Expanded BRICS faces a harder search for common ground
India must retain its autonomy of choice
BRICS can bridge the Global North and Global South
Days before BRICS leaders gathered in New Delhi, former External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid had argued that India faced a critical test: it needed to first bridge divisions within an expanded grouping before BRICS could exert greater influence on the world stage. He cautioned against allowing it to become “anti-something”, defended non-alignment over what he called the “escape” of multi-alignment, and called for the Opposition to be consulted, arguing that India’s BRICS presidency represented the country and not merely the government.
The summit has since concluded, with the 11-member grouping navigating sharp differences to adopt the New Delhi Declaration by consensus—a significant outcome after BRICS foreign ministers failed to agree on a joint statement in May amid divisions over the West Asia conflict. The declaration condemned the Pahalgam terror attack and cross-border terrorism, opposed unilateral sanctions without UN backing, backed greater use of local currencies and reform of global institutions, and reiterated support for a two-state solution on Palestine.
Khurshid has welcomed the outcome, particularly the language on terrorism, sanctions and Palestine, describing the declaration as comprehensive and the consensus as significant given the contentious geopolitical issues confronting the grouping. He has, however, maintained that details of bilateral discussions held on the sidelines should be shared with the Opposition at an appropriate time.
Yet the consensus also leaves larger questions unresolved: Can an expanded BRICS translate its growing economic and demographic weight into geopolitical influence? Can it accommodate China’s outsized presence without becoming an anti-Western bloc? And how far can its push for greater financial autonomy realistically go?
In an interview with Outlook, Khurshid reflects on what emerged from New Delhi and what BRICS now means for India.
What do you make of the New Delhi Declaration, particularly its emphasis on greater use of local currencies?
The local-currency issue has been around for some time. But if there is an intention to move away from the dollar as an international currency, I don’t believe people are ready for it yet. Whoever is pushing for an alternative has, for the present, accepted that this will be done in a limited manner. You can't have a major, complete overhaul of the international currency system. That is a fact of life that everyone has accepted.
As far as the other dimensions are concerned, there are features of this declaration that will have to be analysed. It is not a complete departure from previous declarations, including the last one in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It builds on the past. The whole point of having a fresh summit every year is that you build on the past. You either reject something from the past or build upon it.
This declaration can be seen as building on the past and moving forward. Some issues have been indicated in a manner that can be welcomed. There is the fresh reference to Bandung, which inevitably brings in issues and the ideology of non-alignment; the objection to unilateral sanctions that go beyond UN sanctions; and the position on Gaza and Palestine and the two-state solution.
These are things that I think can be seen as satisfactory, but obviously, this may not be the last word. Much more needs to happen and much more will have to be done beyond BRICS. But BRICS can be a launchpad for whatever further measures can be taken in the world.
The declaration does not directly name the US despite its criticism of unilateral sanctions and tariffs. Does the need for consensus prevent BRICS from taking stronger positions?
Critics have to understand that a summit in which many parties participate has to accommodate every party's strongly held views. It can't simply be the wish list of one country; otherwise, there will be no agreement. You can say what you like, but there won't be any agreement.
Whenever there is a summit and a consensual agreement, there will be give and take. But to take positions bilaterally, you may still have an opportunity and an opening beyond the BRICS declaration to continue on certain measures and in certain directions.
You could call that "BRICS-plus", not BRICS-minus. That space will remain available to every country in its own diplomatic outreach.
How do you see BRICS as a force today?
It has a significant presence, but BRICS is not alone. It is a major expression of the Global South and emerging economies. This is where emerging economies can provide a bridge between developed and developing countries.
To that extent, it is a very important link between different parts of the globe and the different levels at which the world exists today. How well it bridges the Global North and the Global South will depend on the outcomes of these meetings and the summits that take place every year.
Has BRICS’ expansion made it a stronger geopolitical force, or has it made consensus more difficult?
Expansion has both advantages and disadvantages. It means you have a footprint that is larger than you had in the past, but expansion also dilutes many issues and brings in different points of view. Finding common ground between different points of view is always a great effort.
This is something the United Nations has tried to do since the two World Wars. Sometimes it succeeds and sometimes it doesn't, and then people begin to doubt its efficacy.
Similarly, when BRICS expands, there are both advantages and disadvantages. In any group, inevitably, on one subject or another, or in one dimension or another, some countries are more active and some less active. Much will depend on those who lead BRICS forward. A cautious approach to expansion seems to have been taken thus far, but let's see what happens in the future.
China is the largest economy within BRICS and has considerable strategic weight. How do you view its influence within the grouping?
For any country, you have to take into account the extent to which it has dominating features. You can’t wish China away by saying, ‘Who’s China?’
China makes a very significant contribution to the world economy.
It has a very important trading position and also a particular level of military strength. You can’t wish that away; you have to factor it in.
But when someone with such strengths and dominance comes into a larger group and has to make accommodations and adjustments within that group, it creates a different situation. Its dominance is diluted to some extent because it has to accommodate the presence of others who may not themselves be dominant.
Once you join a group, inevitably there is an impact. It may give you more strength, it may dilute your strength, or it may require you to accommodate others. To that extent, you could say there is greater accommodation.
What should India's long-term purpose in BRICS be, and what should it seek from the grouping?
India's long-term purpose is the same as the long-term purpose of all the other countries in BRICS. We can't have different reasons for being in BRICS. The idea of BRICS is that there is greater strength in solidarity. Certainly, within BRICS, those who come closer together can have greater cooperation than they would otherwise have to negotiate separately with each country.
Some commonality is available and some common issues are sorted out in BRICS, but it still leaves a lot more to do beyond BRICS and beyond whatever organisation you join.
Every organisation has a special feature, special emphasis, special focus and special circumstances. The Quad has something different, BRICS has something different, the SCO has something different. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they supplement or complement each other, and sometimes they pull in different directions. You then have to find a via media.
What we seek from BRICS is obviously what others also seek from BRICS. But we don't always necessarily come to BRICS with an agreed platform. We have to negotiate, we have to talk, and if you arrive at convergence and consensus, that should be welcomed.
As BRICS evolves, should India continue to maintain the balance it has traditionally sought and avoid allowing the grouping to become explicitly anti-West?
What choice do we have but to be balanced? Fundamentally, our DNA is made for non-alignment.
Whether you give it one name or another, at the end of the day, non-alignment has certain features. Today, it may not be described as non-alignment; it may be described as autonomy of choice. Of course, non-alignment was also autonomy of choice.
You can use different phraseology, descriptions and words, but the essence is being free to choose and to do the right thing in the circumstances in which you are faced with a particular issue. That is what India has always been wedded to.
I hope and pray that we continue to remain wedded to that same idea… being free to choose, autonomous in choosing what is good for India and what is good for the world.
