India and UN: better off out or in

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Sep 2015 10:32

vera_k, I am flabbergasted by our suggestion. AFAIK, only sovereign nations can be members of the UN. What is your proposal therefore? I think there should be no further discussion along these lines. We are already having enough problems, we have faced one Partition and our enemies and frenemies are waiting to grab every opportunity to weaken us and destroy us.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 21 Sep 2015 10:51

vayu tuvan wrote:Vera_k garu: The consequences of anything like that are nothing short of catastrophic for Indian Union. Palestine's flying their own flag or Taiwan getting kicked out in preference to PRC. We're two such events for Israel and Taiwan. Granted they are much smaller than India. Something like this could be the unraveling of India the west had been waiting for for the past 65+ years but never came about and would not come about unless termites weaken India from inside.

what he is calling for is the formal undoing of the work of sardar Patel, a deconstruction of the Indian state as it were. Way to go, boys!!

This is exactly what the west wants so that they can move in and divvy up the carcass after the demise of the Indian state.

what next?? different flags and constitutions a la cashmere??

prashanth · Post by **prashanth** » 21 Sep 2015 12:52

vera_k wrote:I think we should let some of our ethnic states seek UN membership. None of them are going to ally with Pakistan or China, but it will allow them to gain more visibility and serve as a pressure relief valve. For example, Thackerays, Lalu and Jayalalitha can spread Marathi, Bhojpuri and Tamil in New York and local malcontents can be pacified by giving them UN postings. Pretty much use the European model in reverse so to say. I mean if a castrated Greece can be an UN member, why not?

What!!!
I'm really astonished to hear such a suggestion, on BRF of all places. Did you actually want to post this in Humour thread?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Sep 2015 20:04

prashanth wrote: I'm really astonished to hear such a suggestion, on BRF of all places. Did you actually want to post this in Humour thread?

Politically naive people will make such comments. But lot of people have the impression that UN is a cultural organization. UNESCO and other affiliation foundation create this impression.
Indian language do not identify nation and Indian provincial states are artificial states based on language and other superfluous indicators. State politics are still local for non identity and do not have a mature political philosophy.

UNSC is a war making organization and gives legitimacy to destroy nations and people and and cultures. India has been harmed, attacked, sanctioned and sidelined because Indian leadership in the last 50 years did not put effort to enter inside UNSC and also prepare the country economically and politically to withstand the UNSC pressure.

India has the ability to now change the UNSC to be more representative globally or make it useless for international politics.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 21 Sep 2015 20:17

vera_k wrote:I think we should let some of our ethnic states seek UN membership. None of them are going to ally with Pakistan or China, but it will allow them to gain more visibility and serve as a pressure relief valve. For example, Thackerays, Lalu and Jayalalitha can spread Marathi, Bhojpuri and Tamil in New York and local malcontents can be pacified by giving them UN postings. Pretty much use the European model in reverse so to say. I mean if a castrated Greece can be an UN member, why not?

Sir, it is equivalent to setting fire to the house to teach lesson to the mice. Although I have seen UK playing similar game by getting four seats/votes/ chances by splitting itself up in England,Scotland,Welsh and Northern Ireland etc (in sports). USSR used this trick by splitting itself in 12 republics to get maximum impact. But here we are talking about UN membership and there is one and only one Bharatmata. We are happy without UN. But bharatmata has only one way to go : Expansion to its previous glory from Kandhar to Bali.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 21 Sep 2015 20:19

Suraj wrote:India does not gain much by independently seeking 'assurances' from individual powers. These are not worth the paper they're printed on, because during complex negotiations, they'll simply conveniently backpedal. It's far more effective to openly start playing powers against each other regarding our efforts to force our way in. It'll make them address the topic in different ways from 'we support India's candidature' followed by doing quite the opposite, as is the case now. If the UNGA meeting showed anything, it is that no matter what, it's our job to force others to compromise as an act of letting us do something. It's not going to come on a platter from anyone. Not Russia, not France, not the remaining 3. Openly stating different countries' positions would cause some messy public interactions, but that's well worth it for the goal of shaking things up. So far, the chipmunks - France and UK - are happy to hold on to their 'power', which really rests in the hands of US, Russia and increasingly China today, with those two simply being historic ancillaries of insufficient importance today and in future. In fact, I think it would benefit us more to openly question their presence in UNSC and make them lash out and therefore demonstrate their impotence.

