S Jaishankar on Global Unity: Why the World Needs Stringent UN Reform

Jaishankar called for efforts to de-risk the international economy and provide countries with more diversified options. Such resilience is essential, particularly when access to critical resources becomes entangled with geopolitical competition.

The world does not need a war to discover how deeply connected it has become. In March 2021, the Ever Given, a container ship stuck in the Suez Canal, disrupted a vital artery of global commerce and exposed the fragility of international supply chains. A single vessel was enough to demonstrate how a disruption in one narrow passage could affect businesses and consumers thousands of kilometres away. Globalisation has compressed distances, but it has also concentrated vulnerabilities.

This reality lends weight to External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar’s appeal for global unity on United Nations Day. Addressing the Chinmaya Amrit Mahotsav Global Sammelan in New Delhi on October 25, 2026, he invoked Advaita, the philosophical understanding of existence as one reality, to argue that humanity must move beyond narrow national interests. His message was both philosophical and geopolitical, connecting international peace with economic security and calling for a more representative global order.

The central question, however, is whether a world governed by competing national interests can genuinely embrace the idea of oneness. Jaishankar’s argument offers a compelling moral framework, but its success depends on whether nations are willing to apply its principles when cooperation conflicts with their immediate advantages.

The World Is Connected, but Its Politics Remain Divided

“We are common, we are shared, we are united and we are one reality,” Jaishankar declared, drawing on Advaita to challenge the tendency to view other nations primarily through the lens of competition. The principle is particularly relevant to international relations, where governments often perceive another country’s gains as their own losses, even when cooperation could produce benefits for both sides.

The United Nations was established after the Second World War to prevent national rivalries from repeatedly descending into catastrophe. Article 1 of its Charter envisages the organisation as a centre for harmonising the actions of nations in pursuit of common objectives. Eight decades later, that ambition remains relevant, although the gap between its founding principles and contemporary political realities is rather difficult to overlook.

Jaishankar’s appeal therefore raises an important question about the nature of national interest. Countries cannot abandon their security concerns or economic priorities, but neither can they indefinitely ignore the consequences of decisions taken beyond their borders. Interdependence has made cooperation a practical necessity, even when geopolitical competition makes it politically inconvenient.

War Has No Borders When Its Consequences Begin to Travel

“War anywhere threatens peace everywhere,” Jaishankar observed, referring to the wider consequences of conflicts in Ukraine and West Asia. Their effects extend well beyond the countries directly involved, influencing energy prices, food supplies and the economic calculations of governments far removed from the fighting.

For a family watching its savings lose purchasing power as essential goods become more expensive, the battlefield may be thousands of kilometres away, but the consequences are immediate. Global markets transmit geopolitical shocks into household budgets, often leaving ordinary people to bear costs over which they have little influence.

The Ever Given incident offered a similar lesson about the vulnerabilities created by concentrated supply routes. Its obstruction of the Suez Canal demonstrated how quickly a disruption at a crucial chokepoint could affect international commerce. Countries cannot assume that distant crises will remain distant when their economies depend on shared shipping routes and interconnected markets.

Jaishankar emphasised dialogue and diplomacy as the way forward, noting India’s efforts to advance peace. Yet diplomacy must produce sustained engagement rather than become a convenient substitute for action. Sovereignty cannot be a shield for impunity, just as diplomacy cannot become an alibi for paralysis. If the consequences of conflict cross borders, the responsibility to pursue peace must extend beyond the countries directly involved.

Terrorism Cannot Be Condemned Selectively

Jaishankar was unequivocal in rejecting terrorism as an instrument of statecraft, arguing that it could neither be justified nor rationalised. His remarks addressed a persistent weakness in international counterterrorism efforts, where political considerations can sometimes undermine the consistency of declared principles.

If terrorism is condemned only when the victim is an ally, it is not a principle. It is a preference. Selective condemnation weakens international credibility and makes sustained cooperation more difficult, particularly when states suspect that strategic interests matter more than the protection of innocent lives.

A credible global response requires governments to reject terrorism regardless of the political calculations surrounding it. Intelligence sharing and security cooperation remain important, but they must be supported by a consistent refusal to legitimise violence because it serves a convenient objective.

