The next thing to do was addressing United Nations.
India became a founding member in 1945, but not by our choice. Under British choice.
There are currently 5 permanent members of UNSC with Veto powers.
USA, USSR, UK, France and Republic of China(ROC).
USA, USSR and UK were major allies.
France was added just because USSR did not want US dominance through UK and ROC.
And ROC is currently having a civil war with Communists, and will loose in 2 years.
On the other hand, India, which contributed the most soldiers and natural resources in WW2 was not given the UNSC seat, and well, neither did India demand for it in my previous world.
USA offered to help India to get ROC's seat in 1950. Nehru declined it, which was a good thing. It would have pissed off China for taking its seat, and such an offer would have not even passed. USSR would have surely blocked India getting the seat, stating that ROC's seat belongs to PRC.
In 1955, USSR offered help in getting India into permanent UNSC, and whether it was for a 6th seat or replacing ROC is unclear. I am more inclined to believe in the former.
But, it wouldn't have passed due to USA and UK opposing USSR.
But whatever the case may have been, Nehru shouldn't have rejected that. Maybe not take USSR's help, but go for India getting the seat on its own.
But he thought that India was not ready and didn't want the seat entirely. He never tried.
Sigh...
Anyway, India called the UN meeting today, on 17th August, so all permanent members' leaders have come, along with some countries like Pakistan. The rest are with foreign ministers or diplomats instead of the leaders.
Jinnah is here to join Pakistan into UN, currently joining as an observer. It looks like he arrived in haste to counter whatever India is planning.
The proceedings of UN started, and I started addressing the organisation.
"Today, I, as the leader and representative of India, have called the United Nations Organization concerning a very necessary matter.
As we know, UN was formed on the basis of the victory of Allied Forces in the World War 2.
The Security Council was made of the countries with the most contributions.
But, despite India contributing the most number of soldiers, the most amount of natural resources, which costed us deaths of atleast 3 million people in Bengal alone.
India deserves a permanent UNSC seat. So, I have called the session today for this grave matter that is important for UNO's legitimacy itself.
Otherwise, India will exit this organisation today itself.
If anyone has questions regarding this, please ask before we start voting."
Everyone started murmuring, and as expected, Jinnah was the first one to ask questions.
"On what grounds does India 'deserve' a permanent seat in UNSC? We don't even know if India will continue existing.
India is not the successor state of the India that fought in World War 1 and 2. Both India and Pakistan are. Infact, Indian National Congress denied participating in World War 2, and Muslim League supported it.
Additionally, a country that is Anti-Muslim doesn't deserve any special seat."
I just looked at my papers and said, "First, I call out you on the accusation that India is Anti-Muslim.
India is a secular democratic country, where each citizen, regardless of gender, faith, or any social class, will have the same laws, same rights and same responsibilities.
We have Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Christianity, Islam, Jew, Zoroastrian, all faiths having been living under the banner of India.
Unlike, Pakistan, an imaginary fascist country born in 1947 made for and by bigots of Punjab region who use the name of Islam to rule.
We are respecting Islam. That's why pork and alcohol are among many things that are going to be banned in India. On the other hand, you and others of Muslim League consume alcohol rather freely.
We weren't the ones who used the name of Islam to genocide people, just like Hitler used the name of German-ism and Aryan whataboutery.
Second, Pakistan is not a successor state of India that fought in the World Wars. India, and India alone is the true successor of India. Pakistan was created undemocratically without any majority, and Indian National Congress and in an election with around 20% adults being allowed to participate in voting. Created through genociding Indians. I wounder how you are calling Pakistan the successor state of India?
Moreover, Indian National Congress didn't deny participating in World War 2. We denied it under British occupation.
If India was independent at that time, India would have not participated in the war at all in the beginning, because a European War doesn't concern India.
But, we would have intervened after we got to know what Hitler was doing, genociding Jews, who are India's centuries old friends, we would have joined in. We would have also fought against Japan genociding and enslaving other Asians.
Muslim League, on the other hand, would have definitely joined Hitler's side due to their brotherhood in genocidal tendencies.
And third, India will not stop existing. India has existed since civilizations existed. Thousands of years of invasions, battles and genocides couldn't put India's existence in question.
Pakistan is but a small page of history born 2 days ago, you should know better than question if India will continue to exist or not.
Alright. Does another country have any questions?"
The 5 main countries didn't have any questions. USA, UK, France and USSR wanted to maintain good relations and pull India into their side, while ROC recognised India's medical help for China during World War 2. It most likely didn't want the communists to start another propaganda by calling it 'ungrateful'.
The Islamic countries, which I expected most resistance from, didn't actually oppose it by voicing it out. Perhaps my decision to ban alcohol lead them to not be against it, atleast orally. What they vote is a different matter altogether.
But, India should be able to win the 66% voting, meaning 37 out of 55 countries and not get an Veto from the 5 permanent members if I think logically. But, logic wouldn't work much.
"Alright. Since it is a reform amendment, it is necessary for an open voting. I will end my address here and request the UNO secretary general to proceed with the voting for UNO reforms.
If India doesn't get its rightful position as a permanent member of UNSC today, India will leave the organisation altogether."
Maybe 37 countries will not agree to it?
African countries should support it. In Asia, it might be a problem since in the end, Indian National Army(INA) was allied to Japan, and Western Asia are not trustworthy.
In Europe, Poland should be in support, though I can't determine about the others. USSR and other soviet members like Belarus will probably support it to remain in good grace.
In Americas, I can say for sure only about USA.
A break happened, and after that, the voting started.
Out of 55 members, India needs the support of atleast 37, and ensure that none of the 5 permanent members use their veto powers.
The result was:
Yes: 29/55
No: 13/55
Abstain: 13/55
Taking out Abstains from consideration, India requires 28 votes. India got 29.
So, India should become a permanent member.
But...
"We should first make Pakistan a member, then reconduct the voting."
UK has casted a Veto.
"Even if Pakistan votes in No, the required number of votes will become from 28 to 28.67. Meaning India still has the 2/3rd majority."
I said, looking at Clement Atlee. He feigned surprise.
"Oh. But we have to follow the procedure. Let's have a revote after Pakistan becomes a member."
Tch. India will loose in the next vote. Just one more vote in No, or one less Yes with Abstain, and this will go out of our hand.
It was now going to be a vote for Pakistan becoming a member of UN.
But before that, a break happened.