Why did Nehru reject the offer to be a permanent member of the UNSC- twice?

In test cricket you have the second innings to make up for the mistakes or shortcomings in the first innings, but not in international diplomacy where good opportunities don’t knock your door twice. You have to either do the right thing – at the right time or regret later for the rest of your life (for generations to come). This is what is happening in the Indian context, right now.

In the 1950s when Chacha Nehru, was both the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, India was offered the opportunity to join the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as a permanent member – on two different occasions— first by the United States, then by the Soviet Union.

That was during the Cold War era when India was being —courted by both Washington and Moscow.

On both the occasions Nehru turned down the offer to join the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as a permanent member. But why? What did he gain and what did India lose? This is the biggest question – every Indian wants to know.

Jawaharlal Nehru’s decision to reject the offers from both USA and USSR—was largely because of his belief in the principles of non-alignment and regional solidarity with China. 

Nehru reportedly rejected both offers, stating that China rightfully deserved the place – first.

Nehru’s Vision: China First

Nehru’s rationale was that China, had a greater claim to a permanent seat, given its civilizational and geopolitical significance.

As the leader of a newly decolonized state, Nehru saw India’s role as that of a moral force—an advocate for a just world order, not a claimant to great power privilege. He consistently argued that China’s exclusion from the UNSC was unjust and unsustainable, and hoped that by supporting China’s rightful place, India could help shape a more equitable post-war global structure.

The American Offer (1950)

In August1 950, the People’s Republic of China had taken control of the mainland but was not recognized by the UN. Instead, the seat was held by the Republic of China (Taiwan). Hence the USA sent feelers to India to stake claim as a permanent member of the UNSC in place of Republic of China (Taiwan). The Americans suggested that India should replace the Republic of China (Taiwan), which was occupying the seat despite losing control of the mainland. B.N. Rau, a senior civil servant and India’s delegate to the United Nations communicated this offer to Nehru. But Nehru rejected because he believed that China being a major Asian power, deserved to be a permanent member of the UNSC ahead of India.

In Nehru’s point of view, replacing China — a fellow Asian power and revolutionary state — was morally unacceptable. He viewed China’s exclusion as unjust and believed that Asia’s rise must include both India and China, not one at the cost of the other.

“India, because of many reasons, is certainly entitled to a permanent seat. But we are not going to the United Nations cap in hand and demand a seat. We are interested in China being given its rightful place,” Nehru reasoned.

Nehru envisioned India as a leader of post-colonial Asia and Africa, and wanted India to stand for fairness and anti-imperialism. As one of key architects of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Nehru believed that accepting the UNSC seat with Western-backing may align India with the US and compromise its neutrality in the Cold War. According to him China’s exclusion from UNSC was a symbol of Western injustice hence he refused to play along – if it meant replacing China with India.

“We cannot go and sit in the Security Council in the place of another country… It would be morally wrong for us to do so,” Nehru said in a Lok Sabha Debate in September 1955.

The Soviet Offer (1955)  

India’s next such opportunity came nearly five years later in 1955 when Soviet Premier Bulganin reportedly made a similar offer during a visit to India.

In 1955, Nikolai Bulganin and Nikita Khrushchev both prominent figures in the Soviet Union after Stalin’s death arrived in New Delhi and made a similar offer. This time the proposal did not involve replacing China on the contrary USSR offered to support India’s candidature as a sixth permanent member of UNSC instead of the existing five.

In the conversations, Nehru firmly supported the Chinese claims for Taiwan and other islands near the coast and also supported the case for People’s Republic of China’s legitimate seat in the UNSC. Hence, Nehru declined the offer.

There is credible historical evidence that the Soviet Union (USSR) offered to support India’s inclusion in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as a sixth permanent member — without replacing China — during the mid-1950s.

Despite this, Jawaharlal Nehru declined to pursue the offer.

Unlike the earlier U.S. offer in 1950 (which was to replace China), the Soviet offer did not involve removing China. It was likely more accommodating, possibly proposing expanding the permanent membership of the Security Council to include India as a sixth permanent member — alongside China, not in place of it.

