
Amid trade wars and conflicts, New Delhi must strengthen its associations with BRICS
The US is trying to withdraw from and limit its external engagements, while other countries are joining alternative institutions to safeguard their interests. The world is at a juncture where the hegemon cannot ensure compliance of others and the successors are reluctant to provide leadership and take responsibility.
Under these circumstances, emerging powers find it advantageous to group together and amplify their influence. Amid a turbulent and unpredictable world order, BRICS functions as a key instrument of a broader hedging and diversification strategy. Members view this as a critical alternative forum that provides a sense of security, status, and collective leadership. BRICS has become a coveted organisation for the Global South. It comprises 11 states with nearly 50 per cent of the global population and about 40 per cent of the global GDP. It is a heterogeneous organisation with no shared history, culture, ideology or territories. It cannot be compared with any other existing organisation given its diversity and uniqueness. Experts often compare it with the G7 because of its global outreach, but the G7 countries have identical political systems and a comparable level of development. The same cannot be said about BRICS. Because BRICS is an organisation of the non-West, it is often viewed as a challenge to the West.
It is not without reason that Donald Trump threatened to slap a 100 per cent tariff on BRICS countries if they sought to develop an alternative currency. Many in the West fear that a BRICS currency would weaken the dollar. However, it must be underlined that BRICS is not in the process of developing a new currency. A common currency requires integrating financial institutions and closely coordinating industrial and agricultural policies. BRICS does not have the level of coordination needed and is not pursuing such a goal. Therefore, this Western fear is entirely misplaced.
Instead, BRICS is exploring the possibility of amplifying trade in national currencies. The trade between Russia and China is carried out in national currencies. Similarly, a large part of Russia's trade with India and Brazil occurs in local currencies. These states are also trying to set up fixed reference rates for their local currencies, independent of the dollar. The extent of the impact of this process on the dollar is unclear, but BRICS states should expect new threats from the Trump administration. It would be viewed as an attempt at de-dollarisation, and President Trump cannot remain silent for long. In a recent interview, US Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, described India's association with BRICS as an irritant which rubbed America the wrong way. Nonetheless, New Delhi will continue to follow a diversified multi-engagement policy, disregarding external pressure. Prime Minister Narendra Modi will attend the Rio summit, even as Xi Jinping and Putin give it a pass.
The BRICS summit in Rio De Janeiro is conspicuous for several reasons: First, following its expansion in 2024 and 2025, it would be the first time that all the members will participate. It provides an important platform for them to socialise, explore the areas of cooperation and develop an understanding of each other's concerns. Further, the BRICS membership enhances the status of new members. However, the expansion of the organisation will also pose coordination and consensus-building challenges.
Second, the issue of the Israel-Iran conflict is likely to figure prominently in discussions. A few days ago, BRICS issued a joint statement condemning the Israeli attack on Iran as a violation of international law and the UN Charter. This assumes significance because India had distanced itself from a joint statement at the SCO meeting previously. In a world where states do not want to be seen taking a stand against Trump, Iran finds many supporters at the BRICS forum.
Third, the expansion of BRICS has enabled greater representation of the Global South. At a time when the US is withdrawing from its global responsibilities of peace and security, climate action, the WTO and the WHO, BRICS has the opportunity to fill the vacuum and protect the interests of the Global South. BRICS can simultaneously focus on reforms in West-dominated institutions and enhanced cooperation in the South. The Rio summit will focus on the ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI), climate action, global health, reforming global governance, and peace and security. Since the Trump administration holds contrarian views on these issues, the only hope is greater cooperation among countries of the Global South.
Fourth, Xi Jinping would not be present at the Rio summit. Premier Li Qiang will be representing China. Xi's absence has led to speculations of a fraying unity, strains in ties between China and Brazil and Prime Minister Lula Da Silva's invitation to PM Modi for a state dinner. It is not easy to find the real reason, but Brazil views it as a diplomatic slight. Silva's advisor Celso Amorim once stated that 'BRICS without China is not BRICS'. This would be the first time that China's president will not be present at the summit. This is surprising because Brazil has good ties with China, and PM Silva recently visited Beijing. Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, will also not participate in person because of the International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant issued against him.
