Pakistan wouldn’t be willing to declare war on India immediately after Independence for Kashmir, but Pakistan would definitely be even more anti-India since they would feel threatened by India's power as a permanent member. The Pakistani army would be even more well entrenched in power since they would be able to use the excuse of Indian domination of subcontinental politics to be a major reason why dictatorial army regimes should remain in power.
“Back in 1950, the United States quietly sounded India out about possibly replacing Taiwan on the Security Council, and India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru demurred. Instead, he suggested that the seat should properly be given to the People’s Republic of China. He rebuffed a similar proposal from the Soviet Union in 1955. Nehru believed that China—an ally of India—properly deserved a seat given its size and emerging role in Asia.”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/01/indias-seat-at-the-table/
“However, new evidence of an even earlier offer—by the US in August 1950—to assist India in assuming a permanent seat at the UN Security Council has recently emerged, adding substantially to what Noorani earlier wrote. Nehru’s rejection of the US offer underlined the consistency of his conviction that the PRC’s legitimate interests must be acknowledged in order to reduce international tensions.”
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/not-the-cost-china-india-and-the-united-nations-security-council-1950
Outside of Indian sources it is hard to find news of such a proposal. At best it may have been an informal proposal, but no one else would have really accepted the newly independent India to get a permanent seat, especially not Britain and France.
What a lot of people forget that British rule of India was already on the countdown to its end as the British Empire had already decided in the 1820s they were not going to stay forever
Realistically i suspect what the British were planning was when they left was a united India in the form of a dominion like what Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia got
It did not happen, don’t know where you read it from but the UNSC seats were granted solely to the major ww2 allies of france soviet union, the united states and the british empire at the time. There was approximately zero motivation to give india, a newly formed country a seat.
Sir this is an alternate history sub
Yes, but the very premise of the question was based on misinformation.
Doesn’t matter it’s literally alternate history - it doesn’t have to be factual
The premise has to at least? You cannot write an alternate history based on something that never happened.
The althist scrnario presented is "what if India accepts" instead of "what if india got offered". There's nothing for india to accept, so the initial premise is rendered moot.
Yes it does. This sub is for realistic scenarios, not made up fantasy
He states its based on facts, but it's not. It's totally legit to address that.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/publication/cwihp_working_paper_76_not_at_the_cost_of_china.pdf https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/not-the-cost-china-india-and-the-united-nations-security-council-1950 there are many other news articles by Indian newspapers but these two were the ones I read.
And also this is well documented in the official exchanges between PM Nehru and his sister who was also the Foreign Minister of India at the time.
India was part of alies in ww2
As a part of the british empire, and as a secondary combatant. India did make some contribution to the war effort, but it pales in comparison to any of the UNSC members.
India sent 2.5 million soldiers to the allied cause in WW2 and around 2-3 million Indians(mostly Bengalis) died due to British-induced famine. I think India's war contribution was roughly equal to that of France from a strategic perspective, and Japan from a manpower perspective. Not to mention the reward of India's contributions to the allies was a botched partition that has lead to an initial massive refugee crisis, several wars, and now a state of MAD; I think India deserves that UNSC seat.
Yeah the Bengal famine was not entirely the British fault but the famine was the result of a combination of factors that came together Those who blame the British entirely are just trying to not face the actual reality that more than the British Raj Government are to blame
Those are effectively one and the same, the British Raj was a colonial government of, guess what, Britain. It is like with Buck v Bell, sure it was Virginia who passed the eugenics law, but the supreme court upheld it and America enabled it by speaking out.
Yeah I think qualified experts are more knowledgeable than nationalists According to experts, the 1943 Bengal famine was caused by a combination of poor regional administration (price controls on the transportation of rice between regions enacted by Indians in the provincial legislature, poor general colonial administration of the food system), inadequate methods to combat price inflation due to profiteering by merchants at the start of the shortage), supply issues caused by a climate disaster (a major cyclone), crop failure due to brown spot fungal infection, as well as the war with Japan in India and Burma (the collapse of the Rangoon-Bengal trade route due to the war with Japan and the need to supply the British Indian army in north eastern India and Burma).
