Speaking in the US Congress in early 2003, US congressman Frank Pallone, spoke of a 'sense of the Congress' when urging his fellow legislators to support India's bid for a permanent seat in the United Nations (UN) Security Council.

"It is time for the Congress and the Bush administration to recognise the importance India plays in the region and the world and support its bid for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council I believe it is morally wrong to ignore the voice of a billion people in security decisions that affect them and the rest of the world", he said.

Those sentiments underscore not only what is wrong about the UN but a justifiable gauntlet thrown at the world body to make it look more like the people it wants to oversee.

Pallone's timing cannot be more propitious to what he is seeking from his words.

With her strategic location, huge population and enviable history participating in UN peacekeeping operations, India fits the bill just right not only for Pallone but for humanity, too.

As a founder member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), she was the voice and conscience of the Third World right from its founding in 1955 to 1990; when the Cold War compelled nations to take sides between the United States and the former Soviet Union.

Global leader

That she campaigned for half of humanity during that era is not only testament to her ability to forge understanding with ethnically diverse peoples but also to her global leadership credentials.

How much that was given cognisance, became evident when Pallone referred to the asset that India would be from helping, "peace efforts in Central Asia and [to] all parts of our increasingly connected world".

And since the Sept 11 terrorist attacks, India has been dedicating herself to wiping out terrorism not only within her own territory but also throughout the world; boosting in the process her reputation as a responsible member of the global community.

Even Malaysian Premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, was prescient enough to see the logic of today's global situation that he found too, joined in the on-going international chorus endorsing New Delhi's bid.

One fact worth mentioning is the wonder of India's democracy. Derided sometimes as a functioning anarchy, it is without bias one of the most vibrant, liberal and a truly secular one modelled along Western lines.

What its unbelievably free press and stellar institutions can do is give an Asian face to democratic values that thus far have been deemed Western. Through a UN seat the West gets glowing encouragement to use the example of India to spread its democratic message to Asia.

Large economy

An acknowledged technology superpower, India's economy is larger than France and Britain put together and even of Russia; all members of the UN Security Council.

And seen from the eagerness nations line up to conclude Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with her as well as in the enthusiasm Asean shows to engage her in dialogue sessions, New Delhi without doubt is the present and emerging force in global consciousness.

The considerable restraint she showed through her civilian controlled army when provoked by Pakistan between 1999 and 2001; speaks of the abiding respect she has for the deference of the UN at the expense of her very own territorial integrity.

By such deeds, she ceaselessly shows respect for world opinion and abiding respect for international law.

Her campaigns in Bangladesh, Maldives and Sri Lanka in 1971, 1987 and 1989 respectively were not military adventures so to speak; but the very goals of human dignity and freedom the UN tries to promote in the world.

And coming to nuclear non-proliferation she has faithfully abided by international calls to observe moratorium and unlike some powers had, never had her resolve or commitment to a nuclear free world questioned.

The nation that gave the world its first university and maritime navigation among its myriad achievements, the loss of her collective wisdom culled from her long eventful history by the denial of a UN seat, can be sore indeed. Because history was not on her side when the deliberations to admit permanent members into the UN were made, there could be no logic to say that an old-world order is the answer to the evolving dynamics brought by a nation's rising economic and military prowess.

Support from Bush?

An ancient civilisation, India is a prolific fountainhead of influential culture and spirituality something the world will see nothing of, if the awakened giant is not allowed to trumpet it through the bullhorn of a UN seat.

Perhaps the best hint of giving India that seat came from the US President during an address to the National Security Strategy in Sept 2002.

Said Mr Bush; "The United States has undertaken a transformation in its bilateral relationship with India based on a conviction that US interests require a strong relationship with India. We are the two largest democracies, committed to political freedom protected by representative government. India is moving toward greater economic freedom as well. We have a common interest in the free flow of commerce, including through the vital sea-lanes of the Indian Ocean. Finally, we share an interest in fighting terrorism and in creating a strategically stable Asia."

For both these nations that took parallel courses in their history, battling the same colonialists and adopting unilateralism soon after independence, is it any wonder that they should share the same common interest today as they did in the years gone by.

Probably, not.

More than anything it is about making the world body 'representative' says Charles Krauthammer when writing for the International Herald Tribune on the issue.

And, representation by no means is through including the voice of a billion-plus people; lost and not heard of since 1945.

JAYA PRAKASH lectures in journalism at Calton Education Centre.