BRICS Leaders Navigate Deep Frictions and Shifting Alliances at New Delhi Summit

Global leaders convened in New Delhi over the weekend for a high-stakes BRICS summit, seated together around a vast circular table under the host leadership of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Setting an ambitious tone for the gathering, Modi declared that member nations must collectively evolve into proactive "rule-shapers" across the international arena, rather than remaining passive "rule-takers" bound to existing frameworks.

The summit brought together several prominent heads of state and high-ranking officials, reflecting the bloc’s expanding footprint. Among the key attendees listening to Modi’s address were Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, and Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Sheikh Khaled bin Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan representing the United Arab Emirates.

Bringing this diverse assembly of leaders under one roof in person represented a notable diplomatic achievement for India, underscoring New Delhi’s expanding international reach. The gathering provided a crucial venue for member states to evaluate and recalibrate their diplomatic ties amid ongoing turbulence, particularly the broader fallout from the war in the Middle East.

Despite the unified public image presented around the summit table, the participating countries are far from natural partners. Deep-seated historical grievances, unresolved border confrontations, and active regional disputes have repeatedly tested the cohesion of the expanding coalition, complicating efforts to build a unified platform.

Tensions between the bloc's largest members remain palpable, exemplified by the fatal military clashes that erupted between Indian and Chinese forces along their contested border in 2020. That deadly confrontation underscored the fragile nature of stability between the two Asian powers, casting a long shadow over their mutual participation within multilateral forums.

Simultaneously, the volatile conflict in the Middle East has pitted members directly against one another. Iran and the UAE have found themselves on opposing sides of the regional war, with Tehran launching drone and missile attacks toward its fellow BRICS partner. While this escalation sent substantial shockwaves through global economic markets, the New Delhi summit did facilitate direct sideline discussions between President Pezeshkian and Crown Prince Sheikh Khaled.

Beyond regional security flashpoints, foundational disagreements persist regarding the overarching mission and ideological direction of the BRICS grouping. For prominent member states including China, Russia, and Iran, the alliance serves primarily as a geopolitical counterweight designed to dilute the traditional hegemony exercised by the United States and western European powers.

India, however, has consistently resisted attempts to transform the coalition into an explicitly anti-Western alliance. Seeking to protect its diverse diplomatic and strategic partnerships worldwide, New Delhi has maintained a distinct posture, with Prime Minister Modi reiterating during the summit proceedings that the group is not organized in opposition to any outside nation.

This balanced approach was highlighted by veteran Indian diplomat and former ambassador Anil Trigunayat, who noted that while certain members may wish to steer the bloc in an adversarial direction against the West, the organization does not inherently serve that purpose. Trigunayat emphasized that India’s diplomatic focus has successfully fostered a push for strategic autonomy during a period of global conflict while strengthening practical cooperation among the member nations.

The underlying frictions made the eventual adoption of the joint "New Delhi Declaration" on the first day of the summit a notable development. Reaching consensus had previously proven elusive for the coalition, as two separate preparatory meetings among BRICS ministers had ended earlier in the year without producing any unified communiqués.

To overcome these divisions, the final consensus text relied heavily on diplomatic ambiguity, deliberately side-stepping the most contentious issues and offering broad principles rather than concrete solutions. What the declaration omitted ultimately proved just as revealing as the commitments it formally included.

Addressing the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, the declaration called on all involved parties to exercise maximum restraint. The document firmly condemned military strikes targeting civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear installations, yet it carefully avoided attributing direct responsibility or assigning blame to any specific nation or actor.

The joint statement also reaffirmed support for an established two-state solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Drawing on existing United Nations resolutions, the leaders formally recorded their opposition to the forced displacement of Palestinians and rejected any measures that could serve to legitimize or prolong territorial occupation.

In a stark break from declarations issued at prior summits, the New Delhi text contained no mention whatsoever of the ongoing war in Ukraine. By omitting the European conflict entirely, the group managed to bypass a sensitive issue that had previously generated significant friction among member states.

The declaration demonstrated similar caution when addressing international commerce and financial policy. The communique articulated shared concerns regarding the rapid escalation of indiscriminate tariffs and denounced unilateral economic sanctions, but it stopped short of explicitly naming the United States or its leadership, thereby minimizing the risk of provoking Washington.

Many BRICS governments remained conscious of potential backlash from US President Donald Trump, who has previously condemned the bloc’s economic ambitions—such as initiatives to link central-bank digital currencies for cross-border settlement—as explicitly anti-American measures.

Praveen Donthi, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, observed that the declaration’s strategy of avoiding direct naming conventions while criticizing Middle East hostilities clearly reflected India’s diplomatic methodology. Donthi added that the explicit critique of rising tariffs offered member nations a calculated avenue to register their economic dissatisfaction without directly escalating diplomatic confrontations.