UNITED NATIONS - India is again pushing to realise its burning ambition to secure a permanent seat on the UN Security Council even though such attempts over the past two years or so have gone nowhere. But India persists in the face of opposition among UN member states to the 15-member Council's enlargement in the permanent category as this week it made a new bid aimed at acquiring major power status in the world body's UN's most powerful organ. Over the past few days, Indian diplomats have been quietly distributing a draft resolution among UN member states that would have the General Assembly call for, among other elements, expansion of the 15-member Council in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. Although the previous texts containing similar elements failed to muster the necessary support in the 192-member Assembly, the new draft proposes veto power for the additional permanent members. This new element was seen as an attempt to secure the support of African countries, which insist on veto power for the two African permanent seats envisaged in the reform package. India, Brazil, Germany and Japan - the contenders for the council's permanent membership - had dropped their demand for veto power in the course of their campaign over the past two years. They did so after realising that the existing veto-wielding members - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - would not allow the new comers to be armed with that power. Among other provisions of the new Indian draft, is a call for the President of the UN General Assembly, Srgjan Kerim, to commence inter-governmental negotiations "within three weeks of the adoption of this resolution" and to make a decision in this regard by the end of this year. But even with the lure of veto power and timelines on moving the process forward, several diplomats expressed the view that the new Indian drive would again fall short. "It'll be another exercise in futility," an Asian diplomat said. The reason: Considerable opposition exists to the Council's expansion in the permanent category and there is enough support for the decisions to be based on consensus, rather than by voting. Most UN diplomats regard Ambassador Munir Akram, Pakistan's star diplomat, as the driving force behind the opposition to creating new centres of powers as well as building support for consensus-based decisions. The purpose of the Indian move is obviously to take the matter out of the Assembly's Open-ended Working Group which, since 1994, is entrusted with making recommendations on reforming the Council that enjoy the widest possible support of the UN membership. By moving the exercise to the Assembly, the option of calling for a vote would become available. Most diplomats say that a resort to voting would only divide the United Nations. Diplomats and experts here also view the Indian move as undermining the process started by the General Assembly President through a task force of four chairpersons of the assembly. After detailed consultations with member states, the task forces on Wednesday produced a report which basically called for a compromise as most states were locked in their respective position. It said that there was no agreement on the categories in which the expansion should take place. "Security Council reform is at crossroads. In order to move forward, compromise is needed and the clock is ticking," the report added. The Council's reform, aimed at making it more representative and effective, was backed by the 2005 world summit held at UN Headquarters in New York. Practically all member states agree on enlarging the membership of Council, but they are sharply divided over the details. In July 2005, the Group of Four - India, Brazil, Germany and Japan -  called for boosting its membership from 15 members to 25, with six new permanent seats without veto power and two for the African region as well as four non-permanent seats. The Italy/Pakistan-led "Uniting for Consensus" UfC) group opposed any expansion of the permanent members on the Security Council. It sought enlargement of the Council to 25 seats, with 10 new non-permanent members who would be elected for two-year terms, with the possibility of immediate re-election. The African Union's called for the Council to be enlarged to 26 seats, one more permanent seat than the G-4 proposal. Its proposal for six new permanent seats was the same as the G-4's, except that it would give the new members veto privileges.