The BRICS summit hosted by India brought together leaders from Russia, China, South Africa, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Indonesia and other countries. Yet one notable absence stood out: Brazil and its President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Brazil, after all, is one of the founding members of BRICS, and Lula has been among the grouping's most prominent political voices.
The absence of Brazil's president should not, however, obscure the larger significance of the summit. BRICS is expanding because the international order itself is changing. Countries across the Global South are reassessing their options in a world where no government wants to antagonise a major power unnecessarily. Consequently, countries are joining multiple platforms and building relationships in different directions according to their national interests.
That is precisely what BRICS was meant to facilitate: bringing together major countries from different parts of the world and creating space for cooperation beyond the traditional Western-dominated institutions.
The Delhi Declaration should therefore be welcomed. It would have been difficult for an expanded BRICS, containing countries with sharply different positions on the Middle East, to arrive at a common position on every aspect of the conflict involving Iran. Yet the declaration did address important issues, including the situation in Gaza and support for a two-state solution to the Palestinian question.
This is significant because BRICS does not have to become an anti-Western organisation to become an important alternative centre of global cooperation.
The Slow Emergence Of Alternatives
There is much discussion about de-dollarisation, but BRICS is not necessarily moving towards an immediate abandonment of the dollar. What is happening more gradually is the expansion of trade in national currencies.
Russia's experience is instructive. The movement away from dollar-based transactions was not initially conceived simply as an ideological challenge to the dollar's position as the world's principal reserve currency. It accelerated after Russia faced extensive Western sanctions following the war in Ukraine. Iran has faced similar pressures for decades, while countries such as North Korea have also been subjected to extensive sanctions.
The larger question is whether a global economic system can remain sustainable when access to financial institutions and currencies can be used as instruments of geopolitical pressure.
This is one reason BRICS is becoming attractive to many countries.
The expansion of BRICS is also linked to a deeper historical reality. The consequences of colonialism did not disappear with political independence. Across the Global South, countries are increasingly demanding greater sovereignty over their natural resources and greater control over their economic futures. That process inevitably creates discomfort in Brussels, London and Washington.
the Western response to Russia illustrates this changing environment.
For years, Vladimir Putin was portrayed in much of Western political discourse as a dictator and an existential threat to European security. There were repeated expectations that Russia could be isolated economically and politically. Yet Russia has not disappeared from the global system. It remains a major military, energy and geopolitical power.
The focus has consequently shifted increasingly towards China.
This is where India needs to be particularly careful.
There is a growing realisation in Western strategic circles that breaking the India-Russia relationship will not be easy. China, meanwhile, is increasingly viewed by Washington as its principal economic and strategic competitor. Europe, although increasingly concerned about China, remains heavily influenced by its own confrontation with Russia and what can only be described as a deep-seated Russophobia in sections of European political discourse.
It is therefore strange to hear Indian commentators insist that India's participation in BRICS merely serves China's interests.
Why should that be the case?
Every country participates in international institutions according to its own interests. India does not surrender its national interests simply because it sits at the same table as China or Russia.
India Must Stop Thinking In Binaries
India has historically understood this principle.
India was one of the leading forces behind the Non-Aligned Movement. It also played an important role in the creation and development of SAARC. Unfortunately, SAARC has today become largely dysfunctional, and India has also contributed to that decline.
That is a loss for India.
A functioning South Asian regional organisation could have provided India with enormous economic and strategic leverage. Instead, India's foreign-policy establishment increasingly concentrated on developing stronger strategic relations with the West.
There is nothing wrong with strong relations with the United States or Europe. The problem begins when India starts imagining the world in binary terms—West versus East, democracy versus authoritarianism, or America versus China.
India is too large, too diverse and too historically important to become anyone's camp follower.
Some sections of India's liberal elite may strongly oppose Narendra Modi and the BJP. That is their democratic right. But criticism of the Indian government does not automatically make one independent of Western geopolitical narratives. Much of India's English-language liberal discourse remains deeply attached to Western interpretations of capitalism, democracy, liberalism and international politics.
The recent coverage of BRICS demonstrated this contradiction.
Criticism of BRICS is legitimate. No international institution should be beyond criticism. But some of the commentary surrounding India's hosting of the summit went far beyond criticism. Articles arguing that India should make BRICS “redundant” or deliberately make the organisation “boring” revealed a peculiar mindset.
India was hosting BRICS because the presidency rotates among member countries. India is also a founding member.
Why, then, should India use its presidency to weaken an organisation it helped create?
The question answers itself.
India Should Not Become Anybody's Trojan Horse
India's foreign policy should be based on strategic autonomy, not strategic dependence.
A country can simultaneously have strong relations with Washington, Moscow, Brussels, Beijing, Tokyo, Tehran, Riyadh and the countries of Africa and Latin America. There is no contradiction in doing so.
Indeed, that is precisely where India's diplomatic strength lies.
India's relationship with the West has undoubtedly become stronger. But India has historically possessed enormous cultural capital across Asia and the Global South. Its civilisational links with Southeast Asia, particularly through Buddhism, remain an underused diplomatic asset.
Why should India surrender that space?
A senior Brazilian official once described India as potentially becoming a “Trojan horse” within the Global South. Whether or not one agrees with that description, India should ensure that no country has reason to see it that way.
The real question is not whether India should be close to the West or BRICS. It is why India cannot be close to both while maintaining its own independent position.
Who actually benefits from these economic deals?
Those advocating deeper Western integration should also answer some uncomfortable questions.
India has signed numerous economic and strategic agreements with the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union. But what has been their measurable impact on ordinary Indians?
How many jobs have they created?
How much have Indian manufacturing and small industries benefited?
What has been their impact on farmers?
Will these arrangements expand India's productive capacity, or will they simply turn India into a huge market for Western goods and services?
These are not anti-Western questions. They are questions of economic sovereignty.
Western economic institutions have historically operated within a system in which the industrialised economies enjoyed disproportionate advantages while accessing the natural and human resources of the Global South. Colonialism may have ended formally, but unequal economic structures have survived in different forms.
The relationship between capitalism and imperial power therefore cannot simply be dismissed as an issue of the past.
The West Is Not A Monolith
The United States and Europe have also given the world important ideas about democracy, human rights, individual liberty and liberal thought. India has benefited from many of these ideas, just as it has benefited from Western education, technology and economic engagement.
But the credibility of these ideals suffers when they are applied selectively.
The devastation in Gaza has exposed the contradictions between the language of human rights and the conduct of powerful states. Similarly, US policies towards Venezuela, Cuba and other Latin American countries raise questions about sovereignty and the selective application of the “rules-based order”.
The same applies to energy.
Europe once benefited from relatively inexpensive and reliable Russian energy. Following the war in Ukraine and the resulting sanctions and disruptions, European countries have had to find alternative sources, including significantly more expensive supplies from other producers.
These developments have economic consequences for ordinary Europeans.
Yet the dominant political narrative often leaves little space for examining these contradictions.
The World Needs A Multipolar Order
Whatever one's view of Vladimir Putin or Russia's actions in Ukraine, Russia's military and geopolitical strength has prevented it from being easily coerced or dismantled.
A weak Russia could potentially have faced an entirely different fate.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was celebrated in many Western capitals because it appeared to confirm the arrival of a unipolar world dominated by the United States. But history did not end there.
Russia returned as a major power.
China emerged as an economic giant.
India began asserting itself more strongly.
Countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East increasingly began questioning the structures of a global order that they believe have served the interests of a small group of powerful states disproportionately.
This is why the rise of BRICS matters.
It does not necessarily mean the creation of another bloc. It can instead become part of a broader transition towards a multipolar world.
The objective should not be to replace Western dominance with Chinese or Russian dominance. The objective should be a world where no single power can dictate the terms of international politics, economics and security to everyone else.
That requires strengthening the United Nations and other genuinely multilateral institutions.
India Must Retain Its Strategic Autonomy
India has every right to pursue an independent foreign policy.
It should remain part of BRICS. It should remain engaged with the United States and Europe. It should strengthen ties with Russia, China, Japan, Southeast Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. It should participate actively in the G20, the United Nations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and other international institutions.
There is no contradiction in this approach.
In fact, this is what strategic autonomy means.
The world is changing because the old international order is being challenged from multiple directions. Countries that were once colonies are demanding greater control over their resources. Countries subjected to sanctions are developing alternative financial mechanisms. Emerging economies are demanding greater representation in global institutions.
India should not fear this transformation.
It should lead it.
The question is not whether India belongs to the West or the East. India belongs to itself.
Its foreign policy should therefore be guided neither by Washington nor Moscow, neither by Beijing nor Brussels, but by the long-term interests of the Indian people.
A just international order will not emerge merely by changing alliances. It will require acknowledging historical injustice, confronting the continuing legacy of colonialism and building institutions in which sovereignty and equality are meaningful principles rather than convenient slogans.
BRICS is one small but significant part of that larger transformation.
India should not weaken it.
India should use it.
---
*Human rights defender
India was one of the leading forces behind the Non-Aligned Movement. It also played an important role in the creation and development of SAARC. Unfortunately, SAARC has today become largely dysfunctional, and India has also contributed to that decline.
That is a loss for India.
A functioning South Asian regional organisation could have provided India with enormous economic and strategic leverage. Instead, India's foreign-policy establishment increasingly concentrated on developing stronger strategic relations with the West.
There is nothing wrong with strong relations with the United States or Europe. The problem begins when India starts imagining the world in binary terms—West versus East, democracy versus authoritarianism, or America versus China.
India is too large, too diverse and too historically important to become anyone's camp follower.
Some sections of India's liberal elite may strongly oppose Narendra Modi and the BJP. That is their democratic right. But criticism of the Indian government does not automatically make one independent of Western geopolitical narratives. Much of India's English-language liberal discourse remains deeply attached to Western interpretations of capitalism, democracy, liberalism and international politics.
The recent coverage of BRICS demonstrated this contradiction.
Criticism of BRICS is legitimate. No international institution should be beyond criticism. But some of the commentary surrounding India's hosting of the summit went far beyond criticism. Articles arguing that India should make BRICS “redundant” or deliberately make the organisation “boring” revealed a peculiar mindset.
India was hosting BRICS because the presidency rotates among member countries. India is also a founding member.
Why, then, should India use its presidency to weaken an organisation it helped create?
The question answers itself.
India Should Not Become Anybody's Trojan Horse
India's foreign policy should be based on strategic autonomy, not strategic dependence.
A country can simultaneously have strong relations with Washington, Moscow, Brussels, Beijing, Tokyo, Tehran, Riyadh and the countries of Africa and Latin America. There is no contradiction in doing so.
Indeed, that is precisely where India's diplomatic strength lies.
India's relationship with the West has undoubtedly become stronger. But India has historically possessed enormous cultural capital across Asia and the Global South. Its civilisational links with Southeast Asia, particularly through Buddhism, remain an underused diplomatic asset.
Why should India surrender that space?
A senior Brazilian official once described India as potentially becoming a “Trojan horse” within the Global South. Whether or not one agrees with that description, India should ensure that no country has reason to see it that way.
The real question is not whether India should be close to the West or BRICS. It is why India cannot be close to both while maintaining its own independent position.
Who actually benefits from these economic deals?
Those advocating deeper Western integration should also answer some uncomfortable questions.
India has signed numerous economic and strategic agreements with the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union. But what has been their measurable impact on ordinary Indians?
How many jobs have they created?
How much have Indian manufacturing and small industries benefited?
What has been their impact on farmers?
Will these arrangements expand India's productive capacity, or will they simply turn India into a huge market for Western goods and services?
These are not anti-Western questions. They are questions of economic sovereignty.
Western economic institutions have historically operated within a system in which the industrialised economies enjoyed disproportionate advantages while accessing the natural and human resources of the Global South. Colonialism may have ended formally, but unequal economic structures have survived in different forms.
The relationship between capitalism and imperial power therefore cannot simply be dismissed as an issue of the past.
The West Is Not A Monolith
The United States and Europe have also given the world important ideas about democracy, human rights, individual liberty and liberal thought. India has benefited from many of these ideas, just as it has benefited from Western education, technology and economic engagement.
But the credibility of these ideals suffers when they are applied selectively.
The devastation in Gaza has exposed the contradictions between the language of human rights and the conduct of powerful states. Similarly, US policies towards Venezuela, Cuba and other Latin American countries raise questions about sovereignty and the selective application of the “rules-based order”.
The same applies to energy.
Europe once benefited from relatively inexpensive and reliable Russian energy. Following the war in Ukraine and the resulting sanctions and disruptions, European countries have had to find alternative sources, including significantly more expensive supplies from other producers.
These developments have economic consequences for ordinary Europeans.
Yet the dominant political narrative often leaves little space for examining these contradictions.
The World Needs A Multipolar Order
Whatever one's view of Vladimir Putin or Russia's actions in Ukraine, Russia's military and geopolitical strength has prevented it from being easily coerced or dismantled.
A weak Russia could potentially have faced an entirely different fate.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was celebrated in many Western capitals because it appeared to confirm the arrival of a unipolar world dominated by the United States. But history did not end there.
Russia returned as a major power.
China emerged as an economic giant.
India began asserting itself more strongly.
Countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East increasingly began questioning the structures of a global order that they believe have served the interests of a small group of powerful states disproportionately.
This is why the rise of BRICS matters.
It does not necessarily mean the creation of another bloc. It can instead become part of a broader transition towards a multipolar world.
The objective should not be to replace Western dominance with Chinese or Russian dominance. The objective should be a world where no single power can dictate the terms of international politics, economics and security to everyone else.
That requires strengthening the United Nations and other genuinely multilateral institutions.
India Must Retain Its Strategic Autonomy
India has every right to pursue an independent foreign policy.
It should remain part of BRICS. It should remain engaged with the United States and Europe. It should strengthen ties with Russia, China, Japan, Southeast Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. It should participate actively in the G20, the United Nations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and other international institutions.
There is no contradiction in this approach.
In fact, this is what strategic autonomy means.
The world is changing because the old international order is being challenged from multiple directions. Countries that were once colonies are demanding greater control over their resources. Countries subjected to sanctions are developing alternative financial mechanisms. Emerging economies are demanding greater representation in global institutions.
India should not fear this transformation.
It should lead it.
The question is not whether India belongs to the West or the East. India belongs to itself.
Its foreign policy should therefore be guided neither by Washington nor Moscow, neither by Beijing nor Brussels, but by the long-term interests of the Indian people.
A just international order will not emerge merely by changing alliances. It will require acknowledging historical injustice, confronting the continuing legacy of colonialism and building institutions in which sovereignty and equality are meaningful principles rather than convenient slogans.
BRICS is one small but significant part of that larger transformation.
India should not weaken it.
India should use it.
---
*Human rights defender
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor