India views multilateral institutions as platforms to address transnational challenges, advance the interests of the Global South and promote a rules-based international order. However, its aspirations for greater representation and decision-making authority often encounter institutional arrangements shaped by the distribution of power after the Second World War.
India’s aspirations for a greater role in global governance
- Greater representation: India seeks permanent membership of the UN Security Council (UNSC), arguing that its composition does not adequately reflect contemporary geopolitical realities.
- Reform of global financial institutions: India advocates greater voting power for developing economies in the IMF and World Bank to reflect their growing contribution to the global economy.
- Leadership of the Global South: India seeks to articulate the developmental priorities of emerging and developing countries. Example: The Voice of Global South Summit and India’s G20 presidency in 2023 foregrounded concerns such as debt distress, food security and development finance.
- Reforming multilateral trade: India supports a more equitable trading system that recognises development needs, food security concerns and policy space for developing countries.
- Climate justice: India advocates equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) in international climate negotiations.
- Participation in plurilateral groupings: Engagement with forums such as BRICS, the G20 and the Quad enables India to pursue its interests across different institutional settings.
Structural limitations of the existing international order
- Unequal power distribution: The UNSC veto privileges five permanent members, limiting the ability of emerging powers to shape binding decisions. India advocates comprehensive Council reform through the G4.
- Inertia in institutional reform: Amendments to the UN Charter require demanding procedures and ratification by all permanent members, making changes to the Council’s composition difficult.
- Unequal financial influence: IMF voting power is substantially linked to quotas, which influence members’ representation and decision-making authority.
- Divergent national interests: Disagreements among major powers impede consensus on conflicts, sanctions, climate finance and global trade rules.
- Limited enforcement capacity: International institutions often depend on member states for compliance, funding and implementation, constraining their ability to respond decisively to crises.
- Fragmentation of multilateralism: Competing geopolitical blocs and overlapping forums can weaken universal cooperation and encourage selective adherence to international norms.
Way forward
India can advance its aspirations by building coalitions with both developed and developing countries, strengthening South–South cooperation and pursuing incremental institutional reforms. It should also contribute constructively to existing institutions while promoting greater representation, transparency and accountability in decision-making. Its engagement across the G20, BRICS and UN forums can help bridge differences, provided these platforms complement rather than undermine universal institutions.
India’s experience illustrates that greater participation does not automatically translate into greater decision-making power. Reforming global governance requires both institutional change and sustained diplomatic coalition-building so that multilateral institutions better reflect contemporary realities while retaining legitimacy and effectiveness.