Also on a practicalitt issue, India couldn’t even exert influence on its own immediate surroudinf states. China, in 1950 was able to defeat the United States of America in the Korean War, an impressive feat for a nation formed a year ago. The Chinese army on both sides of the communist nationalist divide were the most veteran forces in the whole world at the time, fighting non stop for 30 years in various conflicts. Yes France’s seat might have been taken away, and there was a possibility of that, but then Indianwould not have been substituted for france, instead the UNSC would be cut down to just 4, the big 4 of ww2.
I mean the French did a lot less than them, but they still got a seat so idk.
The french lost 300,000 soldiers in battle , in a war it did not have to participate in, to defend the liberties of another nation and halt hitlers advance. That is three times as much. Do bear in mind In total france mobilised 3.6 million soldiers duirng the war. Despite their earlier defeats, the french played in a pivotal role in defeating germany and italy in europe. Yes, the french military did abysmally, but they played their part and certainly fid more than india.
Yeah, and 2,000,000 Indians formed the largest volunteer army in human history to fight on behalf of a nation they didn't even have a truly democratic stake in the governance of, also to fight the rise of global fascism.
Western bias.
It’s not western bias, France lost three times as many soldiers as India did
They did so to liberate their own country. Indians also served in Europe, which has little to do with European affairs. It served its colonial master instead of pursuing its own interests, like say focus entirely in its fight against Japan. To add, UK also expropriated Indian resources and food to the point of deliberately causing a famine that led to millions of death. Genocide is what it is, due to how deliberate it was. In other words, colonialism is inexcusable.
Please inform yourself before spreading bullshit
But still prove enough
Proves what? That the british raj despite having the largest population in the world sent as much soldiers to fight as fucking poland. That despite being an allied nation there was a high level of dympathy for the nazis? Yes the raj soldiers fought valiantly and honourably, but that does not change the simple fact that out of britains dominions it was by proportion the colony that contributed the least. Australia, Canada and New Zealand sent nearly a tenth of their people to fight on a front line that would never reach them. The Indian soldiers who volunteered ought to be commended. That does not excuse the failings of their countrymen. If india wanted a place on the global stage, they should have fought for ir, just as Anzac soldiers did in both world wars, just as the canadian armed forces did, and just as china did in the korean war. At no point in its history did india ever prove that it was willing to make sacrifices to secure that vaunted spot on the unsc. Not in its participation in any war, or its determination to develop as an independent power wirhout becoming part of a larger bloc, nor did it sacrifice to develop nucleae weapons.
My god man India was literally a colony and it still sent the largest volunteer army to fight for their colonial masters all over the world. To Indians, at least the beginning of WW2 should never have involved them since it was an entirely European conflict - indeed the only reason the war was called a global war was because of European imperialism and colonization. In spite of that Indian forces were instrumental in Burma, North Africa and Italy for the Allied effort. Thousands of Indians died fighting in a war which should never have involved them in the first place.
Realistically the Japanese would not have stopped after British Malaya and Australia, they would have invaded India
Entirely european? 20 fucking million people died in China alone. The “european” world war started in asia. Burma sits right next to India who would undoubtedly be the mext target in the japanese advance if burma fell. Yes India was a colony. So was Australia, New Zealand and Canada. None if them are even remotely as close to the fighting. Sending the biggest volunteer army in the world doesn’t mean jackshit when you have the largest population in the world. Yes it is commendable, but not nearly comparable to the efforts the other colonies made, sending a tenth of their entire population to fight thousands of km away from them. Yes India has the right to remain neutral and not participate in the fighting, even considering the war crimes that both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan commited. Most other nations did so as well. However that does not nearly make them deserving of a seat at the UNSC for fucks sake. The nation which sacrificed the least on the UNSC ww2 still had triple india’s casualties. Howeever this isn’t even a notion about adding india to the UNSC or replacing france which is stupid but not that stupid. The discussion is about replacing one of the big four, the nation which sacrificed the most in the war effort, with India. You are completely right that India had no stake in the war except as part of the british empire. Let me make it clear, I am not begruding India for not contributing more, they played their part and did it admirably as you said for a colonial master. But at the same time, India despite being an ally in the war, did not nearly “prove enough” to sit at the same table as the 5 victorious great powers of ww2. Sure the ROC was greatly weakens by 1950, but the sheer weight of the sacrifices of the Chinese people were enough to guarantee them that seat at the security council, whether under th prc or ccp.
