THE 18th BRICS Summit, held in New Delhi on 12-13 September 2026 under the theme “Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability,” was expected to be a defining moment for the bloc. Under Modi’s presidency, the summit should have reaffirmed BRICS’ role as a credible counterweight to Western-dominated institutions. Instead, India’s conduct cast a shadow over the proceedings, raising questions about its commitment to the organization’s founding principles and leading many observers to conclude that New Delhi weakened the spirit of BRICS.
Conceived in 2001 to reshape global governance, BRICS united Brazil, Russia, India and China, later joined by South Africa. The bloc gradually expanded beyond economics into political and strategic cooperation. Initiatives such as BRICS Pay, de-dollarization mechanisms, the BRICS Remote Sensing Satellite Constellation and frameworks for AI governance reflected its ambition to reduce dependence on Western financial and technological systems. Institutional pillars such as the New Development Bank, capitalized at $100 billion and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement strengthened the bloc’s foundations. Discussions on conducting trade in local currencies underscored BRICS’ objective of reducing dollar dominance in international finance.
India was welcomed as a founding member because of its vast market, historical ties with Russia and credentials as a leading voice of the Non-Aligned Movement. Yet since 2014, New Delhi has steadily moved away from its traditional posture, drawing closer to the United States and Israel. Its growing alignment with Western strategic objectives has increasingly eroded its credibility among fellow BRICS members. This shift became particularly evident during the New Delhi summit, where India appeared less a defender of BRICS’ strategic autonomy than a facilitator of Western interests. Nothing illustrated this contradiction more starkly than the summit’s treatment of Iran. Despite being a BRICS member, Iran received little meaningful support in the final declaration, while neither the United States nor Israel faced criticism. For an organization committed to multipolarity and sovereign equality, the silence was conspicuous. The summit was also marred by organizational shortcomings. Attempts to conceal urban poverty from visiting delegations drew comparisons with Slumdog Millionaire, highlighting the gap between India’s global ambitions and domestic realities. Reports of unprofessional conduct and Modi’s perceived efforts to dominate photo opportunities further diminished the summit’s stature.
The most contentious issue, however, concerned the drafting of the final communiqué. Observers noted the omission of several themes advanced by Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Most notably, Xi’s vision for global AI governance received little reflection in the final text, endorsing AI cooperation and governance but omitting explicit reference to Xi’s signature proposal. In what may be described as Tajahel-e-Arifana, a deliberate feigning of ignorance despite full awareness, the Delhi Declaration appeared to overlook Xi’s Global Artificial Intelligence Initiative while selectively emphasizing issues favourable to India’s political narrative.
Conversely, New Delhi succeeded in inserting references to the disputed 2025 Pahalgam incident, an objective it had previously failed to achieve at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Bishkek. The inclusion of this narrative enabled India to justify its subsequent violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty through Operation Sindoor, which targeted locations inside Pakistani territory. By advancing a contested bilateral issue within a multilateral forum, India risked transforming BRICS from a platform for collective cooperation into an arena for national agendas. The omissions and insertions generated visible discomfort among several participants. President Xi’s decision not to attend the concluding banquet and the delayed appearances of other leaders were widely interpreted as signals of dissatisfaction. Whether intentional or not, India’s actions undermined confidence among member states and weakened the cohesion BRICS requires to achieve its objectives.
The principal beneficiary of such discord was Washington. As more countries increased the use of China’s renminbi in trade settlements, BRICS’ de-dollarization efforts challenged Western financial dominance. Any dilution of that agenda served American interests and reinforced perceptions among critics that India was functioning as a Western proxy within the bloc. India’s external posture mirrors developments at home. Once celebrated as a secular and pluralistic democracy, it now faces growing criticism for majoritarian policies and the marginalization of religious minorities. Allegations of discrimination against Muslims and other non-Hindu communities have tarnished its international image and weakened its moral authority.
These developments raise fundamental questions about India’s future role within BRICS. The organization was envisioned as a forum through which emerging economies could jointly challenge Western dominance and shape a more equitable international order. By weakening de-dollarization initiatives, inserting divisive narratives and sidelining proposals advanced by fellow members, India has diminished the bloc’s collective voice at a critical moment. The other founding members, particularly China, Russia and Brazil, must therefore assess whether India’s trajectory strengthens or undermines BRICS’ long-term mission. If New Delhi persists in pursuing narrow national objectives at the expense of collective interests, it risks becoming an internal obstacle to the organization it helped create.
The 18th BRICS Summit should have marked a milestone in consolidating the bloc’s influence. Instead, it became a cautionary tale of how national ambitions can undermine collective aspirations. By appearing to prioritize alignment with Washington over solidarity with fellow BRICS members, India weakened the principles of resilience, innovation, cooperation and sustainability that the summit purported to champion. For BRICS to remain relevant, India must recommit to the bloc’s founding vision and strategic autonomy or expectations regarding its role must be reassessed. Representing nearly half of humanity and a substantial share of global economic output, BRICS cannot afford to allow its credibility and transformative potential to be compromised by the ambitions of any single member state.
—The writer, Retired Group Captain of PAF, is author of several books on China.
