A contradiction underpins the international mainstream discourse on the Brics forum in general and with respect to the New Delhi summit in particular. On the one hand there is a strong tendency to focus on the divergences and the power asymmetries and even rivalries (especially singling out the India-China equation), to make the case that these have essentially reduced Brics to being an aspirational forum. On the other hand, Brics has been widely assessed as a China-dominated platform with avowed anti-United States (US) if not anti-West underpinnings.

There is, it is argued, no structure, no institutions, no organisational framework and no political or ideological meeting ground — only a disparate group cobbling an agenda for the promotion of multilateralism. Yet, the coverage of the New Delhi summit in the West, the deconstruction of the speeches and deliberations, as also the warning issued by the US President before the summit (threatening dire consequences if any move was made towards “de-dollarisation”) make it amply clear that Brics is certainly not being taken lightly any more.

Brics did not materialise overnight. And it should be borne in mind that it followed the successful setting up and functioning of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) over a quarter of a century ago, which has 10 members and 17 partner/observer states, with regular participation from the Asean Secretariat and the United Nations (UN).

Bric, which later became Brics, owes its germination to an investment banking company in the first decade of the 21st century, which saw these four countries as significant emerging economies. In due course, the economic heft of this grouping steadily enlarged to encompass nearly half of the world’s population and more than 30 per cent of its gross domestic product. It thus has a global presence and reach. More notably, the trade turnover amongst the Brics countries in 2025 crossed $1 trillion.

The argument that Brics has produced more rhetoric than substance or that it can be taken seriously only if it can demonstrate its capability to set up structures collapses in the face of nearly three decades of sustained and persistent effort on its part to continue a historical process that is embedded in a struggle for freedom from control and exploitations and a democratic, just and equitable world order. The unflagging demand by the Brics countries, individually and collectively, for the reform of the existing international economic and financial architecture is extremely significant as also the explorations into alternative payment systems. The New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement have been very effective institutions in providing infrastructure funding to the global south countries, India being a notable beneficiary here.

Multilateralism

In many ways the differences — hardly surprising in a large group — must be understood in all their complexity. The political and economic systems differ, democracies and autocracies are cheek by jowl, social and cultural differences abound, interests diverge. The US factor loomed large — each had their own reasons for not taking any position that would antagonise the US. It was emphasised that the Brics grouping was non-West, not anti-West (read US) and yet rather strong statements were made decrying the imposition of unilateral sanctions. The Brics currency, for long a matter of discussion, did not materialise. This is certainly an idea whose time has not yet come. Instead, deliberations went on with regard to cross-border payments in local currencies through interconnected payment systems but no decision was arrived at in this regard as yet.

Given that the Brics foreign ministers meeting preceding the New Delhi summit had failed to produce any statement, expectations of a declaration from the New Delhi summit were fairly low. With both Iran and Saudi Arabia — as also the United Arab Emirates — present, and Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping also at the same table, India pulled a coup of sorts when a joint declaration was actually signed at the end of the summit. It is also instructive that notwithstanding the different vantage points of the Brics countries, there was notable overlap in the speeches of the leaders. The joint declaration too encompassed the entire gamut of development and modernisation concerns, health, education, science and technology, environmental challenges and food security among a host of other issues. One consequential announcement, which certainly brought in some competitive dynamics vis-à-vis the US was with regard to artificial intelligence (AI). Xi announced a Brics AI Open Source Community, intended to reduce the dependence of member countries on the US. Open source platforms have just begun to grab the imagination of tech players in the emerging economies and Xi’s announcement could well give the People’s Republic of China the first- mover advantage.

A collective and robust call for democratising the world political economy and for building a just, fair and equitable world order emerged at the New Delhi summit. While this voice was intended for the world, it addressed the countries of the global south in particular. To see Brics merely as a grouping of its member countries, without taking into account the vast majority of the developing countries, would miss the dimension that adds the heft to the larger process underway. In their assessment of the challenges to the international order and the nature of the threats to their sovereignty, development and security, there are notable convergences.