Finally, New Delhi must strengthen its associations with BRICS. In a world where Trump's whimsical policies send shockwaves, India needs closer ties with alternative regional powers. India lends immense credibility to the organisation and seeks to gain a lot in the future. New Delhi's strong ties with Washington should not come in the way of its associations with BRICS. PM Modi and his team will have an opportunity to sensitise the members on issues like digital inclusion, sustainable development, climate action, poverty elimination, and terrorism. In a favourable development, New Delhi has aligned its stance with other members on Israel's attack on Iran. It is likely to receive support from others on the issue of terrorism in reciprocation.
The writer teaches at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. Views are personal

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


Time of India
12 minutes ago
- Time of India
Elon Musk's father Errol Musk to Donald Trump: ‘Listen to Elon…he's not a fool'
Elon Musk 's father Errol Musk has shared an advice for his son. According to a report by Al-Arabiya English, Errol Musk advised his son Elon to 'stay silent' and concentrate on his businesses, especially Tesla. He acknowledged that politics can be complicated, with 'tempers flare' and 'human behavior is so complicated,' and suggested it's better for Elon to stay focused on what he does best—running his companies. Errol also expressed his surprise over the Tesla and SpaceX CEO's feud with US President Donald Trump . He said: 'As far as President Trump going against Elon, I can't really understand what is going on. It makes no sense to me at all.' Errol also expressed his optimism despite the rising tension between the two. He said: 'Something good will come out of this, I'm pretty sure.' Elon Musk's father supports Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill According to the report, Errol and Elon have different opinions about the Trump administration's One Big Beautiful Bill . While the tech billionaire has been a vocal critique of Trump's bill, Errol, on the other hand, supports it. Talking about the bill, Errol said 'United States needs a lot of rebuilding…they need to spend money'. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Walmart Photos Which Are Not For Everyone Old Money Style Undo The senior Musk also made a request to President Trump to 'Listen to Elon,' adding that 'He's not a fool'. At last, Musk's father advised both Trump and Elon to 'talk it out.' Trump-Musk feud The feud between Trump and Musk reignited after the tech billionaire criticized Trump's new federal spending bill. So much so that he threatened to create a new political group, calling it the 'America Party,' if the bill is passed by the Senate. Trump responded by questioning Musk's loyalty and criticizing electric vehicle mandates, which he called 'ridiculous.' Elon Musk knew, long before he so strongly Endorsed [sic] me for President, that I was strongly against the EV Mandate. It is ridiculous, and was always a major part of my campaign. Electric cars are fine, but not everyone should be forced to own one,' the president wrote on Truth Social. OnePlus Nord 5 and OnePlus Nord CE 5: Unboxing and first look AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now


Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
Ukraine arms freeze sparks GOP fury: Pentagon's pause catches Donald Trump allies off guard; target Colby
Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth (AP) The United States' latest decision to halt some weapon shipments to Ukraine came as a surprise even to people usually in the loop on such matters, including officials from the state department, members of Congress, and some key European allies, according to Politico. The halt was prompted by Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby and a close group of advisers, who expressed concerns that some US weapons stockpiles were becoming depleted. The unexpected decision on Monday sparked concern and frustration, even among leading Republicans, over the apparent perception that a single senior Pentagon official had such influence on the outcome. Even President Donald Trump's allies expressed frustration over the decision, accusing officials like Colby, who conducted a review of US munitions stockpiles prior to the pause, of advancing the move without informing the rest of the administration or other stakeholders. They pointed out that the decision to suspend weapons shipments to Ukraine appeared to be made with minimal coordination across the administration, following major reductions to the national security council that had significantly weakened its influence. 'I think it's all made by the DOD policy director, this Colby guy. We essentially don't have a national security adviser,' said Republican representative for Texas Michael McCaul. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Искате да научите повече за новото BMW 2 Gran Coupe? BMW Научете повече Undo 'I'm not even sure (Secretary of State Marco) Rubio was consulted on this one … There's internal division in the White House.' The decision sparked confusion and a sense of shock in Ukraine, while also prompting concern in Europe over whether the US was beginning to retreat from its military backing of Kyiv, at a time when Trump seemed increasingly open to the idea of providing additional aid to help defend Ukraine against Russian attacks. Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, a member of the house intelligence committee, wrote a letter to Trump on Tuesday requesting an emergency briefing from the White House and the department of defense regarding the suspension of military aid, which had originally been approved under the Biden administration. One official said the Pentagon's move was uncoordinated and surprised the state department. According to two other officials, Pentagon leaders didn't consult the state department, the US embassy in Kyiv, or Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg's team before halting a shipment of critical weapons already in Poland. Some members of the Joint Staff also opposed the decision, they added, reported Politico. The White House and the state department rejected claims that the munitions pause took officials by surprise. 'This is false,' said a White House official. 'The president and top officials expect the DOD to regularly review aid allocations to ensure they are in line with the America First agenda.'