+1. Very well said.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 21 Sep 2015 20:29

oh yeah, kick two countries off the UNSC that together contributes a little over 11% of the UN operating budget!

why not the US too? .....giggle...

http://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/budget.shtml

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Sep 2015 20:32

japan alone provides equal to those two. germany's contrib is also > either.

however their contribution is actually in lieu of providing actual forces, which is what SC is all about.

ideally, europe should get only one seat in the UNSC, decision needs to be taken whether that seat would go to a country decided by EU or to UK, france & germany by rotation.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 21 Sep 2015 21:07

TSJones wrote:oh yeah, kick two countries off the UNSC that together contributes a little over 11% of the UN operating budget!

why not the US too? .....giggle...

http://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/budget.shtml

US has to pay but is not paying. Sometimes US puts conditions for payments. Diplomates are spied upon and treated like shit. Ideally UN has to have an sovereign territory of its own. Protected by UN police etc. I do not get the idea of having UN offices and conferences in Swiss ,which is not a member of UN. They spent Billions to boost swiss economy. What is the point. Neutrality? if so then why we have headquarter in US? All in all UN is al old organisation build to control the world by winner of WWII

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 21 Sep 2015 22:16

TSJones wrote:oh yeah, kick two countries off the UNSC that together contributes a little over 11% of the UN operating budget!
why not the US too? .....giggle...
http://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/budget.shtml

There's no relationship between the money they pay into the pot, and their ability to exercise independent power in a worldwide context. Every time they demonstrate their inability to retaliate against a new usurper, their power wanes further. Of course, they can keep writing cheques to the UN in the meantime. It's their money, and their own interest to invest in the sustainability of the organization that gives them that figment of notional power, which they lack the ability to actually exercise. They are compelled to invest in such a manner to retain their notional position, but that investment continues to generate waning returns as their real world strength continues to recede.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 21 Sep 2015 23:37

they have a modern military and expeditionary experience. not only that, they have a high level technological ability that is reflected in their equipment. Germany and Japan are unwilling to match the British and French military projection capabilities and they are unwilling to accept the extreme closeness to the US military logistical command that the Brits and French have accepted. when the French needed naval supply planes to help with Libya they asked the US to supply them. We did. On a moments notice. that's close.

nobody else can come close to this arrangement.

Japan didn't even want US military help with Fukishima.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 21 Sep 2015 23:57

I did not bring up their military. You are the one implying that UK is going to respond to questions about their permanent membership by sending an expeditionary force at us ? That's an impressive attempt at trolling.

They have no independent ability to resist the erosion of their relative geopolitical power. Neither do the French. Their power is historical, not current. They're simply an ancillary to the US, even the French despite their latent Gaullist streak.

The Russians are much better off simply because they have both a much larger arsenal and a political system that has the willingness to take on constant entry into their own sphere of influence. And of course, the Chinese who are in the process of grabbing influence at the cost of every other established power.

The way to take on the UNSC is to target and delegitimize their weakest links, i.e. UK and France.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 22 Sep 2015 02:49

You are the one implying that UK is going to respond to questions about their permanent membership by sending an expeditionary force at us ?

I implied no such thing. I am saying there is a reason why they are on the UNSC. It's a combination of founding status, financial contributions and military relationships.

As such India stands zero chance of kicking them off the council.

It does stand a better chance of increasing the size of the council in my estimation.

But even that is iffy considering the politics of the big three and the contrariness of China in specific.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 22 Sep 2015 04:42

TSJones wrote:I implied no such thing.

Oh yes you did. You brought in their ships and planes into the argument, and explicitly mentioned their expeditionary forces. That post has been locked to keep you from editing and removing evidence. Keep your trolling in check. You are on notice.

We don't have to kick them off the council. We simply have to delegitimize their place there by any means available, utilizing others' - particularly China's - greed for greater power to do the job of wrecking the UNSC for us.

disha · Post by **disha** » 22 Sep 2015 04:57

vera_k wrote:No. But delegate enough powers to states so they can seek UN membership. Can be done in some cases.

Rat brained idea. Not much thought put into the above before spouting it off here and on top of it., the belief is that UN is better than India in managing your musharraf.

Look at UNHRC chair today. It is Saudi Barbaria. This basically tells that UN is practically useless and they are actively looking for jobs to poke their nose (or their ass) into other country affairs starting with Cashmere.

Where is UN leadership in dealing with ISIS? Or Boko Haram?

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 22 Sep 2015 05:00

Spending time, money, and energy in trying to restructure the UN is not worth it.