For quite some time now, these countries have been voicing concerns about the “double standards” employed by the West, and the US in particular. Increasingly, the certitudes of the international systems are up in the air. The rather cynical manner with which the so-called “rules-based order” has been kicked around, in complete disregard of world opinion, has led many to question the foundations of the existing international system. In the last decade and a half in particular, there have been concerted attempts by the US to stymie the rise of China, including rather cynical attempts to incapacitate/undermine the functioning of the World Trade Organization, which have not gone down too well with many countries.

No fresh or credible initiatives are forthcoming from the western powers and their lackadaisical approach to fulfilling their commitments to tackle climate change has disillusioned the developing countries, particularly those whose very existence is threatened in this age of the Anthropocene. The US under President Donald Trump has gone further in its disdain for the “rule-based world order” and the UN — it has withdrawn support from over 60 programmes of the UN and non-UN international organisations, and rejected the dangers of climate change. The West should collectively reflect on why Russia and China, far from being isolated, continue to strengthen their foothold in the global South.

This in turn has strengthened the “multilateral” discourse and the need to reconstruct this hegemonic, neo-liberal politico-economic order. The Brics discourse encompasses equality, sustainable development, the freedom to choose their own paths to development, peace, reform of global governance, respect for sovereignty and a greater say in rule making processes in international organisations, including the UN. To the extent that these cannot be achieved overnight, they may well be termed aspirational, not rhetorical. The old order is not yet dead, but the transition underway is unmistakable.

The Trump-Xi meeting

Fresh from the 18th Brics, Xi headed to the US for his meeting with President Trump. This was their second meeting in less than six months and it is not surprising that the rare welcome with full state pomp obscured the fact that the trade war between the two, in place since Covid-19, has not yet been resolved. Reportedly, Trump welcomed Xi almost as a peer competitor in decisive areas of their rivalry — technological and economic. A two-month truce has been agreed upon in trade of rare earths and critical minerals, which indicates that hard bargaining will continue and differences on crucial areas will persist. The contrast between Xi’s call for an AI Open Source Community at the Brics Summit and Trump’s refusal to engage in any kind of dialogue regarding its control, was striking. The message to the global south was abundantly clear.

It is not clear if there was any discussion on Iran and whether Trump made any headway in this regard with China. It is interesting that no voice was heard against Brics member Iran, at Delhi. Within the global south, Iran is largely seen as the victim of vicious power play by the US and Israel. The attack on the girls’ school and sports facility are no less than war crimes in the eyes of many. Gaza and genocide are synonymous. With the Ukraine war upending the trans-Atlantic equations and leaching the European economies at one end, and a senseless and seemingly endless war against Iran, Trump would certainly be wanting China to intercede with Iran to give the US a reasonable face-saver to end it. From the vantage point of New Delhi, a highly significant outcome was the meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping. It was a powerful political signal to accelerate the normalisation of the relationship.  More importantly, as stated by the Chinese foreign minister, both leaders reached a consensus that India and China should see each other as “partners”. Occurring on the sidelines of the Brics, it drew a great deal of international spotlight as well. Another image that grabbed attention was of Modi, Xi and Putin together — projecting warmth and bonhomie. The Russia-India-China (RIC) grouping, often described as the core of Brics, has also been around for about two decades, and has gone through its own share of ups and downs. An improvement in bilateral relationships within this triangular group could strengthen the trend towards multilateralism.

An improvement in bilateral relationships within the RIC could strengthen the trend towards multilateralism

India is often dubbed as the weakest link in the Brics chain. There is no doubt that India has sought to play a more balanced role via its policy of “multi-alignment”. From the Quad at one end, to the SCO and Brics at the other, it has aimed at expanding its options and has by and large conceded to the US demands over the purchase of Russian oil. Regardless, the day after the summit ended, it received a hard reality check as the Trump administration announced 100 per cent tariffs on India and China. India did send back a clear rejoinder that they would work in the interests of its people. But, would this be a signal that the strategic prism is not the one that really counts for Trump. He is clearly wearing his business hat and what he has conveyed is that India is not a good business proposition either.

A more pragmatic stance would recognise the utility of Brics to mobilise, to hedge and even acquire leverage — within and externally. A visionary approach would embrace the momentous process underway — that is the reconstruction of a just and equitable world order. India must fashion a strategy that blends both, but hold steadfast its progressive role of providing the leadership and support to this historical mission.