
How BRICS is chipping away at the Western order
BRICS is quietly rewriting some of the rules of global politics. From de-dollarisation to alternative development models, it is increasingly positioning itself as a challenger to the Western-led liberal international order.
One of the fundamental starting points in international relations is the simple truth that there is no world government. Countries can agree on rules, but no one can force them to follow them. This is what some international relations scholars call an 'anarchic system,' not because it's disorderly, but because there is no overarching authority to enforce rules.
Countries act in their own interests. Cooperation happens, but it's often fragile. Power matters. Strong states often do what they can. Weak ones suffer what they must (Recall the Melian Dialogue from Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War). Power is distributed unevenly, and when a few countries have more of it, they tend to shape the rules in their favour.
The Western-led liberal international order grew out of this system after World War II. The US, along with its allies, built a network of institutions, like the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, that reflected its values and priorities. This order was based on free markets, democracy, and above all, the dominance of the US dollar in global finance.
For a while, that order worked – at least for the West. But now, the rest of the world is starting to ask why a system created in 1945 should still define the rules of the 21st century. For a long time, emerging powers like Brazil, China, India, and South Africa largely accepted this structure. However, with the global economic landscape shifting and the world becoming more multipolar, they are pushing back. BRICS is the most visible platform for that push.
One of the loudest messages from the BRICS summit in Brazil was about de-dollarisation. It sounds technical, but it's deeply political. This idea has been gaining ground for some years, but recent events, especially the weaponisation of financial systems through sanctions, have brought it to the forefront.
The issue is that most global trade and finance depend on the US dollar. When India buys oil from Russia, it usually has to pay in dollars. When Brazil takes a loan, it often does so in dollars. When China invests abroad, the transaction typically moves through dollar-based systems like SWIFT. This gives the US not just financial influence but also political leverage.
At the Brazil summit, countries once again floated the idea of a BRICS currency – not an immediate project, but a signal of intent. In the meantime, they are promoting trade in local currencies. Russia and China already conduct over 80 per cent of their trade in Roubles and Yuan. India has begun using rupees for some transactions with Iran and Sri Lanka. India and the UAE have begun settling some oil deals in rupees and dirhams.
The New Development Bank, created by BRICS, is now issuing loans in local currencies to avoid dollar exposure. This is not just about saving on transaction costs. It's about creating freedom from a system that many in the Global South see as tilted against them.
This is not going to be easy. The US dollar dominates because it is stable, widely accepted, and backed by a deep financial system. But the fact that BRICS countries keep returning to this topic shows how deep the frustration runs. De-dollarisation may not happen overnight, but the intent is clear – reduce exposure to a system controlled by Washington.
BRICS claims to be a platform for those countries that didn't have a seat at the table when the post-war world order was designed. The group presents itself as a voice for the Global South. It talks about fairer development, more inclusive trade rules, and reforms in global institutions. It also backs concrete alternatives. The NDB offers loans without the political strings often attached to IMF or World Bank funding. BRICS countries are exploring joint investments in infrastructure and clean energy.
There's talk of creating a BRICS rating agency to counter the dominance of Western credit rating firms. BRICS also pushes for reforms in the UN Security Council and the World Bank's voting rules to give more voice to emerging powers.
Here, Brazil, India, and South Africa play a bridging role. They are democracies with growing economies, often seen as more acceptable faces of BRICS to other developing countries. China brings deep pockets and strategic weight. Russia, increasingly isolated from the West, is strengthening its ties with non-Western partners.
This effort to build new platforms and institutions reflects a shared frustration that the rules of the global system are often written elsewhere, by people who don't face the same challenges as those in the Global South. Together, BRICS is trying to change not just policies but also the narrative about what kind of development is legitimate and who should lead.
Notably, international relations theory can help us understand why the BRICS came about, what it aims for, and why it matters.
Realism
Realism, one of the oldest schools of international relations, sees power as the main force shaping global affairs. States act primarily in their own interest. Institutions and alliances matter only if they help countries protect or expand their power.
From this perspective, BRICS is not a community of like-minded nations but a strategic arrangement – a balancing act against Western dominance. When Russia promotes de-dollarisation or China supports the NDB, they are not guided by ideals of fairness or cooperation. They are responding to the realities of power politics.
A good example of this logic came after the US froze Russian central bank assets following the Ukraine war. Many countries saw how exposed they were if their reserves were held in dollars. The concern wasn't ethical. It was practical. It was about survival.
Liber theory
On the other hand, liberal theory, which posits that cooperation is possible and institutions matter, would argue that if the global order is unfair, countries will attempt to establish new institutions. That's exactly what BRICS is doing by creating alternatives to Western-run systems, not through war, but through investment, banking, and trade. It believes that the way to change the system is to create better alternatives within it.
The NDB isn't just a protest against the World Bank. It's a real bank giving loans, financing projects, and developing regulations. That's classic liberal theory in action – solving global problems through cooperative institutions.
Constructivism
Constructivist theorists go a step further. They argue that power is not just about money or military strength, but about ideas. It's also about whose story is seen as legitimate. BRICS challenges the idea that Western liberal democracy is the only valid model of progress. It says there are many ways to grow and that the West doesn't have a moral monopoly.
BRICS is trying to shape new meanings about sovereignty, about development, about who gets to lead. It wants to change how the world imagines power, not just how it distributes it. When BRICS leaders speak of 'mutual respect' and 'non-interference,' they are offering a different political culture – one that appeals to countries tired of lectures from the West about democracy and governance. Whether this rhetoric matches reality is debatable, but the narrative matters.
These theoretical perspectives are not mutually exclusive views. They all help explain why BRICS is doing what it's doing and why the West is starting to take it more seriously.
However, none of this means that the Western-led order is collapsing. The US dollar still dominates global trade and finance. Western-led institutions still make the rules. The US still has unmatched military power. Western technology and capital continue to dominate global supply chains.
At the same time, BRICS has its own internal differences. China and India are locked in border tensions. Russia is diplomatically isolated. Brazil and South Africa are wary of being seen as backing an anti-Western front. The NDB is still small compared to the World Bank.
However, the system is no longer a one-way street. Something is shifting. The fact that major economies are even talking about bypassing the dollar or creating their own financial systems was unthinkable two decades ago. The fact that they are acting on it, even though cautiously, means the world is entering a new phase.
This isn't about tearing down the West. It's about making space for the rest. The BRICS summit in Brazil didn't create headlines because it didn't need to. It was not designed to shock. It was designed to show that the world is no longer waiting for change from the West. It is building change elsewhere.
One of the fundamental starting points in international relations is the simple truth that there is no world government, prompting some international relations scholars to call the international system 'anarchic'. Comment.
How is BRICS rewriting some of the rules of global politics, and increasingly positioning itself as a challenger to the Western-led liberal international order?
BRICS is trying to shape new meanings about sovereignty, about development, about who gets to lead. It wants to change how the world imagines power, not just how it distributes it. Evaluate.
By claiming to be a platform for those countries that didn't have a seat at the table when the post-war world order was designed, BRICS presents itself as a voice for the Global South. Do you agree?
How do theoretical perspectives, realist, liberal, and constructivist, help explain why the BRICS came about, what it aims for, and why the West is starting to take it more seriously?
(The author is a Professor at MMAJ Academy of International Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.)
Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hindu
7 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Australia to buy 11 advanced warships from Japan
Australia will upgrade its navy with 11 Mogami-class frigates built by Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Defence Minister Richard Marles said on Tuesday (August 5, 2025). Billed as one of Japan's biggest defence export deals since World War II, Australia will pay U.S.$6 billion (Aus$10 billion) over the next 10 years to acquire the fleet of stealth frigates. Australia is in the midst of a major military restructure, bolstering its navy with long-range firepower in an effort to deter China. It is striving to expand its fleet of major warships from 11 to 26 over the next decade. 'This is clearly the biggest defence-industry agreement that has ever been struck between Japan and Australia,' Mr. Marles said, touting the deal. 'This decision was made based on what was the best capability for Australia,' he added. 'We do have a very close strategic alignment with Japan,' he said. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries was awarded the tender over Germany's ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems. Mogami-class warships are advanced stealth frigates equipped with a potent array of weapons. Mr. Marles said they would replace Australia's ageing fleet of Anzac-class vessels, with the first Mogami-class ship to be on the water by 2030. 