However Nehru was strongly committed to not aligning with either superpower bloc (USA or USSR) during the Cold War. Accepting the Soviet offer could be perceived as tilting toward the USSR, undermining India’s role as a leader of the emerging Non-Aligned Movement (which formally launched in 1961).

“We should not be a tool of any great power. We must not give the impression that we are angling for some position.”— Nehru, in correspondence to colleagues during the 1950s

Nehru had already taken a principled stand in 1950 supporting China’s right to the UNSC seat and not jockeying for India’s own gain. Accepting the Soviet offer in 1955 would have contradicted that earlier position, undermining his moral consistency.

Nehru likely worried that expanding the P5 by adding India could trigger tension within the Security Council, especially with the Western powers. He believed that pushing too hard could lead to a breakdown in cooperation between East and West in the UN.

Key difference between US and USSR offers

The USSR’s offer was more strategic and supportive of India’s status, but Nehru, driven by a deep commitment to non-alignment, Asian solidarity, and principled diplomacy, chose not to pursue it. In doing so, he preserved India’s moral leadership, but potentially sacrificed a rare opportunity to elevate India’s global influence through formal institutional power.

Why did Nehru reject the offers?

• Nehru believed China deserved the permanent seat, not India.
• He saw China as an essential Asian power and thought excluding it was unjust.
• Nehru did not want India to appear as aligning with the two powers or replacing an Asian neighbour.
• India’s foreign policy emphasized Asian solidarity, non-alignment, and equity in international institutions.
• Nehru hoped for a restructured UN where both India and China could be on the Council.
• He viewed India’s role as that of a moral force, not one seeking power 

A decision India regrets

In retrospect, Nehru’s refusal to accept the UNSC is seen as a historic blunder. In spite of being the world’s most populous democracy and a major economic and military force, India, remains outside the permanent five (P5)—including USA, UK, China, Russia, and France.

Ironically, China, which Nehru lobbied for, was admitted to the UNSC in 1971 (replacing Taiwan).

The 1962 Sino-Indian war shattered Nehru’s belief in Asian fraternity and exposed the strategic naivety of trusting ideological kinship over national interest.

This was so because Nehru believed that accepting the offer would make it seem that India was aligning too closely with one bloc. Nehru as the father of non-alignment, feared that India’s moral standing would be compromised if it accepted the offer — even though it brought prestige.

Why is a UNSC seat important? What difference does it make?

A permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is not just symbolic — it comes with substantial geopolitical power, legal authority, and strategic influence.  

In the global theatre of power, where might often shapes right the five permanent members — hold the keys to global peace and conflict. The rest of the world, including rising giants like India, can only knock at the door.

What Did Nehru Gain?

Nehru’s refusal earned moral credibility as a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement and projected India as a principled nation — that did not grab power, but rather sought fairness and balance in global affairs.

What Did India Lose?

India lost the opportunity to occupy the well-deserved permanent seat at the UNSC which would have given it the authority to veto decisions affecting its interests, shape international response on issues like cross-border terrorism, block China’s interference in South Asia, and influence global norms from the inside.

As a result India now has to lobby and negotiate important issues from the side-lines.

Ironically, China, whom Nehru had supported so strongly — didn’t think twice before invading India in 1962, and blocking India’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

In hindsight India is till regretting Nehru’s myopic decision and continues to seek a seat at the UNSC that declined twice. Had Nehru accepted the offers, India may have been a global power decades earlier.

Conclusion

Nehru rejected offers from both the United States and the Soviet Union:

•             He did not pursue or accept the UNSC seat for India,

•             Advocated China’s rightful place at the global high table,

•             Maintained India’s non-aligned stance,

•             Believed in moral leadership over power politics.

Nehru’s biggest drawback was his idealism and short-sightedness. While supporting China’s case for UNSC seat, he got carried away by his spirit of non-alignment and couldn’t anticipate a situation when China would stab India in the back – so soon. His greatest flaw was not that he did not act but acted in a manner that makes us ask: Why?

The never-ending debate in the academic and strategic circles even today is – what if?