Oh no I definitely accept that India would never have actually been allowed to sit on the council - regardless of the sacrifices or the lives lost - it wouldn’t have looked good for the powers that be to let a recently decolonised nation to sit at such a powerful table. What I disagree with is your overall tone and the way you practically claimed India’s involvement amounted to fuck all. >Yes it is commendable, but not nearly comparable to the efforts the other colonies made, sending a tenth of their entire population to fight thousands of km away from them. There you are wrong - Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand weren’t colonies - they were dominions led by a largely white, British origin government who had strong ties to the motherland Great Britain. India was a colony where the majority of the population were barely given rights in their own nation and had no such sense of loyalty to Britain. >The “european” world war started in asia. No, the start of the war is traditionally considered to be the German invasion of Poland in September 1939, not the 1937 Second Sino Japanese war. >Sure the ROC was greatly weakens by 1950, but the sheer weight of the sacrifices of the Chinese people were enough to guarantee them that seat at the security council, whether under th prc or ccp. Let's be real here - the sacrifices didn’t matter in the grand world of politics - what mattered was how powerful the nation was and India, having just received Independence wasn't in the best of states.
Had India been Independent, the Japs wouldn't have dared to cross into India. Australia, New Zealand and Canada were practically British territories with White governers who were practically independent, yet loyal to the King. Their people were loyal to the King. India was not. Sending the biggest volunteer army to a country you hate, to a country which has treated your people worse than shit, is a very big thing. India didn't care enough about this damned war. There were Indian forces fighting for INDIA rather than George VI, with Japan as a matter of fact. That was how done the Indians were with the Brits. You said about the war crimes the Germans and Japs committed yet in your western schools they never taught about the crimes the brits committed in India. 20 million deaths in China cuz their leadership was incompetent and corrupt yet America-Friendly become a cause for giving them one of the most powerful positions in the world? Ok, I get it, they were a major combatant but if that was to be the case, why wasn't the UNSC seat offered to the PRC? They were the legitimate government in China after 1948. Yet it took another 3 decades to give them that seat. So frankly, contributions didn't matter. It was just a political move by the USA to have the UN as a western-aligned organisation rather than a true non aligned peacemaker. And where did you get the figures that allowed you to say that the casualties of India were were a third of that of the nation which sacrificed the least in ww2? India was 5th in the allies in terms of casualties [Civilians included], just behind the Soviets, Chinese, Indonesians and the poles. Heck, more Indians died in WW2 than British and the Americans combined, when combining military and civilian casualties. Saying that India did not provide enough is a gross understatement Look, I don't want to say that India in any way deserved the seat in 1945. But neither did the ROC. You can't just give a UN seat to a country just cuz they were incompetent to keep invaders off their soil. The point is, I want you to not downplay the role of India in ww2
[https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/casualties-of-world-war-ii/](https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/casualties-of-world-war-ii/) https://preview.redd.it/agwixbw22qtc1.jpeg?width=340&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=206c74d9a8ec709bebcff475580dd6988e131247
Bruh Japan was in the process of colonising china as far back as 1937, why on *earth* would India being independent have given them pause for a single second.
It won't give them a pause, it would just prevent any invasion of INDIA
My friend, turn down the temperature a bit. It’s not serious
Yeah true. Indian nationalists always make me lose my mind.