'The Mogami-class frigate is the best frigate for Australia,' said Mr. Marles. 'It is a next-generation vessel. It is stealthy. It has 32 vertical launch cells capable of launching long-range missiles,' he added. The deal further cements a burgeoning security partnership between Australia and Japan. Japan is deepening cooperation with U.S. allies in the Asia-Pacific region that, like Tokyo, are involved in territorial disputes with China. Both Japan and Australia are members of the 'Quad' group alongside India and the United States. Japanese government spokesman Yoshimasa Hayashi said Tuesday (August 5, 2025) the deal was 'proof of trust in our nation's high-level technology and the importance of interoperability between Japan's self-defence forces and the Australian military.' It was also a 'big step toward elevating the national security cooperation with Australia, which is our special strategic partner', Hayashi told reporters in Tokyo. 'More lethal' Japan's pacifist constitution restricts it from exporting weapons – but Tokyo has in recent years loosened arms export controls to boost sales abroad. 'This is Japan's largest defence export deal since 1945 with a non-U.S. partner,' said Yee Kuang Heng from the University of Tokyo's Security Studies Unit. 'And only the second since Tokyo loosened its guidelines on defence exports in 2014, which led to exports of air surveillance radar to the Philippines,' he said. Mr. Heng said the deal was a 'massive shot in the arm' for Japan as it sought to strengthen its defence manufacturing industry. Australian defence industry minister Pat Conroy said the Mogami-class frigates were capable of launching long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles. 'The acquisition of these stealth frigates will make our navy a bigger navy, and a more lethal navy,' he said. 'The first three Mogami-class frigates will be built overseas,' Mr. Conroy said, with shipbuilding yards in Western Australia expected to produce the rest. Australia announced a deal to acquire U.S.-designed nuclear-powered submarines in 2021, scrapping a years-long plan to develop non-nuclear subs from France. Under the tripartite AUK-U.S. pact with the United States and the United Kingdom, the Australian navy plans to acquire at least three Virginia-class submarines within 15 years. The AUK-U.S. submarine programme alone could cost the country up to U.S.$235 billion over the next 30 years, according to Australian government forecasts, a price tag that has stoked criticism. Major defence projects in Australia have long suffered from cost overruns, government U-turns, policy changes and project plans that make more sense for local job creation than defence. Australia plans to gradually increase its defence spending to 2.4% of gross domestic product – above the 2% target set by its NATO allies, but well short of U.S. demands for 3.5%.


Indian Express
7 minutes ago
- Indian Express
From MLA to farm laws critic: Who was Satya Pal Malik, former J-K governor?
Satya Pal Malik, former Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, passed away on Tuesday at the age of 79. Malik, who was a former Member of Rajya Sabha, was admitted to New Delhi's RML Hospital where he died after battling prolonged illness. A post on his official X account confirmed his death. Malik was admitted to the RML Hospital complicated urinary tract infection, which in turn led to a septic shock, according to the hospital statement. Malik was the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir for just one year, and was the last leader to hold the post before Article 370 was abrogated by the NDA-led central government. Who was Satya Pal Malik? Satya Pal Malik, a veteran politician for over 50 years, started out his career as an MLA in the 1970s. He was switched multiple political parties and was a prominent leader for Jat and farmer population in his later years. Malik, who hails from the Baghpat district from Western UP, first served as an MLA in the state Assembly in 1974-77, having been elected on a ticket of Chaudhary Charan Singh's Bharatiya Kranti Dal. He was later appointed as a Member in the Rajya Sabha by Lok Dal in 1980, but joined the Congress party in 1984. He was once again appointed to the Rajya Sabha in 1986. He joined the BJP in 2004 after resigning from the Congress party and a short stint Janata Dal. Malik held multiple senior posts in the party, including the head of the parliamentary committee that looked into the land acquisition Bill. In 2017, Satya Pal Malik was appointed as the Governor of Bihar, and was transferred to Jammu and Kashmir in 2018. During his tenure as the J&K Governor, the Centre scrapped Article 370. In 2022, Malik said in a statement that he would RJD and Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh, in hopes to fight for the welfare of farmers. Malik's criticism of NDA government After his exit from the BJP, Satya Pal Malik critiqued certain policies of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led NDA government, most prominently the now-repealed farm laws. Malik had earlier claimed that farmers 'had been at the receiving end of the anti-farmer policies of the Modi government'. In 2013, he also claimed that the there were security lapses in Kashmir ahead of the Pulwama terror attack, which led to the death of 40 CRPF personnel. He also claimed that PM Modi asked him to remain silent over these alleged lapses.

