What is so big deal about right to Veto in UN

In recent times the primary obsession for any high rank shenanigan in Indian foreign policy establishment is thus: India becoming a permanent member of the United Nations Security council. To the foreign policy establishment of India, a country which had hardly played any prominent role in International affairs since the heydays of our first prime minister, the promise given by Mr. Obama during his last visit to India of helping and mentoring India to become a permanent member of Security Council was just like Manna from Heaven.
Now let us analyze what it means to become a permanent member of the Security Council and decide ourselves whether it is worth a goal as such.
The major reasons that the Indian establishment offers to its citizens for their obsession with the permanent membership of the Security Council are the following:
1. United Nations Security council body is the most important body in terms of international politics in modern world.
2. Security Council membership is prestigious that it offers great power and influence in the world of International affairs.
3. Being a permanent member of the Security Council is a recognization of India’s achievements as a nation.
To counter these arguments let me state these counter arguments.

1. United nations Security Council is not the most important policy making body in the world. It was created by the winners in the Second World War to ensure the post-world war II era world in a way which helps those powers achieve their geo-political interests. The UN Security Council never played its rightful role in ending the major conflicts of the 20-th century like the Korean war, the Vietnam war (both wars there involving first France and then the United States) , the conflicts at Congo , the Bangladesh war , the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan , the Israeli invasion of Lebanon etc. These conflicts started because one or more permanent members of the security council wanted them for their own geo-political interest and those conflicts were ended only when those interests were either fulfilled or the costs involved in running those conflicts were just too large for the permanent member of the security council.(like the soviet war in Afghanistan or the French colonial wars in Indo-China).
2. Security Council membership is very prestigious but that does not mean it will give India the amount of leverage and influence in geo-politics that we believe in. To have influence in International affairs you need to have that amount of clout where others come to you for help and advice. To help underscore the point let us look at the example of Turkey. Turkey used to have very little friends in the West Asian or North African region. It had historically hostile relationships with Greece, Armenia, Syria, Iran etc. It almost went to war with Syria during the early 1990-s. There was a proverb in Turkey in those days saying that “A Turk has only one friend and he is another Turk” But from 2002- onwards Turkey embarked upon a policy called “zero problems with neighbors” and gradually it has started to bear its fruits. Turkey now enjoys very cordial business and political relations with Syria and Iran. Turkish companies dominate in the reconstruction efforts in post-war Iraq. Turkey is building a visa free regime with Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Talks are on to bring in Iran and Russia also in the same zone. Turkish relations with Armenia and Greece also have improved quite a lot compared to the past. Even during the current political upheaval and revolutionary movements in West Asia and North Africa, influential leaders of the revolution like the leader of ennahda movement in Tunisia Racchid Ghanoucchi or the famous Muslim intellectual Tariq Ramadan highlights Turkey as the model to follow. The example of Turkey emphasizes the point that one need to build up bridges of cooperation so that your neighbors are comfortable that your interests do not hurt theirs and they are eager to collaborate.
3. The permanent members of the Security Council do not derive their legitimacies from their veto power. Whatever legitimacy they have is because of their political, economic, cultural or military achievements either in the past or in the present. United States derives her recognition from the fact that she is the overwhelming superior nation in terms of military and strategic perspectives. China derives its legitimacy from its recent unprecedented economic growth. United Kingdom and France derives their legitimacies from their colonial and cultural legacies. The Russian federation derives her legitimacy from her vast reserves of natural resources and from her huge stockpile of nuclear weapons. The overall picture is all the permanent members of the United Nations security council are recognized as powerful because of their past and present achievements in different fields but not because their permanent membership in the United Nations security council.

In the end , one has to mention that real influence in World Affairs does not come from your permanent membership at some elite club but it comes when other nations come to you believing that you have capabilities to help them solve their problems or we reach out to the world to engage it with our own initiatives. If we look at the past efforts of Indian foreign policy establishment in this regard , a lot remains to be expected on that front. Without this our hopes of gaining real influence in World Affairs will remain as it has been since the death of our first prime minister i.e. a pipedream.