Jaishankar’s call for zero tolerance therefore goes beyond a declaration against terrorism. It challenges governments to demonstrate that their principles remain intact even when applying them carries diplomatic or strategic costs. Without that consistency, international solidarity will remain vulnerable to the very rivalries it is supposed to overcome.

Prosperity Cannot Be Reserved for the Privileged

“The world cannot advance half-prosperous and half-denied,” Jaishankar said, drawing attention to the economic inequalities that continue to shape international relations. His reference to the Global South’s difficulties with finance, fuel, food and fertiliser captured the pressures facing countries whose development prospects can be disrupted by events beyond their control.

High borrowing costs can restrict investment, energy insecurity can raise production expenses, while shortages of food or fertiliser can threaten livelihoods. These pressures frequently reinforce one another, leaving developing economies with fewer resources to absorb external shocks and maintain their development priorities.

The Global North also has a direct interest in addressing these vulnerabilities because economic instability rarely remains confined to its point of origin. Disruptions spread through trade and supply chains, affecting production costs and consumer prices across international markets. An economic system that leaves entire regions excessively dependent on a narrow range of suppliers or vulnerable to geopolitical chokepoints cannot guarantee lasting stability.

Jaishankar called for efforts to de-risk the international economy and provide countries with more diversified options. Such resilience is essential, particularly when access to critical resources becomes entangled with geopolitical competition. Shared prosperity does not require identical economic outcomes, but it does require recognising that widespread deprivation and insecurity can undermine the stability on which international growth depends.

Artificial Intelligence Must Not Become Another Instrument of Exclusion

Jaishankar also warned against concentrating control over artificial intelligence in the hands of a small group of countries or actors. As AI begins to influence economic competitiveness and the future of work, decisions made by technological leaders will affect societies that have had little influence over how these systems are developed.

India advocates a responsible, inclusive and human-centric approach to AI, reflecting the concern that technological progress should not deepen existing inequalities. Countries with greater technological capabilities are better positioned to shape standards and capture economic benefits, while others risk becoming dependent on systems whose design and governance remain beyond their control.

The challenge is to broaden access and participation without compromising safety or accountability. If artificial intelligence is to influence the future of economies across the world, its benefits cannot be judged solely by the advantages it offers those already equipped to lead its development. Technological progress will have limited value as a force for shared advancement if it reinforces existing concentrations of power.

A Stronger United Nations Must Reflect a Changing World

Jaishankar linked the principle of oneness to India’s development partnerships, its capacity-building programmes and its humanitarian assistance to other countries. He cited India’s provision of COVID-19 vaccines abroad while its domestic vaccination programme was still underway, alongside development projects spanning 78 countries. These examples illustrated his argument that national development and international cooperation need not be competing objectives.

The philosophy of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, or the world as one family, provides a broader foundation for this approach. As Jaishankar remarked, “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam is practiced, it is not merely preached.” The distinction is important because international solidarity acquires credibility through practical assistance rather than declarations alone.

Yet cooperation also requires institutions capable of translating shared intentions into collective action. Jaishankar argued that the case for reformed multilateralism grows stronger by the day, calling for a United Nations that reflects contemporary global realities and demonstrates greater leadership during international crises.

An organisation cannot claim to represent the international community adequately if significant parts of the world remain marginalised in its decision-making. Nor can it retain credibility if its response to crises depends excessively on the preferences of its most powerful members. If the powerful want the world to trust the rules-based order, they must show that the rules bind the powerful, too.

Reforming the United Nations is therefore not simply an institutional exercise. It concerns whether global governance can remain legitimate and effective when the distribution of economic and political power has changed. Greater representation must be accompanied by a willingness to accept collective responsibilities, while leadership must mean more than observing crises unfold and issuing statements after the damage has been done.

Jaishankar’s invocation of Advaita ultimately presents the international community with a demanding test. The world is already connected through its markets, technologies and security challenges, but acknowledging that reality is easier than accepting its political implications. The United Nations was created from the ruins of a world devastated by rivalry, and its relevance today depends on whether nations can learn to manage their differences without allowing competition to overwhelm common interests. Oneness may begin as a philosophical proposition, but its credibility will be decided by what governments are willing to do when the interests of the powerful collide with the needs of the wider world.