India should just quietly reduce its participation in the UN. There is not much benefit that India gets from the UN anyway. Use the money saved elsewhere. I also think India should get out of Commonwealth altogether.

The most important relationships between states today are bilateral. That's where the effort should be focused. NaMo Govt is quietly doing that.

The UN is an anachronism now. And the Commonwealth is a dinosaur,

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 22 Sep 2015 06:47

TSJones wrote: It's a combination of founding status, financial contributions and military relationships.

My good sire, have you forgotten the other two factors, namely race and religion? Of course, they are not spoken of out loud in civilized (Indians are civilized irrespective of white man's burden and all that) company.

As such India stands zero chance of kicking them off the council.

Of course, see above.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Sep 2015 10:33

Where's President Barack Obama's vow to support India's UN permanent seat?

Bhurishrava · Post by **Bhurishrava** » 22 Sep 2015 13:16

Frankly, IMHO, there is a lack of confidence in our abilities and strengths that forces us to take silly positions on UNSC expansion etc.
Its a long story, cut short.
1. We dont need UNSC membership to be `among the big boys`. Do we need anyones certificate?!
2. We dont need to stop paki resolutions in UN or elsewhere. We arent members of numerous oher organisations. Who cares whether such organisations pass resolutions against us or not. We could do the wiping our behinds with such resolutions. Its teh bilateral relations that are important.
3. We arent among the `big boys` because we arent bold enough to simply tell the whities to **** off and keep begging for lousy stuff like UNSC memberships. Hell, even Mugabe`s Zimbabwe is better than us in this aspect.
4. UN is dead. The last coffin was nailed when `Bush the genius` started the 2nd war on Iraq without consulting it. What do we seek to achieve by joining it now, other than to get the white christian certificate of being among the `good citizens` of the world.
5. PRC started opening its economy a decade before us. They didnt worry that the country will be taken over by western imperialists again.They had the confidence. We are just copying them today. We didnt have the confidence or the strength to take same/similar decision and are trailing China today.
Nehru`s legacy is to have created a state that is timid, extra cautious and seeks good conduct certificates from the west. Till we change we are only demanding to be insulted.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 22 Sep 2015 18:31

If India becomes a veto member of UNSC there will NEVER EVER be an unaccountable invasion of any random country that Anglo-Saxons wish to wage a war against for resources, geo-political gains, war on terror etc.

China and Russia constantly veto things but then look how they are percieved internationally. Compare that to India. The good example are the negotiations at the Climate Change conferences. The small countries which neither have the resources nor manpower or standing look at Indian position before they vote. This is true more often than not.

India on veto holding UNSC makes UNSC more legitimate. That wont be acceptable to all(?) countries who hold veto and the idiot who lives next door. India on UNSC with a veto will be equivalent to Milton Friedman's computer running a central bank. This is what I believe the west fears more. We have enough credibility in this world where sovereigns pay a lot of money to earn that. And we have achieved without spending too much money. Think how much we can influence policy if we come into money (wont be too long, its in the pipeline). The UNSC is for countries who are rich to afford military misadventures. IMHO The west admits us into veto holding UNSC position now on a few of their terms or later on our terms.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Sep 2015 09:42

In Power Push for India at UN, PM Narendra Modi to Host Angela Merkel, Shinzo Abe

New York: In the first summit of its kind in more than ten years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi will hold a power-packed special summit on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in US to push for a permanent seat for India on the global body's Security Council.

The PM left this morning for Ireland from where he will head to US for a six-day trip that ends on September 29.

On Saturday morning, just before he leaves for the West Coast, PM Modi will host German Chancellor Angela Merkel, often described as the most powerful woman on the planet, Japanese PM Shinzo Abe and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York at a summit of what is known as the G-4 group. All four countries back each other's bid for permanent seats at the UN Security Council.

The high-octane summit hosted by India will come against the backdrop of a breakthrough agreement at the United Nations last week on a text that will form the basis for all future negotiations on UN reforms and the expansion of the Security Council, in particular.

Over the years, the meetings of the G-4 have normally been attended by the foreign ministers of the four countries. The decision to elevate it to the heads of state this time was taken by PM Modi in consultation with Japanese PM Abe.

Mr Abe is specially flying into New York for the summit that is scheduled to begin at 8 am (local time) on Saturday, September 26.

Indian diplomats say that the protests by China and Pakistan have been successfully circumvented in the drafting of the text. Sources say it is the American response that has been disappointing - the US did not even attend a special meeting to mark 70 years of the United Nations that was held in San Francisco.

