A Chorus Between Contradictions: Can BRICS Speak with One Voice?

The most important debate in New Delhi is unlikely to revolve around Iran, cybersecurity, terrorism, or maritime security alone. At its core, the meeting is about the future identity of BRICS itself.

The world has plenty of institutions. What it lacks are institutions that can produce consensus. BRICS is about to discover which side of that divide it belongs to.

When National Security Advisers and senior security officials from BRICS nations assemble in New Delhi on June 22-23 under the chairmanship of India's National Security Adviser, Ajit Doval, the agenda will extend far beyond terrorism, cybersecurity, or emerging technologies. The gathering will effectively serve as a stress test for an expanded BRICS that is still searching for its distinct geopolitical identity.

As the dust settles over West Asia, another contest begins. This one involves neither heat-seeking missiles nor punitive trade sanctions, but the far more intricate challenge of diplomacy and consensus. Less dramatic, perhaps, but no less consequential.

The timing could hardly be more significant. This will be the final major BRICS security-level gathering before the Leaders' Summit in New Delhi on September 12-13, making it the most important consensus-building exercise under India's chairship. What emerges from these discussions is likely to shape both the tone and substance of the summit later this year.

A Bigger BRICS, A Bigger Challenge

The expansion of BRICS has undeniably increased its global weight. Today, the grouping represents nearly 49 percent of the world's population and accounts for more than 36 percent of global GDP in purchasing-power terms, making it economically larger than the G7 on that measure.

The larger BRICS becomes, the harder it is to forge common positions. Around the table in New Delhi will sit countries with differing strategic priorities, competing regional interests, and sharply varied relationships with the West.

A grouping that represents nearly half of humanity can no longer behave like a coalition of competing press releases. The question confronting New Delhi is whether BRICS can evolve from a platform of shared grievances into a forum capable of generating shared solutions. That challenge is especially visible in the aftermath of the recent Iran-related crisis in West Asia.

The Iran Question and the Search for Common Ground

The recent tensions surrounding Iran exposed the limits of the BRICS consensus. Tehran sought a stronger condemnation of military actions by the United States and Israel, while several members preferred a more cautious formulation. The result was a recurring challenge for an expanded BRICS: agreement on broad principles, but disagreement over their application.

The New Delhi meeting is unlikely to deliver a comprehensive solution to West Asia's conflicts. Its true importance lies in determining whether BRICS can articulate common principles on sovereignty, regional stability, de-escalation, and conflict management without allowing divergent national interests to fracture the grouping.

India understands this challenge better than most. In September 2023, many observers predicted that the G20 Summit in New Delhi would fail to produce a joint declaration because of deep divisions over the Ukraine conflict. Yet India successfully secured unanimous approval for the New Delhi Leaders' Declaration despite the presence of countries holding fundamentally opposing views on the war. Such an experience offers a valuable lesson that consensus is not the absence of disagreement. It is the ability to manage disagreement without institutional paralysis.

Security in the Age of Interdependence

The age of digital interdependence has created a paradox where nations have never been more connected, yet never more vulnerable. The official agenda's emphasis on cybersecurity, information security, and emerging technologies reflects a reality that governments can no longer afford to ignore. Increasingly, future conflicts may be waged through algorithms, networks, and critical digital infrastructure as much as through conventional military force.

The scale of the challenge is staggering. Cybercrime is projected to cost the global economy more than USD 10 trillion annually. At the same time, over 95 percent of global internet traffic flows through undersea cables that remain vulnerable to disruption, sabotage, and geopolitical friction.

In this environment, digital security is no longer a technical issue confined to specialists and regulators. It has become a frontline national security concern.

The review of BRICS working groups on counter-terrorism and information and communication technology security will therefore carry particular weight. The frameworks they develop on cyber resilience, critical infrastructure protection, and technological cooperation could shape long-term security outcomes far more than the carefully worded communiqués that typically dominate headlines.

Why Terrorism Remains India's Core Priority

Among the many issues on the table, counter-terrorism remains India's most consistent security concern within BRICS. For years, the Raisina Hill has argued that terrorism, radicalisation, terror financing, and transnational extremist networks pose some of the gravest threats to developing nations. India's objective has been to ensure that practical security cooperation does not become overshadowed by larger geopolitical rivalries.

Maintaining consensus on terrorism is not always easy in a grouping as diverse as BRICS. Different members often approach security threats through different strategic lenses, but counter-terrorism remains one of the few areas where tangible cooperation is both possible and necessary. If India succeeds in keeping it at the center of BRICS security discussions, it would mark a significant diplomatic achievement and reinforce one of the bloc's most functional areas of collaboration.

The Sea Lanes That Keep Economies Running

The recent turmoil in West Asia has underscored a fundamental reality of the modern economy that maritime security is inseparable from economic stability. For India, which imports more than 80 percent of its crude oil requirements, disruptions in the Gulf region are not distant geopolitical developments unfolding on the evening news. They have immediate consequences for energy prices, inflation, supply chains, and overall economic growth.

The security of the Strait of Hormuz, the Red Sea, and wider Indian Ocean trade corridors therefore, occupies an increasingly important place in strategic discussions.

The lesson is hardly new. The 2008 global financial crisis exposed the limits of Western-dominated governance and hastened the rise of platforms such as the G20, where emerging economies proved indispensable to restoring economic stability. Today, that same lesson extends beyond finance. Whether the issue is conflict, energy security, cyber threats, or supply chains, global stability increasingly hinges on cooperation among rising powers rather than decisions emanating solely from traditional centres of influence.

India's Leadership Moment

The most important debate in New Delhi is unlikely to revolve around Iran, cybersecurity, terrorism, or maritime security alone. At its core, the meeting is about the future identity of BRICS itself.

Can it serve as a platform for non-Western dialogue without drifting into anti-Western bloc politics? Can it accommodate competing interests while retaining strategic relevance? Can it give the Global South a stronger voice without succumbing to its own internal contradictions?

India's answer has long been clear. New Delhi has sought to shape BRICS as a vehicle for strategic autonomy, institutional reform, and practical cooperation rather than geopolitical confrontation. As the grouping expands and its fault lines become more visible, that vision will now face its most consequential test yet.

The larger question hanging over New Delhi is one that extends well beyond BRICS. In an era marked by wars, technological disruption, and geopolitical rivalry, can major powers still find enough common ground to act together? The conversations that begin this week may not answer that question completely, but they will reveal whether one of the world's most influential groupings is prepared to try.