Why does India not have veto status in the UN Security Council

[Demosthese]

Basically title, every country with veto status has at one point voted for India to receive veto power. It makes sense to, as one of the most populous countries on the planet with a considerable surface area and nuclear weaponry it has economic and social sway and with an extremely competent space program and quickly developing economy as incentive to be on their good side in the next few decades, you’d think especially china and Russia would be in a rush to push for Indian power on the international front. 
Instead what we see is all 5 countries with veto power rotating who hates India this week to push for Indian legislation in their favour. This seems extremely short sighted to me but I’m not stupid enough to assume there isn’t some underlying reasoning. My first thought is simply Not-My-Problem-ism 
Basically it’s the next guys fault if in 50 years india starts divvying up Eastern Asia but right now my boss will be really happy with a big arms deal. That would be an explanation for the short sightedness but I write here to get a different perspective.

I’m from North America btw in case my ignorance is showing

-Demosthenes

[August1991]

On 5/12/2024 at 4:17 PM, Demosthese said:

Basically title, every country with veto status has at one point voted for India to receive veto power. It makes sense to, as one of the most populous countries on the planet with a considerable surface area and nuclear weaponry it has economic and social sway and with an extremely competent space program and quickly developing economy as incentive to be on their good side in the next few decades....

.....

I’m from North America btw in case my ignorance is showing

-Demosthenes

1. The United Nations (and the Security Council) is not a world supreme court, decider of world affairs.

2. In 1815, Europe defeated Napoleon and created a system of peace.

3. It all fell apart in summer 1914.

3. In 1945, we defeated Hitler and created a new system of peace.

4. In 1991, this system of peace fell apart.

[Demosthese]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

1. The United Nations (and the Security Council) is not a world supreme court, decider of world affairs.

2. In 1815, Europe defeated Napoleon and created a system of peace.

3. It all fell apart in summer 1914.

3. In 1945, we defeated Hitler and created a new system of peace.

4. In 1991, this system of peace fell apart.

I don’t catch your point. I don’t even know what you were trying to say so I can’t say what I don’t understand. This seems to be a list of unrelated facts.

[August1991]

If I were a current citizen of the world:

-people who post on Instagram

I would look at why this civilised European world of the 1910s suddenly got involved in war, and destroyed itself.

[August1991]

If I were a senior civil servant in Delhi, I would read The Guns of August.

Kennedy did.

 

[myata]

The two-tier system of world security is obviously in a dead-end and more importantly, cannot be taken from there by any magical trick (on which magical development so many hopes seem to be riding). No: world will not return to the happy status quo now. Yes there's a problem, obvious and glaring one: who will judge the judges? Can judges be seen and trusted to be infallible no matter what they do?

The obvious answer is written in red paint through the human history. No, it want work. It was designed to fail, and the outcome is entirely predictable and almost certainly, unavoidable. When, not if.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Nobody should have a veto. Last of all any third world country like India or Pakistan. Having a nuclear weapon does not entitle any country to right of veto.