Speaking to NDTV, Asoke Mukerji, India's permanent representative at the UN said, "All India, the world's oldest democracy is pushing for is greater democratization of the United Nations."

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 24 Sep 2015 23:44

From the archives.. some very nice photos.. worth seeing.. click on last image for more pictures..

In photos: 70 years of India’s growing clout at the United Nations

And, of course

The above images are from qz.com .. click below image (Of Nehru getting standing ovation) for the article and more photos.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Sep 2015 12:34

TSJones wrote:oh yeah, kick two countries off the UNSC that together contributes a little over 11% of the UN operating budget!

why not the US too? .....giggle...

http://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/budget.shtml

This sounds like the argument:

A: We should kick Saudi Arabia out of the Human Rights Commission as they hardly abide by any such rights!
B: WAT? Kick 'em out? Next time you'll be demanding kicking out Sweden too! .....giggle...

.....giggle...

The baby cannot bathe in the same water day after day!

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 25 Sep 2015 21:14

n photos: 70 years of India’s growing clout at the United Nations

Instead it has to be India's diminishing clout at UN. We were founding member and we gave Veto to Chinese ...............now there is no difference between us and Burkino-Faso.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 25 Sep 2015 22:04

rsingh wrote:
n photos: 70 years of India’s growing clout at the United Nations

Instead it has to be India's diminishing clout at UN. We were founding member and we gave Veto to Chinese ...............now there is no difference between us and Burkino-Faso.

yes, It was Nehru who proposed to make China a permanent member of Security council and allowed it to take the seat of erstwhile united China when Mao captured power and China split into PRC and ROC(Taiwan). However Nehru apparently denied any such offer by US and USSR as per wiki chacha.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 25 Sep 2015 22:07

In what capacity Mafia Queen was addressing UN?? She should not be clubbed along with PMs of India addressing UNGA. It would give wrong impression.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 25 Sep 2015 22:25

chaanakya wrote:In what capacity Mafia Queen was addressing UN?? She should not be clubbed along with PMs of India addressing UNGA. It would give wrong impression.

Yes, that image looks out of place. She was neither PM nor EAM. Not a picture that deserves its place in that gallery.

Please don't go into the rabbit warren of 'gave veto to XYZ'. That's 60 year old news. The thread topic is something else.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 25 Sep 2015 22:26

I don't know about "Mafia Queen" but in the above picture Sonia Gandhi was addressing the General Assembly plenary meeting on the first observance of the International Day of Non-Violence, at UN headquarters in New York on Oct. 02, 2007. (The picture is from UN's archives)

I believe she is President of the Indian National Congress party, served as the Chairperson of the United Progressive Alliance in the Lok Sabha etc.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 25 Sep 2015 22:40

You made the right association even though I did not mention her name.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 25 Sep 2015 22:48

very "chaanakya"n

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 25 Sep 2015 23:27

Amber G. wrote:I believe she is President of the Indian National Congress party, served as the Chairperson of the United Progressive Alliance in the Lok Sabha etc.

It's a party position, not one with diplomatic standing. She held neither a PM nor external affairs ministerial position, which makes her look out of place among a gallery of elected PMs and the current EAM. Anyway, off topic, unless the author of that article can be asked to remove that picture.

Multatuli · Post by **Multatuli** » 26 Sep 2015 03:13

Security Council must be reformed to maintain its credibility, says PM Narendra Modi in speech at UN

United Nations: Amid India's strong bid for a permanent seat in UN Security Council, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday pitched for reform of the powerful world body to make it "broad-based", saying it is essential to maintain its credibility and legitimacy in the current world realities.

Read further (and to watch the video of PM NaMo at UN): http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/pm- ... 02289.html

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 26 Sep 2015 03:39

UN is an useless organization and the faster it is dissolved the better. India should scale down participation to near zero in the short term.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 26 Sep 2015 03:42

^^^Modi’s UN Sustainable Development Summit 2015 speech

ON UN site, you can listen to English Translation..

UN officially adopts ambitious new set of global goals..

Also, BTW ..US has said (after the General Assembly adopted a negotiating text for the long-pending reforms) it is committed to India's inclusion as a permanent member of the UN Security Council,
(Even though both countries have disagreed over the UN Security Council reforms, the US has made it clear that it is committed to India's inclusion as a permanent member of the Security Council.)

US also reiterated its support for India's membership in four major global non-proliferation export control regimes, including the Nuclear Suppliers Group,..

