Why India’s BRICS Chairship Is About Pragmatism, Not Building an Anti-Western Bloc
The BRICS chairmanship of India in 2026 comes at a time when the world order is more fragmented, competitive, and unpredictable. One can see the rise of influence of the BRICS group as part of a developing coalition against the West. However, such an interpretation disregards the more practical nature of India’s historical engagement with BRICS.
India’s involvement in the group is not based on any intention to oppose the US and the European countries. Instead, it is a forum where India can promote its interests along with other major emerging economies while maintaining its strategic autonomy towards the West. Thus, the nature of India’s approach to BRICS can be described as pragmatic multilateralism.
Such an approach is significant because India, on one hand, has significant ties with the US, Europe, Japan, Australia and other Western and Indo-Pacific countries and, on the other hand, takes an active part in forums including China and Russia. In this respect, India’s diplomats tend to regard these relationships as complementary tools for achieving national interests.
BRICS Was Built Around Cooperation, Not Confrontation
The original purpose of BRICS was essentially economic and developmental in nature. The BRICS alliance included important emerging economies that had the goal of improving collaboration and their joint power in global politics.
India’s own experience in chairing BRICS proves that. In 2021 when it was India’s turn to head the group, its main theme was “BRICS@15: Intra BRICS Cooperation for Continuity, Consolidation and Consensus.” Its agenda included multilateral system reform, cooperation on counter-terrorism, digital and technological instruments of sustainable development, and people-to-people interaction.
Such priorities are a far cry from the agenda of the anti-Western alliance.
Instead, they show the specific areas where countries with totally different political regimes and foreign policies can find a consensus.
This is the only correct way of interpreting BRICS at present.
India’s Strategic Autonomy Is the Key
Foreign policy of India has been resisting the notion that India is destined to remain forever in one geopolitical bloc. Being strategically autonomous does not equate to being strategically isolated, but rather having the space to make decisions in accordance with the interests of India.
Being a member of BRICS gives India an opportunity to implement this policy of autonomy.
India can use BRICS platform to promote institutional reforms in global organizations, increase representation of the developing countries, engage economically and discuss topics like technology, energy, development and finance. Meanwhile, India could pursue its strategic partnership with the United States, build up Quad, increase trade with Europe and collaborate with other partners throughout the Indo-Pacific.
There is nothing wrong with this approach.
On the contrary, there would be an inconsistency to believe that collaboration with the Global South equals to disengagement from the West.
Reforming the Global Order Is Not the Same as Rejecting the West
A common misconception regarding BRICS is the idea that the need for a more representative international order is inherently an act of defiance towards the West.
This is not true when it comes to India.
New Delhi has always been in favor of reforms to make the international institutional order more reflective of the present-day realities economically and politically speaking. This includes representation of developing nations within international organizations like the UN Security Council and international financial institutions.
This is the crucial difference. India is not seeking the destruction of the current international order; it is seeking to reform it and make it more representative and effective.
Past BRICS declarations have explicitly stated the importance of multilateralism, international law, cooperation between sovereign nations, and the central role of the UN. Past BRICS statements have described cooperation as pragmatic, efficient, and results-oriented.
Such language leads to reform and not revolutionary realignment.
The Economic Case for BRICS Has Become Stronger
The expansion of BRICS has also changed its economic significance.
As more big emerging economies come on board, the group represents a large chunk of global population, economy, energy production, and trade. For India, there is much more in the grouping beyond geopolitics signaling.
Diversifying one’s trade is becoming necessary in the current unpredictable global economy, with supply chains being redesigned, restrictions on technologies changing the course of industrial policies, and countries looking to build resilience in energy, food security, critical minerals, and manufacturing.
In this respect, the BRICS can offer India another avenue for achieving its goals.
India’s experience of chairing the BRICS will be especially useful in fields like digital infrastructure, fintech, healthcare, renewable energy, agriculture, and development finance. For example, under India’s chairmanship, there was the Digital Health Summit, Water Ministers’ Meeting, Agricultural Research Platform, and cooperation on remote sensing satellites.
