A recent meeting of foreign ministers from the BRICS nations concluded without a joint position on the intensifying West Asian conflict. The lack of consensus meant that the collective's statement had to be worded differently. India, the current chair, summarised proceedings in a voice that sought to balance the concerns. 

Such moments, while not unprecedented in multilateral diplomacy, acquire added significance in a grouping that increasingly presents itself as a pillar of a multipolar world. The absence of consensus here was less a breakdown than a signal of how the character of BRICS has changed and the more demanding role India must now navigate as it prepares to host the summit later this year.

To understand this shift, it is necessary to return briefly to the original composition of BRICS: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. This core grouping was never fully aligned in its strategic outlook, but it did converge broadly on reforming global governance and amplifying the voice of emerging economies. That underlying coherence, however limited, provided a basis for joint articulation on many international issues, even when differences persisted beneath the surface.

The expansion of the BRICS over the past two years has fundamentally altered this equilibrium. The inclusion of new members from West Asia and Africa, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Iran, has expanded the grouping’s geographic and economic footprint. At the same time, it has brought into BRICS a set of regional rivalries and strategic alignments that were previously external to it. The grouping now contains countries that sit on different sides of regional conflicts, maintain varying degrees of proximity to major powers, and pursue distinct strategic priorities. The inability to reach consensus on the West Asian crisis is therefore not an aberration. It reflects a deeper structural shift.

The ongoing tensions involving Israel and Iran illustrate this shift with particular clarity. For some BRICS members, these developments intersect directly with national security concerns. For others, they are tied to economic, energy, or diplomatic stakes. The result is a narrowing of the space for common positions.

What emerges instead is a pattern in which agreement is easier on general principles than on specific political judgments. The recent ministerial outcome, therefore, reflects not an isolated disagreement but the structural condition of a more heterogeneous grouping.

New Delhi’s own position within this landscape has drawn attention, often described as a form of restraint. A more precise description would be that of calibrated ambiguity. It has expressed concern over the conflict and emphasised de-escalation and dialogue, yet avoided taking positions that would align it decisively with any one side. This approach is grounded in a set of overlapping relationships. 

India’s defence and technological cooperation with Israel, its connectivity interests with Iran, its deep economic and energy ties with Gulf states, and its broader strategic partnership with the United States together create a context in which overt alignment would entail significant trade-offs. Calibrated ambiguity, in this sense, is not an absence of policy but a method of managing competing priorities.

The responsibilities of chairship will further test this approach. As the presiding country, India is expected to facilitate convergence without imposing it. The use of a Chair’s Summary in place of a joint communiqué reflects a recognition that forcing agreement where none exists can be counterproductive. 

By allowing space for differing positions while maintaining a common framework of engagement, India is effectively prioritising continuity over declaratory unity. This is a quieter form of leadership, one that seeks to hold together a diverse grouping rather than project a singular voice.

The broader implication of these developments is a need to reassess how BRICS is understood. The idea of BRICS as a cohesive counterweight to Western-led institutions has gained currency, particularly in the wake of global disagreements over issues such as the war in Ukraine. Yet the current moment suggests that BRICS is evolving less as a unified bloc and more as a forum where multiple centres of power interact. Its strength lies in its representational breadth and its ability to bring together countries that do not always share the same strategic outlook. Its limitation lies in the difficulty of translating that diversity into coordinated political action.

This duality is evident in the contrast between the original and expanded phases of BRICS. The initial grouping, anchored by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, operated with a degree of internal coherence that enabled it to articulate common positions, though these were often general in nature. 

The expanded grouping, by contrast, reflects a wider and more complex set of interests, making consensus more contingent and less predictable. This does not diminish its relevance. Rather, it changes the terms on which that relevance is exercised.

For India, this transformation presents both a challenge and an opportunity. As it prepares to host the BRICS summit in 2026, it is likely to emphasise areas where cooperation is more readily achievable and less politically sensitive. Domains such as development finance, digital infrastructure, climate cooperation, and trade facilitation offer scope for tangible outcomes without requiring alignment on contentious geopolitical issues. By steering the agenda in this direction, India can help sustain the functional relevance of BRICS even as its political cohesion remains limited.

At the same time, India’s diplomatic positioning allows it to play a bridging role within the grouping. Its engagement with diverse partners, ranging from Western economies to Russia and countries in West Asia, provides it with a degree of flexibility that is not shared to the same extent among BRICS members. This capacity to engage across divides is central to its approach of strategic autonomy, which in the present context translates into maintaining room for manoeuvre while contributing to collective processes.

The challenges, however, are not easily resolved. A larger and more diverse BRICS is inherently more difficult to manage, and internal contradictions can constrain its effectiveness on issues that demand clear, unified positions. The task before India is to ensure that these contradictions do not erode the grouping’s credibility, while also resisting the impulse to impose artificial consensus. This requires an approach that is both pragmatic and patient, recognising that cohesion in such a forum is necessarily incremental.

The recent ministerial outcome, where India articulated a collective concern without claiming full agreement, offers a glimpse of how this balance might be maintained. It suggests that the future of BRICS will depend less on its ability to produce uniform positions and more on its capacity to remain a credible space for dialogue among diverse actors. In this context, India’s chairship assumes significance not only for the outcomes it delivers but also for the processes it sustains.

In a global environment marked by shifting alignments and overlapping crises, the idea of multipolarity is increasingly defined by complexity rather than clarity. In its expanded form, BRICS embodies this condition. India’s approach, marked by calibrated ambiguity, procedural leadership, and a focus on areas of practical cooperation, reflects an attempt to navigate this landscape without reducing it to simplistic binaries. 

The coming months will require New Delhi to perform a delicate balancing act: strengthening engagement within the grouping while reinforcing its role in the midst of inevitable disagreements.

Small teams can do great things. All it takes is a subscription. Subscribe now and power Newslaundry’s work.