FOREIGN Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi is right in saying that a permanent UN Security Council seat for India would upset the balance of power in South Asia. Our concern about its zeal to gatecrash into the UNSC, endorsed by the US, is to a certain extent allayed by Chinas opposition on this count. Another factor that would ultimately thwart New Delhis bid is the fact that expansion of the UNSC is a long-drawn process, and in this particular case theres many a slip betwixt the cup and the lip. The reforms package, which envisions the enlargement of the body is a bone of contention amongst the member states and there is little possibility of a consensus in near future. President Obamas support for Indias seat was only a deceptive move to curry the favour of the Indians. He has no authority to speak on behalf of the UN. So far as the question of regional representation on the basis of population and economic strength goes, we have China as a permanent member. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that there are other promising contenders like Japan, Germany and Brazil whose bid for a permanent slot deserves to be given precedence. India, by contrast, has open enmity and difficult relations with all neighbouring countries and is disposed to pick up quarrels at the slightest of provocations and brandish its nuclear sword to intimidate adversaries be it China or Pakistan. It is struggling to overcome at least 13 insurgencies within, and is mired in pervasive poverty. Most important of all, the country has been for the past many decades sitting on the UNSC resolutions, calling for a solution of the Kashmir dispute through a plebiscite held under UN auspices. Its atrocities in Held Kashmir are a matter of record of the bodies of the UN. Its accession to the UN Security Council, even with the US promised support, would remain a dream unless it peacefully settles disputes with neighbouring countries and sets its own house in order.