I have gone through the article and would try to be precise in my comment on the member's nations Brazil and India in regard to be yet to be considered or not to be given permanent seat in UN Security Council.

With regard to China and Russia, I will not venture to comment on these two countries as to be fair and in the greater interest of assessing the Foreign Policy of any country all facts small or big in its row form should be on the table for consideration. I feel that much had been left out both in favor and against to warrant a balanced comment.

Moreover, it needs to be discussed threadbare on all point including with its likely impacts and relentless deliberation to arrive at a consensus to formulate on decision on foreign policy that would be applicable with the desired positive impact in international arena of diplomacy. Therefore, to discuss these two countries case the case of US, UK, and French's case needs to be also discussed and deliberated at length for a fruitful comment that would help in the correct formulation of the Foreign Policy of any contry. .

In my consideration for fair assessment the comparison and argument advanced in respect of Russia and China had been one sided. Comparison was not made elaborately by also highlighting the lacking incase of US, UK, and French which was not discussed or if even discussed were not reproduced in full in the article.

However, With regard to Brazil it is recommended that the committee may consider the matter whenever it deems fit. With regard to India, it cannot and should not ever be considered for the purpose under discussion.

It is because of the fact that India may be in the views of the International Countries the largest Democracy but I would like to differ. And would be blunt to mentioned first of all how could it be a democratic country at all when a National Political Party (BJP) of the country sponsored committal of genocide against its own nationals, that too by the TOP Leader of that Party Mr. ADVANI.

A case was registered to this effect in the Indian court of law after proper investigation accusing the Political party head Advani as the prime accused. The case after charge sheeting submitted to the court. After decades being kept in the deep freeze of the supreme it was recovered and taken up for trail only to be found to exonerate the main accused. How can this Genocidal Country expect to be considered to seat in the permanent seat of the Security Council? If it ever is considered for the post then it will be a deliberate attempt by the committee to annihilate the Muslims of the world.

The case was in the deep freeze of the Indian Supreme Court Until over decades until recently with what intent. It is needs to be inquired into thoroughly. but will the real evidence be divulged by this corrupt countries administrative or judicial set up.

India is following procedure to exonerate the accused to make India Clean exactly similar endeavor in action by Israel another genocidal country with exactly similar type of case. Israel like India is trying to exonerate itself by giving like threatening to Goldstone to retract his earlier recommendation. These evidences are sufficient to take into consideration and reject its case permanently otherwise in future all genocide committal countries will claim for a seat in the Security Council, which will be suicidal.

With regard to Brazil and South Africa's case, the points of objection seem to be weak but may be it needs a full-fledged deliberation. However, India it should be barred from the permanent Security Council Seat as no genocide committal country against which case was filed and was lying in the court for decades should never be the Security Council Member as a rule.