(I don;t know why Paki newspapers are having some major khujli

)

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 26 Sep 2015 04:28

>> US has said (after the General Assembly adopted a negotiating text for the long-pending reforms) it is committed to India's inclusion as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, ..

AmberG ji: Any links? Again, let us stick with the US media. I am a little leery about some DDMs like NDTV.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 26 Sep 2015 07:16

I hope India has weighed the pros and cons of individual UNSC seat bid vs joint bid with G-4, and we are not just taking G-4 along due to "friendship dharma"...

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Sep 2015 09:56

At UN, Modi is meeting with lots of leaders from the Caribbean (also Guyana). Earlier in India he had invited many leaders from the Pacific Island nations. There is an invite to African leaders.

Modi is cozying up to leaders from Egypt, Jordan, UAE, even Saudi Arabia. He is building bridges to select countries in Europe like Ireland. He already has good relations with SAARC leaders, ignoring the mosquitoes to our West.

Basically Modi is lining up all the ducklings in a line for the General Assembly push for UNSC membership.

I don't think that with world opinion behind India, China would have the nerve to block UNSC membership of India.

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 26 Sep 2015 15:27

Unless india were powerful enough to set up one alternative challenging UN, P5 would never take india's apply of veto seriously.
BTW,USA did not take the reform of WB/IMF seriously ,either.so CHina just lead to set up AIIB/silk road fund to challenge/replace WB/IMF.
Thus,now if USA want to keep WB/IMF useful toolsand avoided be replaced by china~led AIIB/silk road fund,USA had to respect china's advice to reform WB/Imf.
So, it is just because india is not powerful enough to challeng UN that P5 does not take india too seriouly. Indians had better concetrate developing homeland and make it richer and more mighty,instead of complaining about P5 and UN.

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 26 Sep 2015 18:47

Liu wrote:Unless india were powerful enough to set up one alternative challenging UN, P5 would never take india's apply of veto seriously.
BTW,USA did not take the reform of WB/IMF seriously ,either.so CHina just lead to set up AIIB/silk road fund to challenge/replace WB/IMF.
Thus,now if USA want to keep WB/IMF useful toolsand avoided be replaced by china~led AIIB/silk road fund,USA had to respect china's advice to reform WB/Imf.
So, it is just because india is not powerful enough to challeng UN that P5 does not take india too seriouly. Indians had better concetrate developing homeland and make it richer and more mighty,instead of complaining about P5 and UN.

This is the classic case Chinese metality of Sino centric underdog challengers.... why the hell
India need to challenge UN when India itself is part of the UN body.

Second..WB/IMF and UNSC are not same the former are Economic institutions to maintain the Bretton Wood financial systems created in Malta conference and the second is actually the power behind the global gepolitics....economics is only a part of the National power index.

Third Lets not go too much into the AIIB stuff...this institution is created not as geopolitical power metric tool but to invest surplus Chinese capital in the Asian markets for a descent ROI as the mainland itself is providing diminishing return of the Investments made.

Fourth UN does not need to take India seriously but itself..because under the current geopolitical power balance the reality is that India IS a geopolitical power pole in the Indo-Pacific and global South-South context..whether China likes it or not, if the pole is not included
then as in the case of Syria rising unilateralism will only make UN irrelevant.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 26 Sep 2015 19:25

Link: https://www.readability.com/articles/ktsyttx3

Full Text: PM Modi's speech at the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit
Sept. 26, 2015

Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed the United Nations on Friday at the UN Sustainable Development Summit.

Here is the full text of the speech:

Excellencies,

Mahatma Gandhi had once said, "One must care about the world one will not see”. Indeed, humanity has progressed when it has collectively risen to its obligation to the world and responsibility to the future.

Seventy years after the end of a tragic war and birth of a new hope for our age, we are meeting to chart a course for our humanity and our planet. I consider this a very important summit and thank UN Secretary General for organizing it.

Just as our vision behind the Agenda 2030 is lofty, our goals are comprehensive. It gives priority to the problems that have endured through the past decades. And, it reflects our evolving understanding of the social, economic and environmental linkages that define our lives.

We live in an age of unprecedented prosperity, but also unspeakable deprivation around the world.

I am pleased that elimination of poverty in all forms everywhere is at the top of our goals. Addressing the needs of 1.3 billion poor people in the world is not merely a question of their survival and dignity or our moral responsibility. It is a vital necessity for ensuring peaceful, sustainable and just world.

A great Indian thinker, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay, placed the welfare of the poorest at the centre of his thoughts. This is what we also see in the 2030 Agenda. It is a happy coincidence that we are beginning the celebration of Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay’s 100th anniversary today.

