Yes,of course. UN is nothing but a organization to show power by developed countries(veto power). It was established in 1945 to maintain peace in the world after WW2 and its main agenda was to balance the then superpowers (US/USSR). Later on, France,Britain and China,US,USSR(Russia) were made permanent members of UNSC. And other 5–10 nations were declared as temporary members of UNSC and they had to serve upto their tenure. India is serving as a temporary nation in UNSC for many years. Those 5 permanent nations are given veto power which allows them to oppose any issue/sanction/ban. Eg. Recently, China has kept its veto power to oppose the ban of terrorist Masood Azhar. If all the 4 nations are agree but if any 1 nation uses its veto power then all goes to vain. These countries use veto power to protect their ego/interest and sometimes for their allies/friends. Eg. China/US used veto power for Pakistan. Similarly USSR/Russia used veto power for India. Their are more disadvantages than advantages of veto. There is no limitation on veto. Eg. 1 veto a week/month. One can use as many veto as it wants this creates bias. The developing and non-veto countries are suffered the most. If they all 5 want than they can attack any country. If any 1 want to save terrorists and to spread terror then it can(China is constantly protecting Masood Azhar to tighten its relation with Pakistan). And that is why now India is demanding permanent membership in UNSC in order to tackle the headache Pakistan. There should be a limit on using veto. Also, international issues should be resolved fast because the issue of Kashmir and line of blood(LOC) is made by the UN and UN seems to be merely interested to solve Kashmir issue.