The Wire
7 minutes ago
- The Wire
Telangana: KCR Indicted in Kaleswaram Project ‘Irregularities'; BRS to Hold Special Assembly Session
Government N. Rahul According to the commission of inquiry, KCR's 'involvement and directions minutely…' is the 'cause and result of irregularities and the cause of distress to these three barrages'. Hyderabad: In the light of a severe indictment of former Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao by a commission of inquiry into charges of corruption and irregularities in the construction of much-touted Kaleswaram irrigation project during the previous Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) rule, the Congress-led Telangana government has decided to convene a special session of legislature shortly to debate the followup action. The decision was taken at an emergency cabinet meeting headed by current chief minister, A. Revanth Reddy, on Monday (August 4). Flanked by the entire cabinet, Reddy told a media conference that both Houses of the legislature will seek suggestions from all their members, including from Chandrasekhar Rao if he was available, on the way forward. The cabinet approved the report, he said. The 665-page report of the one-man commission, comprising Justice (retired) Pinaki Chandra Ghose, a former Supreme Court judge and first Lokpal of the country, will be tabled in the assembly and the legislative council. The commission, which submitted its report after 16 months on July 31, held Chandrasekhar Rao "directly and vicariously" accountable for the irregularities and illegalities in planning, construction, completion, operation and maintenance of three barrages of over Rs. 1 lakh crore Kaleswaram lift irrigation project. A pier of one of the three barrages of the project, which was a key component, sank and developed a huge crack from top to bottom in October 2023 and has remained abandoned since. His 'involvement and directions minutely…' is the 'cause and result of irregularities and the cause of distress to these three barrages,' the commission noted. The report was studied by a team of three secretary-level officers and summarised for presentation to the cabinet on Monday. The meeting, chaired by chief minister Reddy, was convened solely to discuss the commission findings and follow up action. The commission was instituted by the Congress government in March last year, months after the party was voted to power in Telangana. It started functioning from May and cross-examined 119 witnesses, including Chandrasekhar Rao and his erstwhile cabinet colleagues T. Harish Rao and Eatala Rajender, on the basis of a large quantity of sworn affidavits, official documents and communication. Several senior bureaucrats, engineers, officials and representatives of contracting firms deposed before the commission. The project was founded in 2016 and completed on a war footing in 2019, with several cost overruns from its initial projection of Rs 71,436 crore to Rs 1.45 lakh crore as per the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The project was originally conceived by the previous Congress government in the name of Pranahita-Chevella link with a dam at Tummidihatti in Adilabad district. However, the BRS government, shortly after it was elected to power, shifted the site to Kaleswaram in erstwhile Karimnagar district in the name of reengineering existing projects. Pranahita is a tributary of Godavari river which had copious flood water. A key finding of the commission, as per the condensed brief of the secretaries committee to the cabinet, was that Chandrasekhar Rao and his son-in-law Harish Rao, then irrigation minister, "intentionally have not considered the report of an expert committee". The expert committee of five retired chief engineers, constituted in January 2015, explicitly rejected the proposal to construct a barrage at Medigadda, which eventually suffered damage, due to "prohibitive cost and time consumption". It suggested alternative sites. But, the report was "intentionally not considered" and kept in cold storage by Chandrasekhar Rao and Harish Rao. The decision to construct the barrages at Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla (the latter two also faced seepage issues) was the "sole and individual decision of Harish Rao and Chandrasekhar Rao". There was no formal decision of the government in the form of cabinet approval. Initial administrative approvals for the construction of the three barrages were not placed before or approved by the cabinet, thus violating government business rules. Chandrasekhar Rao, Harish Rao and Eatala Rajender, then finance minister, who is now a BJP MP, had, however, in their deposition before the commission claimed that the project was discussed and approved by the cabinet. Rao's letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in February 2016, seeking financial aid, mentioned the Kaleswaram project cost at Rs 71,436 crore even before WAPCOS (Water and Power Consultancy Services), a consultancy firm of the Union government, submitted its final detailed project report. The claim of non-availability of water at Tummidihatti as the reason for shifting the barrage to Medigadda, which is the key component of the project to lift water to the other two barrages and take it to parts of the State through balancing reservoirs and canal network, "does not appear to be sincere and honest", the commission noted. The IAS officers panel wrote in its executive summary that the commission's report concluded with a scathing indictment, finding rampant procedural and financial irregularities, lack