The 2025 BRICS Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, was themed around strengthening Global South cooperation for more inclusive global governance. While the rhetoric remains ambitious, the summit highlighted persistent contradictions within the bloc. As India assumes the BRICS chair, serious reflection is needed on the group’s relevance to its national interests and its efficacy as a counterbalance to Western influence.
Origins And Evolution of BRICS
- Genesis of the Term: The acronym BRIC was coined by economist Jim O’Neill in the early 2000s to highlight the economic potential of Brazil, Russia, India, and China.
- From RIC to BRICS: The initial RIC dialogue aimed to promote multipolarity. Brazil joined in 2009, followed by South Africa in 2010, evolving the grouping into BRICS.
- Annual High-Level Engagements: Since 2009, BRICS summits have become regular platforms for intergovernmental dialogue, covering foreign policy, security, and economic cooperation.
- Global Economic Footprint: The five members represent 41% of the global population, 31.5% of world GDP (PPP, 2022), and 16% of global trade, though their nominal GDP remains behind the G7.
Achievements And Institutional Developments
- Voice for the Global South: BRICS has positioned itself as a key platform for reforming global governance, advocating for inclusivity, sustainable development, and a fair economic order.
- New Development Bank (NDB): Established in 2015 with a $100 billion commitment, the NDB funds major infrastructure and green energy projects, including India’s urban transit systems.
- Contingent Reserve Arrangement: Created in 2015 to cushion member economies against financial instability, with equal capital contributions from all five states.
- Consistent Political Engagement: BRICS has maintained a high level of institutional commitment, holding annual summits without interruption, even during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Rising Appeal And Growing Divide
- Broad Interest from the Global South: Over 40 countries—including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Argentina, and Nigeria—have expressed interest in joining BRICS, drawn by its potential to challenge Western dominance.
- Alternative to Western Dominance: Countries seek BRICS membership to reduce dependency on Western financial institutions and counteract sanctions and monetary policy shocks from the US.
- Strategic Value of Coalition: Aligning with Russia and China enhances bargaining power for smaller nations, especially those wary of Western conditionalities tied to democracy or human rights.
- Multipolar Aspirations: For many in the Global South, BRICS offers a pathway toward a less Western-centric world order, though this is tempered by its internal contradictions.
Structural Challenges And Strategic Contradictions
- Tensions Between Members: India-China border disputes, including the deadly 2020 clash, continue to sour bilateral ties, limiting collective action.
- China’s Strategic Leverage: China’s dominance within BRICS—due to economic size and diplomatic initiatives—raises concerns over BRICS becoming a vehicle for Chinese influence.
- Dilution of India’s Role: BRICS expansion risks marginalising India, especially if new entrants seek closer ties with China, undermining platforms like IBSA and BIMSTEC.
- Mismatch of Values and Interests: While India is democratic and leans Westward on key issues, China and Russia are authoritarian, often opposing Western-led governance norms.
Dueling Perspectives On The Future Of BRICS
Perspective I: BRICS as a Transformative Force
- Symbol of South-South Solidarity: Proponents see BRICS as echoing earlier efforts like the Bandung Conference and the NIEO, with potential to reshape global norms.
- Challenge to Dollar Hegemony: The idea of a common BRICS currency is seen as a step towards dedollarisation, offering autonomy from the US financial system.
- Strategic Leverage: Membership allows countries to negotiate with Western powers from a position of collective strength, even if the benefits are more symbolic than practical.
Perspective II: BRICS As A Diminishing Force
- Symbolism over Substance: Critics argue that BRICS has not delivered tangible outcomes beyond declarations and symbolic presence.
- Uneven Economic Trajectories: While China and India have grown rapidly, Brazil, Russia, and South Africa have underperformed, weakening the bloc’s economic clout.
- De-dollarisation Hurdles: India and South Africa remain sceptical of common currency proposals heavily influenced by China, making dedollarisation impractical.
- Historical Precedents: The BRICS model echoes the failed G-15 initiative, which also sought to build a southern coalition but eventually faded due to incoherence.
India’s Strategic Dilemmas Within BRICS
- Limited Gains from Expansion: India sees little benefit from expanding BRICS to include weaker economies, fearing dilution of its influence.
- Lack of Support on Strategic Goals: China and Russia’s opposition to IBSA’s UN Security Council bid has left India disappointed.
- Growing China-Centric Tilt: China’s assertiveness and strategic investments in Africa and the Gulf are positioning it as the dominant voice within BRICS.
- Risks of Anti-West Orientation: India’s growing security and technology partnerships with the West could be jeopardised if BRICS adopts a more overtly anti-West stance.
Conclusion
BRICS continues to attract attention as a symbol of emerging multipolarity, but its capacity to serve as a cohesive geopolitical force remains doubtful. India, while historically committed to the group, must reconsider the strategic utility of investing in a platform increasingly defined by internal friction and Chinese dominance. With India set to chair the bloc, this is an opportune moment for re-evaluation.