At the time of formation of the United Nations India was not an independent country. The acceptance of India as a permanent member has been raised on and off by several countries always with sympathetic tones. It's an historical accident.

Permanent members are not determined looking at who's bigger, or who has nukes.

Permanent members are the five biggest winners of WW2.

Your theory differs from the GP so better to address them than me.

It's not a theory, it's a well established fact that you can easily find on Wikipedia:

"The permanent members were all allies in World War II (and the victors of that war)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_Unite...

Please stop telling me why belter's premise is wrong.

You can't debate me about a premise introduced by another person.

You have to resolve the issue with them.

I already made a comment that is based a premise (dudul's) that seems similar to yours, instead of belter's. Here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30494411

Again, when I respond to someone, in the context of their premises, I am not adopting those premises and I don't have to defend them to anyone.

Go back and argue with the person who actually introduced what you want to dispute.