BRICS: A strategic balancer?

The Hindu – International

You are logged in

Loading…

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Subscribed with another email? Logout and Login with that one.

Your active subscription(s)

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials,
Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

Products you’ve access to

Additional Subscription Benefits

Account Settings

Need help with your subscription?

September 15, 2026 e-Paper

The View From India
Looking at World Affairs from the Indian perspective.

First Day First Show
News and reviews from the world of cinema and streaming.

Today's Cache
Your download of the top 5 technology stories of the day.

Science For All
The weekly newsletter from science writers takes the jargon out of science and puts the fun in!

Data Point
Decoding the headlines with facts, figures, and numbers

THEdge
At the cutting edge of education and careers

Health Matters
Ramya Kannan writes to you on getting to good health, and staying there

Gender Agenda
Stories from beyond the binary.

The Hindu On Books
Books of the week, reviews, excerpts, new titles and features.

September 15, 2026 e-Paper

Updated – September 15, 2026 08:42 am IST

(This article is part of the View From India newsletter curated by The Hindu’s foreign affairs experts. To get the newsletter in your inbox every Monday, subscribe here.)

India is a close strategic partner of the U.S. and Israel. But it also positions itself as a key voice of the Global South and maintains close strategic and economic relationships with Russia and China, respectively. This balancing act was on display on September 12-13 when India hosted the 18th BRICS summit in Delhi. Any summit that brings together the leaders of India, Russia and China assumes strategic significance. This time it was even more consequential because it took place amid an ongoing and widening conflict in West Asia, India’s extended neighbourhood.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in Israel in February, just days before Israel and the U.S. launched their war on Iran. More than six months into the war, Mr. Modi was seen walking hand in hand with Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian in Delhi. India doesn’t see a contradiction in these positions. Rather, they are part of New Delhi’s multi-engagement approach, rooted in both India’s continued rise and in the emergence of a more balanced international order. Groupings such as BRICS play a critical role in shaping the latter.

We atThe Hinduhave been covering the summit rigorously from Delhi. To get a ringside view of the meet and its key takeaway, I turned to Suhasini Haidar, our diplomatic affairs editor. She says there is a growing consensus among BRICS members that the current international order is unfair and unjust and needs to change. Read what she has to say:

The main takeaway from the BRICS summit is that it’s always possible for diplomacy and as consensus-building to override bilateral narratives and conflicts. This was perhaps the most difficult BRICS summit in recent years at which to forge consensus. That was largely because of the U.S.-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28. India as the host is in a particular position where it is close to the U.S. and very close to Israel but it also wanted to forge a consensus while maintaining its ties with other BRICS members, particularly Iran. That’s how a consensus was eventually built, through a compromise of positions by all the parties.

Another big takeaway is that apart from the Big 2 –Russia and China – these are emerging economies that are primarily seeking economic development for their respective countries. Some of the BRICS consensus has been forged around that idea: food, fuel and fertilizer security and trade. These are the areas in which these countries want to work together.

Suhasini Haidar: The Delhi Declaration addressed the conflicts in West Asia in great detail, with very strong criticism of Israel, for example, over its actions in Lebanon and Palestine, particularly in Gaza. However, the U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran, the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei, and Iran’s strikes on its neighbours, particularly the UAE [another BRICS member], found no mention. There was a pointed reference to attacks on civilian infrastructure as well as nuclear installations.

It is also very clear that the basic difference that held up consensus was between the UAE and Iran. Iran wanted a strong condemnation of the U.S. and Israeli attacks on it, but the UAE wanted an equal condemnation of Iran’s attacks on its neighbours. Iran, of course, has consistently said it cannot agree to this because, as a member state, it cannot be seen criticising itself, and, secondly, it considers these attacks were in self defence. This basic contradiction between the two was resolved through a compromise: both sides were told that brother would get its way. There was a third compromise, and that concerned India’s position on Israel – there are very strong paragraphs criticising Israel, including a reference to South Africa’s case against Israel at the ICJ.

Unlike G7, where there is a very uniform view of the world, BRICS doesn’t have a uniform vision of how the world should look. But it does have a shared view that the world at present is imbalanced, unfair and unjust. That’s what holds these countries together. The idea that BRICS would not have internal divisions, like the G7, is unfair because BRICS emerged from countries that are not part of the G7, they are not part of the Western consensus. The idea of China dominating BRICS grouping would be true in terms of economics because China is by far the biggest economy among the members. But I don’t think this is just about the size of economies. It is also about countering western sanctions and tariffs, and there is a consensus on this front.

Where BRICS is divided is on bilateral issues. India and China are the biggest examples, but BRICS provides a platform for the two countries to meet. Remember, Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Modi have not met on bilateral visits to each other’s countries since the [2020] Galwan clashes, but they do meet on the sidelines of summits such as BRICS and SCO. Egypt and Ethiopia have water disputes; Iran and the UAE have a major conflict between them; and there are other differences within the grouping over energy providers and energy consumers. These divisions have only grown since BRICS doubled in size. But the larger thread that holds these countries together is the idea that they feel the present world order needs to change.

Last week also saw the dramatic Houthi advances in Yemen. The Shia rebels, who ended their four-year ceasefire and started attacking Saudi Arabia and Yemen’s Saudi-backed government in July after a Saudi attack on a Houthi held airport in Sana’a, captured Yemen’s entire Red Sea coast and a strategically important island in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden. This is a significant development as it could strengthen the position of Iran in its ongoing war with the U.S. To understand the Houthi advances and its possible impact on the war in West Asia, read this piece: The new lords of the Red Sea

Published – September 14, 2026 02:15 pm IST

World

Terms & conditions | Institutional Subscriber

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.

Fonte: The Hindu – International