This is just one example of how the grouping can help.
The Global South Is Not a Single Political Bloc
Another reason why “anti-Western bloc” terminology is inapt when referring to BRICS is its political diversity.
The member countries are characterized by different economic systems, security needs, political regimes, and relations with the Western world. They may diverge on crucial global issues.
India itself has significant strategic and economic engagement with Western states. India-US cooperation has been growing in the defense, technological, semiconductor, space, clean energy, and trade sectors. India also enjoys close economic ties with Europe, while increasingly working together with Western nations on robust supply chains and cutting-edge technologies.
On the other hand, India has good relations with Russia, the Gulf countries, Africa, Southeast Asia, and other Global South nations.
It is exactly for these reasons that the characterization of BRICS as an anti-Western organization is inadequate both for the organization itself and India’s foreign policy.
China Makes India’s Pragmatism Even More Important
The first objection to the theory of the alternative bloc to the West is India’s relationship with China.
India and China are rival powers with respect to a variety of issues, such as the border problem between them and rivalry for influence in Asia. However, both of them are members of BRICS.
Thus, India shows that collaboration is possible without strategic partnership on every issue.
New Delhi can oppose Beijing where their interests conflict and collaborate where they coincide.
This is a purely pragmatic position.
Moreover, this helps India ensure that BRICS will not become a tool in the hands of any of the members of this organization.
What India Can Bring to the Chairship
The most important thing that India must do while being the Chair of BRICS is to stress those areas that could see concrete action through the forum.
It must stress areas like trade, technology, development financing, health, energy security, climate resilience, and digital economy. India’s last Chairmanship proved that the forum is able to take concrete initiatives provided the discussions turn into some concrete institutional arrangements and projects.
The present global scenario makes it all the more important.
The developing world today faces huge challenges arising out of climate change, debt, food and energy insecurity, technological disparity, and disruption in global trade. The forum can be useful if it stresses solving those issues.
A Bridge, Not a Wall
The BRICS Chairmanship of India must thus be seen as an opportunity for bridging the divide in an increasingly fractured international system.
India does not require BRICS to be a rival to the West. It requires BRICS to be an effective forum where emerging nations can influence conversations that are usually dictated by bigger and more developed countries.
This is a fundamentally different agenda.
The foreign policy of India today rests upon the cultivation of many partnerships at once. The involvement of India in BRICS does not reduce the strength of its connections with the United States, European Union or other Western capitals.
Conclusion
The true story behind the BRICS chairmanship of India is not about the emergence of an alternative bloc to the West.
There is no reason for India to trade a geopolitical rigidity for another. Its economic interests need access to the technologies and capital of the West as well as closer ties with the emerging markets. Its security needs partnerships in the Indo-Pacific as much as its historical connections with others. Its diplomatic interests call for a voice in the traditional international organizations as well as the new forums.
BRICS provides India with an additional table.
Whether the chairmanship will prove to be successful or not, will depend not on India’s ability to convert the BRICS into a platform against the West, but rather on India’s ability to transform a diverse set of countries into an effective venue for pragmatic cooperation and institutional change.
It will not be bloc politics.
It will be pragmatism, and pragmatism is always a better tool of foreign policy for India.
BRICS 2026: Power, Finance, Justice & Global Change
- How Is Global Order Changing?
Check out Jaishankar’s call for economic resilience as global uncertainty reshapes international relations. - Why Are Russia-Iran Talks Crucial?
Find out how Modi’s talks could influence oil prices and global supply chains. - Could BRICS Reshape Global Finance?
Uncover how expansion and local-currency trade could transform international financial systems. - Why Does The BRICS Justice Meet Matter?
Browse the significance of the BRICS Chief Justices’ Forum hosted in New Delhi. - What Does “Humanity First” Mean?
Explore how India’s BRICS chairship frames cooperation amid sanctions and geopolitical tensions.
