‘BRICS Must Focus On Convergences, Not Divergences,' Says Ex-Diplomat Manjeev Singh Puri

The hardest and most difficult decisions can only be taken in smaller groups. However, legitimacy comes from having a greater degree of universality.

Take the United Nations. The Security Council, particularly the permanent five, takes the hardest decisions, but when the General Assembly does something, there is a kind of global acceptance and universality to it.

So, enlargement has its advantages. But, on the other hand, you now have more divergences to manage. When BRICS consisted of five countries, coming together on some of the most crucial issues in the world, whether Ukraine or the conflict involving Iran, would have been less difficult. It is certainly more difficult now.

My expectation would be that BRICS focuses on its convergences, and there are many, and skirts the divergences. You have to do what you can. The emphasis on “practical cooperation” is important.

It can achieve a lot by working together. BRICS countries account for around 40% of global GDP. If they enhance trade and cooperation among themselves, they become more resilient and everyone benefits.

There are possibilities for greater trade, trading in bilateral currencies, swaps and other arrangements. Nobody is talking about de-dollarisation or such big ideas. But these mechanisms can enhance trade and cooperation among BRICS countries to their mutual benefit.

You don’t necessarily have to get into extreme geopolitics or hard politics. There is a considerable amount that can be achieved through practical economic cooperation.

There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that China, as the world’s second-largest economy, has become a hugely powerful country and a global heavyweight.

For India, the issue is that China is in our neighbourhood. We have a contested border and a number of related issues. Other BRICS countries do not necessarily have those issues, so their relationships with China can be smoother.

But China’s weight in the global economy, let alone within BRICS, is something we all need to recognise. The United States recognises it, the Europeans recognise it and we recognise it too.

We had major issues with Galwan, and those remain. But we also understand that economics demands that these relationships be managed and that we try to take things forward on the economic, trade and finance fronts.

It is not anti-West. This is not about contestation. It is about the changing balance of global power.

BRICS brings together countries accounting for around 40 per cent of global GDP and about half of the world’s population. That is significant. It represents another set of major players in the world who are becoming increasingly important.

For the past 80 years, the international system has largely been shaped by Pax Americana and Western dominance. But global economic power is shifting. BRICS is one reflection of that shift.

For India, multi-alignment is a national imperative. There are voices that say India should simply go to one side or the other, but it doesn’t work like that.

Historically, India chose non-alignment. That terminology may now be passé, but today we talk about multi-alignment. India is the world’s largest country by population and one of its largest economies. As we grow further, frankly, we have to stand on our own.

Multipolarity in the world is therefore important for us. Our ability to align differently on different issues, depending on our national interest, is equally important. That is multi-alignment, and it builds strategic autonomy.

We can engage with BRICS and the SCO, and also with the United States and the Quad. That is the nature of India, a huge country that has to balance its own needs and has no problem having friendships on different sides.