Indian Express
20 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Denied toilet access, made to kneel overnight: US deportee says he was tortured in El Salvador prison
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was supposed to be safe. In 2019, a US immigration judge ruled that the 29-year-old Salvadoran could not be deported to his home country, citing credible fears that local gangs there would persecute him and his family. But in March 2025, the Trump administration deported him anyway. What followed has triggered a political and legal firestorm over the administration's immigration enforcement, reaching all the way to the US Supreme Court. The White House has repeatedly claimed that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13, the Salvadoran gang the US government has designated a foreign terrorist organisation. US President Donald Trump, speaking last month, declared that Abrego Garcia 'will never live' in the United States again. Yet multiple judges, including one on the Supreme Court, have ruled that he was deported in error and that the government is obliged to help 'facilitate' his return to Maryland, where he had lived since 2012. That court order came only after Abrego Garcia had already spent nearly three harrowing months inside El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, where he was sent immediately after his wrongful deportation. 'Welcome to CECOT. Whoever enters here doesn't leave,' one official reportedly told him upon arrival, according to court documents filed by his lawyers. Held in an overcrowded, windowless cell with bright lights on 24 hours a day, Abrego Garcia says he was forced to sleep on a metal bunk with no mattress and was denied access to a bathroom, eventually soiling himself. He said he lost 14 kg in two weeks. In his testimony, he lists harrowing details. Upon arrival, he says he was kicked and hit repeatedly, leaving his body bruised and swollen. He and 20 others were made to kneel overnight, with guards striking anyone who collapsed, he claims. At times, he was told he would be transferred to cells with known gang members who would 'tear' him apart. He also said he heard screaming through the night. He saw prisoners assaulting each other in nearby cells. He was told by prison staff that his tattoos would mark him for death—until they later admitted they weren't gang-related at all. According to the new court filings, Salvadoran prison officials determined that Abrego Garcia was not affiliated with any gang. The Trump administration initially brushed aside the deportation as an 'administrative error.' But after weeks of legal pressure, it abruptly flew Abrego Garcia back to the US last month—not to release him, but to indict him. He is now in federal custody in Nashville, Tennessee, facing charges of participating in a conspiracy to smuggle undocumented immigrants, allegedly as a member of MS-13. His lawyers argue the evidence is flimsy and that the government is backpedalling on its previous mistake by doubling down on criminal accusations. Justice Department attorney Jonathan Guynn told a Maryland judge that the US intends to deport Abrego Garcia again, this time to an unnamed third country. There is no set timeline, but his attorneys say the threat is immediate and illegal. 'This was not a mistake,' one of his lawyers told reporters. 'It was a deliberate defiance of a court order.' The Justice Department has not commented publicly on whether it will comply with the Supreme Court's latest ruling or where it intends to send Abrego Garcia next.