The debate for the UNSC expansion is underway. Pakistan has justifiably opposed India’s candidacy to the UN Security Council’s permanent and non-permanent membership, arguing the Kashmir issue. Addressing the world bodyon last Tuesday, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN MunirAkram said, “at least one of the G4 does not in our view qualify for membership of the Security Council – permanent or non-permanent. ” Pakistan opposition to the Indian bid for the UNSC slot is based on merit. Though the G4 Group of nations including Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan mutually support each other’s bids for permanent seats on the Security Council, in the given situation, Indian claim to secure the UNSC membership seems highly undeserving. India’s desire to become a major power is as old as the establishment of the Indian state itself. This desire is pre-dated and Indian leadership wanted to equate it with China in terms of power even before the transfer of power at the time of partition of subcontinent.. India tried its utmost to seek an international confirmation for its status of a major power. In 1995, the UNGA approved the Declaration on the 50th Anniversary of the United Nations, which stated the UNSC should be “expanded and its working methods continue to be reviewed in a way that will further strengthen its capacity and effectiveness, enhance its representative character, and improve its working efficiency and transparency” (Schlichtmann, 1999, 510). In spite of the repeated assertions of its right –to a permanent seat at the UN Security Council– India’s campaign for the expansion of the UNSC has gradually slowed down. This slow pace is veritably witnessed by the fact that India’s campaign did not prompt the UN General Assembly (UNGA) to move towards the resolution for expanding the UNSC four years after the General Assembly in a landmark decision in 2015 had declared plans for the same. The 10 non-permanent seats at UNSC are regionally and systematically distributed on a regional basis. Needless to mention, of these five are allocated for African and Asian States: one for the Eastern European State,; two for Latin American and Caribbean States; whereas two are fixed for Western Europe. As for the UNSC expansion, the UN member states are systematically and ideologically divided into several groups/ categories-accordingly having their respective held- positions on the most important questions involving enlargement criteria and the content of the proposed reforms: Firstly, there is G4 Group–comprising Germany, Japan, India and Brazil. The G4 Group aims at seeking permanent seats for themselves, but are also willing to forego their veto rights for fifteen years or possibly even longer. Subsequently or secondly, we have the Group called Uniting for Consensus (UfC) consisting the states– Italy, Spain, Argentina, Canada, Mexico, South Korea and Pakistan – which oppose the G4 and the addition of any new permanent seats. The principle position held by the UfC is that it would instead add only non-permanent seats and also arguing in favour of abolishing the veto or at least restricting its use. Now comes the third Group is also known as the African group— having members of the African Union. This Group seeks two permanent and five non-permanent seats for the African region. The African group would probably favour the abolishment of the veto power in the UNSC, but it principally insists that as long as the veto exists all permanent members should use it. In the emerging global world order, such state like India who is culpable of international law in Kashmir could be getting underwhelming support from the UNGA. India’s candidature for the UNSC bid is totally flouted Fourthly, there is the L69 Group which consists of some 40 developing states from all over the world. It quests for six new permanent seats and six new non-permanent seats in the UNSC-balancing the UN regions. Its stance on the veto is similar to that of the African group; either the veto is abolished or it is justifiably extended to all permanent members.Fifthly, the Arab group of the participating 22 Arab-League states– demanding a permanent Arab seat. It opposes the veto power but does not present any solution to it. And finally, we have the ACT Group which consists of 21 smaller member states, such as Ireland, Switzerland, Peru, Uruguay and Liechtenstein. The ACT advocates for improving the working methods – accountability, coherence, and transparency – of the Security Council so that all UN member states, not just the Council members, could take part in the decision making the process of the UNSC. Permanent membership of the UN Security Council has traditionally been considered a key criterion for being counted as a great power. Whether India is able to become a part of the global order with American support; to answer this question, one must look into the behaviour and the norms that India has been imparting towards the global community in terms of Indian claim for gaining this position and to become a global power. Understandably, New Delhi has also been in the forefront to seek expansion of the Security Council – both in permanent and non-permanent categories. For the past two decades, India has been activating its quest for becoming a permanent member of the UNSC, Yet New Delhi’s desire to qualify the UNSC membership criteria cannot be successful because of its undemocratic state policy towards the minorities, its emerging feature as a totalitarian state and it’s globally becoming a state persona non grata subject to its heinous HR violations in Kashmir, and last but not least, India’s anti-peace move in the South Asian region. Human rights are the framework based on moral principles or norms that fundamentally describe certain standards of human behaviour and are regularly protected as natural and legal rights under the UN’ Charter of Human rights-also protected by municipal and international law. Needless to say, like a totalitarian state, India’s record is honeycombed with manifold civil and HR violations clearly reflected by Modi’s ruthless policies in the Indian occupied Kashmir. In the emerging global world order, such state like India who is culpable of international law in Kashmir could be getting underwhelming support from the UNGA. India’s candidature for the UNSC bid is totally flouted. Nonetheless, while concluding theexpansion debate, this argument holds a logical conviction that in the given scenario (where UNSC is already charged as a hub of power politics), it is fatuous to suggest that any enlargement proposal could achieve a unanimous consensus on it. And yet ironically, the UNSC–as a supranational body –does create friction with the UNGA (an intergovernmental body) in terms of its decision making process. Certainly, the speculations– that an enlarged UNSC via status quo ante-could cause more cleavages among members — are higher than the present UNSC status as the limited club of P-5. The writer is an independent ‘IR’ researcher and international law analyst based in Pakistan