The goals recognize that economic growth, industrialization, infrastructure, and access to energy provide the foundations of development.

We welcome the prominence given to environmental goals, especially climate change and sustainable consumption. The distinct goal on ocean ecosystem reflects the unique character of its challenges and opportunities. Equally important, it focuses our attention on the future of the island states.

I speak about Blue Revolution, which includes the prosperity, sustainable use of marine wealth and blue skies.

Today, much of India’s development agenda is mirrored in the Sustainable Development Goals.

Since Independence, we have pursued the dream of eliminating poverty from India. We have chosen the path of removing poverty by empowering the poor. We have placed priority on education and skill development.

Our attack on poverty today includes expanded conventional schemes of development, but we have also launched a new era of inclusion and empowerment, turning distant dreams into immediate possibilities: new bank accounts for 180 million; direct transfer of benefits; funds to the unbanked; insurance within the reach of all; and, pension for everyone's sunset years.

The world speaks of private sector and public sector. In India, we have defined a new personal sector of individual enterprise, micro enterprises and micro finance, drawing also on the strength of digital and mobile applications.

We are focusing on the basics: housing, power, water and sanitation for all – important not just for welfare, but also human dignity. These are goals with a definite date, not just a mirage of hope. Our development is intrinsically linked to empowerment of women and it begins with a massive programme on educating the girl child that has become every family’s mission.

We are making our farms more productive and better connected to markets; and, farmers less vulnerable to the whims of nature.

We are reviving our manufacturing, improving our services sector, investing on an unprecedented scale in infrastructure; and, making our cities smart, sustainable and engines of progress.

We are committed to a sustainable path to prosperity. It comes from the natural instinct of our tradition and culture. But, it is also rooted firmly in our commitment to the future.

We represent a culture that calls our planet Mother Earth. As our ancient text say:

"Keep pure! For the Earth is our mother! And we are her children!"

Our national plans are ambitious and purposeful: new capacity of 175 GW of renewable energy over the next seven years; energy efficiency; a tax on coal; a huge afforestation programme; reforming our transportation; and, cleaning up our cities and rivers. The energy intensity of our growth will continue to decline.

Sustainable development of one-sixth of humanity will be of great consequence to the world and our beautiful planet. It will be a world of fewer challenges and greater hope; and, more confident of its success.

Our success will give us more resources to share with our friends. As India’s ancient saying goes, the wise look at the world as one family.

Today, India is fulfilling its responsibilities as development partners in Asia and Africa and with small island states from the Pacific to the Atlantic.

Nations have a national responsibility for sustainable development. They also need policy space.

However, we are here today in the United Nations because we all believe that international partnership must be at the centre of our efforts, whether it is development or combating climate change.

And, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is the bedrock of our collective enterprise.

When we speak only of climate change, there is a perception of our desire to secure the comforts of our lifestyle. When we speak of climate justice, we demonstrate our sensitivity and resolve to secure the future of the poor from the perils of natural disasters.

In addressing climate change, it is important to focus on solutions that can help us reach our goals. We should forge a global public partnership to harness technology, innovation and finance to put affordable clean and renewable energy within the reach of all.

Equally, we must look for changes in our lifestyles that would make us less dependent on energy and more sustainable in our consumption.

It is equally critical to launch a global education programme that prepares our next generation to protect and conserve Nature.

I hope that the Developed World will fulfil its financing commitments for development and climate change, without in any way putting both under the same head!

I also hope that the Technology Facilitation Mechanism will turn technology and innovation into an effective instrument for global public good, not just private returns.

As we see now, distance is no insulation from challenges. And, they can rise from the shadows of conflict and privations from distant lands.

So, we must transform international partnerships on the strength of solidarity with fellow human beings and also our enlightened self-interest.

And, we must also reform the United Nations, including its Security Council, so that it carries greater credibility and legitimacy and will be more representative and effective in achieving our goals.

There is no cause greater than shaping a world, in which every life that enters it can look to a future of security, opportunity and dignity; and, where we leave our environment in better shape for the next generation. And, no cause that is more challenging.

At 70, we are called to rise to that challenge, with our wisdom, experience, generosity, compassion, skills and technology.

I am confident that we can.

In the end, let me express my hope for everyone’s well with a few lines from our ancient texts:

May all be happy, may all be healthy, may all see welfare, may no one have any sorrow.

Thank you.

New York,
25 September 2015