of proper planning, design flaws, construction defects and a complete absence of effective operation and maintenance. The report pinned significant responsibility on key political and administrative figures, particularly then chief minister Rao, for direct involvement and disregard for established procedures, resulting in colossal public expenditure and the current distress to the barrages. The commission fixed responsibility on over a dozen officials and engineers, name-wise for various lapses that were identified. They are: Eatala Rajender: As finance minister demonstrated "lack of commitment and integrity in safeguarding the financial and economic health of the newly formed State, pleading ignorance of crucial decisions related to the project". S.K. Joshi, former chief secretary, who also served as principal irrigation secretary and chairman of Kaleswaram Irrigation Project Corporation Limited (KIPCL): Liable for suppressing the expert committee report, violation of business rules in administrative approvals and for the failure of KIPCL. Smita Sabharwal, secretary to chief minister, who looked after irrigation in CMO: Found "not diligent, negligent and irresponsible in the discharge of her duties for failure to ensure business rules compliance regarding Cabinet approvals. C. Muralidhar, retired engineer-in-chief of irrigation (now lodged in jail in an assets case): Liable for suppressing the expert committee report, providing false information to Central Water Commission (CWC) on permissions for the project, proposing malicious revised estimates and failing in operations and maintenance. B. Hari Ram, chief engineer and KIPCL managing director (also in jail now in an assets case): Liable for suppressing the expert committee report and providing information to CWC. Despite being managing director of KIPCL, he disclaimed knowledge of the barrages. B. Nagender Rao, engineer-in-chief (operations and maintenance): Failed absolutely in carrying out O&M duties from January 2021 onwards. Liable for perpetuating damage to all three barrages. T. Pramila, chief engineer, State Dam Safety Organisation: Found ignorant of the basic responsibilities of her post. At least half-a-dozen other senior engineers were also found in the wrong or deposed falsely before the commission. The project, initially conceived at Rs 38,500 crore for Pranahita-Chevella link, landed in a massive cost overruns. It got unjustified revised administrative approvals by alleged variations due to shifting of locations of Annaram and Sundilla barrages, increased length, flood banks and design changes. The decision to shift the location of the two barrages by a high power committee, of which Muralidhar was a member, was done after contracts were concluded and without consulting WAPCOS. When the revised administrative approvals were further revised, the project cost went up again for reasons of increased water quantity, change in specification, design and drawings, duly incorporating additional items of work such as staff quarters, guesthouse, taxes and cost escalation. The proposals for revised administrative approvals were made with malicious intention to unduly favour the contracting agencies and wrongfully syphoning the amount from the public exchequer. There was absolutely no operations and maintenance of whatsoever nature, including periodical checks or inspection, pre- and post-monsoon inspection of the three barrages at any time. Chandrasekhar Rao directed continuous impounding of water in the barrages to their full capacity for lifting water through pump houses even though the barrages are typically diversion structures with low head, not as storage structures. This continuous impounding was a major cause of distress to the barrages. "The Chief Minister was pre-determined and bent upon constructing the barrage at Medigadda at his free choice. Authorities facilitated his decision". This was not the decision of the government but of individuals. The barrages, designed on permeable foundations, were utilised as storage structures which is against standard practice. Crucial studies on backwaters were not done at shifted locations. The quality control aspects were observed to be inadequate. The certificates of completion given for work at Medigadda were wrong, illegal and tainted with malice to do undue favour to contractors as work was not fully completed and defects detected. The commission recommended recovery of Rs 6.77 crore paid to WAPCOS as its report was "brushed aside". It said the project authorities and the work agencies were hand-in-glove and acted with concerted malicious intention in pursuit of their unfair and ulterior motive to unduly benefit and make unlawful gain from the project. At the cabinet meeting and media conference later, state irrigation minister N. Uttam Kumar Reddy gave a power point presentation on the commission's report. He said the BRS government borrowed Rs 87,449 crore at high interest rates and low repayment tenures from non-banking financial institutions which had become a huge burden for the present government. The government was yet to repay Rs 1.05 lakh as principal and interest. The minister recalled that then Union mInister for water resource, Uma Bharti, had communicated to the state government about Union government's willingness to give hydrology clearance for Pranahita-Chevella link project as 205 thousand million cubic feet (TMC ft) water which was more than the required 180 TMC ft was available at Tummidihatti. But, Chandrasekhar Rao had his own way. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.