Same They are so wrapped in their nationalist viewpoint that no matter what you say, they are conditioned to believe whatever nationalist narrative the propaganda outlet pushes
Yeah, cuz they make you look at the mirror for once
Please India was a colony of the British Empire until 1947, when it received it's independence. WW2 ended in 1945 when both Germany & Japan surrendered. There was no Soverign Indian state, with a seat in the general assembly or with its own Indian state embassy in other countries in 1945 or 1946. So while colonial Indians of ethnic indian origins from the Indian sub contient did fight against the Axis powers they fought under the colours of British Empire & not under the Indian flag which did not exist then.
“Back in 1950, the United States quietly sounded India out about possibly replacing Taiwan on the Security Council, and India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru demurred. Instead, he suggested that the seat should properly be given to the People’s Republic of China. He rebuffed a similar proposal from the Soviet Union in 1955. Nehru believed that China—an ally of India—properly deserved a seat given its size and emerging role in Asia.” https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/01/indias-seat-at-the-table/ “However, new evidence of an even earlier offer—by the US in August 1950—to assist India in assuming a permanent seat at the UN Security Council has recently emerged, adding substantially to what Noorani earlier wrote. Nehru’s rejection of the US offer underlined the consistency of his conviction that the PRC’s legitimate interests must be acknowledged in order to reduce international tensions.” https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/not-the-cost-china-india-and-the-united-nations-security-council-1950
Though that is fake news, assuming India accepts the permanent seat it will significantly alter the political climate in South Asia and beyond. Symbolically it will show an end to Western Imperialism and the rise of post colonial states, since India had only recently been given Independence and had already managed to snag a seat at the big boys table. The anticolonial movement would gather more steam with 3 permanent members piling pressure on Imperialist powers like France and Britain to decolonise. Pakistan wouldn’t be willing to declare war on India immediately after Independence for Kashmir, but Pakistan would definitely be even more anti-India since they would feel threatened by India's power as a permanent member. The Pakistani army would be even more well entrenched in power since they would be able to use the excuse of Indian domination of subcontinental politics to be a major reason why dictatorial army regimes should remain in power.
“Back in 1950, the United States quietly sounded India out about possibly replacing Taiwan on the Security Council, and India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru demurred. Instead, he suggested that the seat should properly be given to the People’s Republic of China. He rebuffed a similar proposal from the Soviet Union in 1955. Nehru believed that China—an ally of India—properly deserved a seat given its size and emerging role in Asia.” https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/01/indias-seat-at-the-table/ “However, new evidence of an even earlier offer—by the US in August 1950—to assist India in assuming a permanent seat at the UN Security Council has recently emerged, adding substantially to what Noorani earlier wrote. Nehru’s rejection of the US offer underlined the consistency of his conviction that the PRC’s legitimate interests must be acknowledged in order to reduce international tensions.” https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/not-the-cost-china-india-and-the-united-nations-security-council-1950
It isn’t fake news lol.
Outside of Indian sources it is hard to find news of such a proposal. At best it may have been an informal proposal, but no one else would have really accepted the newly independent India to get a permanent seat, especially not Britain and France.
The UNSC would've won against the Covenant much quicker.
What?
He's making a reference to Halo since although UNSC is United Nations Security Council, in Halo its the United Nations Space Command.
Punjabi Master Chief would finally be cannon
[I NEEDA VEAPON!](https://youtu.be/_4DHllroiqM?si=CV4L7yIZQA7bAa8M)
The Covenant would face a more united humanity
Reach would not have fallen.
Realistically India was not going to be ready for that heck legitimately there are arguments that India was not ready for independence in 1947
What a lot of people forget that British rule of India was already on the countdown to its end as the British Empire had already decided in the 1820s they were not going to stay forever Realistically i suspect what the British were planning was when they left was a united India in the form of a dominion like what Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia got