New Delhi’s BRICS strategy is based on the idea that no single power should dictate the world order. That applies as much to the United States as it does to China.
While Russia and China maintain longstanding rivalries with Washington and Iran is at war with the United States, India cannot afford an anti-Western stance. New Delhi maintains strong economic, defense and strategic ties with Western nations along with its bilateral partnerships with BRICS members.
Consequently, it views BRICS not as an anti-American bloc, but as an instrument to foster a genuinely multipolar world order that gives developing nations greater representation.
This approach was front and center at the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi. The resulting joint declaration explicitly advocated for a more representative international system through multipolarity, backing long-overdue reforms to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to amplify the Global South.
China and Russia, permanent members of the Security Council, reiterated support for India and Brazil playing greater roles within the UN system. New Delhi has long argued that post-World War II institutions no longer represent today’s economic realities. Reforming these institutions is therefore a priority.
Managing Beijing’s outsized footprint in BRICS creates another delicate calculation. As the grouping's largest economy, China holds its own vision for the bloc. At the New Delhi summit, President Xi Jinping pushed for stronger cooperation in artificial intelligence (AI), finance, trade and technology ahead of China assuming the upcoming BRICS chairmanship.
India’s position is clear. Replacing Western hegemony with Chinese dominance in BRICS would defeat the purpose of multipolarity. Bilaterally, both compete for strategic influence across Asia and have serious border disputes.
However, New Delhi sees distinct value in keeping Beijing engaged within a multilateral forum to manage disputes. On the sidelines of the summit, Prime Minister Modi and President Xi discussed bilateral trade, market access and border security. While the former characterised relations as requiring a long-term strategic view, the latter emphasised that ties must be anchored in "mutual respect, mutual sensitivity and mutual interest”.
The larger BRICS grouping, comprising major economies like India and Brazil, energy giants such as Russia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and emerging nations across Africa and Southeast Asia, brings competing geopolitical interests under one roof. While Iran is at war with the United States, the UAE maintains strong security ties with Washington and India manages strategic partnerships with both Washington and Moscow.
New Delhi uses this diversity to keep BRICS as an issue-based negotiating platform rather than a rigid geopolitical camp. The New Delhi Declaration reflected this broad scope, covering international trade, sanctions, Middle East stability, counter-terrorism, AI, climate change and supply chain resilience.
India’s approach to BRICS is ultimately a push for reform rather than revolution. New Delhi does not seek to dismantle the existing international order or create an anti-Western coalition. It aims to reform institutions and give emerging economies real influence.
As PM Modi said during the summit, calling for concrete initiatives such as a joint early-warning system for infectious diseases, India wants BRICS to deliver pragmatic cooperation across trade, public health, energy and technology while preserving every member state's autonomy to pursue its own national interest.
Stay informed on all the latest news, real-time breaking news updates, and follow all the important headlines in india news and world news on Zee News.
Facts Only
* New Delhi’s BRICS strategy is based on the idea that no single power should dictate the world order.
* India maintains strong economic, defense, and strategic ties with Western nations and BRICS members.
* India views BRICS as an instrument to foster a genuinely multipolar world order with greater representation for developing nations.
* The 18th BRICS Summit was held in New Delhi.
* The joint declaration at the summit advocated for a more representative international system through multipolarity and reforms to the UN Security Council (UNSC).
* China and Russia supported India and Brazil playing greater roles within the UN system.
* India argues that post-World War II institutions do not reflect current economic realities.
* President Xi Jinping pushed for stronger cooperation in artificial intelligence (AI), finance, trade, and technology ahead of China’s BRICS chairmanship.
* Bilateral discussions between Prime Minister Modi and President Xi covered trade, market access, and border security.
* The BRICS grouping includes major economies (India, Brazil), energy giants (Russia, Iran, UAE), and emerging nations in Africa and Southeast Asia.
* The New Delhi Declaration covered international trade, sanctions, Middle East stability, counter-terrorism, AI, climate change, and supply chain resilience.
Executive Summary
New Delhi’s BRICS strategy is founded on the principle that no single power should dominate world order, a view shared by both the United States and China. Despite ongoing rivalries between Russia and China versus Washington, and the conflict between Iran and the United States, India maintains strong economic, defense, and strategic ties with Western nations alongside its BRICS partnerships. Consequently, India views BRICS not as an anti-American bloc but as a tool to promote a multipolar world order offering greater representation for developing nations.
This approach was formalized at the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi, where the joint declaration advocated for a more representative international system through multipolarity and called for reforms to the United Nations Security Council to amplify the Global South. China and Russia supported India and Brazil taking greater roles within the UN system, reflecting an argument that post-World War II institutions no longer reflect current economic realities.
Managing China's significant influence within the BRICS grouping requires careful calculation, as China possesses its own vision for the bloc. While bilateral discussions between India and China touched upon trade and security, they were framed around mutual respect and interest. The broader BRICS group encompasses diverse geopolitical interests, including energy giants like Russia and Iran alongside nations such as the UAE, presenting a complex landscape where member states hold varying alignments with major powers.
Ultimately, India utilizes this diversity to position BRICS as an issue-based platform covering topics like trade, sanctions, climate change, and public health, rather than a rigid geopolitical alliance. The underlying goal is institutional reform and increased influence for emerging economies while maintaining national autonomy in pursuing interests.
Full Take
The narrative skillfully constructs India’s position as a pragmatic reformer seeking institutional change rather than revolutionary realignment of the global order. The core tension lies in balancing the aspirational goal of multipolarity with the geopolitical realities of competing power centers within the BRICS structure, particularly managing Beijing’s influence. The focus on reforming the UNSC and addressing post-WWII institutional gaps suggests a persistent pattern of challenging existing hierarchical structures by demanding greater agency for the Global South.
The emphasis on diversity—Iran's conflict with the US contrasted with the UAE's ties to Washington, and India's balancing act between Moscow and the West—is not accidental; it serves to frame BRICS as an inherently complex, issue-based forum rather than a monolithic geopolitical camp. This structure allows New Delhi to pursue reform on concrete issues (trade, health, AI) while sidestepping rigid ideological categorization. The subtle push for managed engagement with China—stressing mutual respect and interest during bilateral talks—reveals a necessary strategic constraint: acknowledging Beijing's footprint while asserting the validity of India’s autonomous positioning.
The ultimate implication is that sovereignty, in this context, is exercised through instrumentalism: using multilateral platforms to achieve internal institutional goals. The challenge for any observer is determining whether this pursuit of reform and inclusion successfully translates into structural shifts or remains contained within the parameters of existing power dynamics. What mechanisms exist to ensure that calls for systemic reform translate into tangible redistribution of influence rather than merely adding another layer to existing competitive interests?