BRICS at a crossroads – The Hindu

At last month’s Munich Security Conference, U.S. Secretary of State and close aide to President Donald Trump Marco Rubio laid bare his imperialist ambitions. He expressed a desire to dismantle the multipolar world and restore the pre-Second World War global order. His “civilisation manifesto” advocated for white hegemony over the Global South, urging the Western alliance to unite in a concerted effort to compete for market share in these economies.

Mr. Rubio openly declared that decolonisation and the end of imperial colonies represented a retreat for the West, and demanded the reclaiming of economic space in regions such as India, Africa, and Southeast Asia.

Within a fortnight, the U.S. and Israel launched an attack on Iran, killing its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and dismantling its top leadership command structure, even without a formal declaration of war authorised by the U.S. Congress.

This attack cannot be merely seen as a localised conflict between long-standing adversaries. It represents a direct assault on the multipolar world order.

Iran is a member of BRICS, a 10-nation bloc currently chaired by India. Conceived as a counterbalance to the post-1945 power architecture, BRICS posed a systemic challenge to it.

De-dollarisation was central to BRICS’s agenda precisely because it aimed to build parallel financial institutions and payment gateways to circumvent the U.S.-West-controlled system. This included the New Development Bank (NDB), commonly known as the BRICS Bank, China’s CIPS (Cross Border Interbank Payment Systems), BRICS Pay and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), an indirectly linked security and geopolitical forum. All these initiatives sought a new, independent alternative to the U.S. and Western dominance.

The post-World War order now faces challenges from both the U.S. and BRICS.

India’s silence

It was against this backdrop that Iran, a BRICS member, was targeted for regime change. But India’s silence, as the current Chair, suggests a fundamental breakdown in efforts to establish an alternative world order. The self-proclaimed Vishwa Guru has abandoned its allies while unquestioningly aligning with the U.S. camp despite the year-long public humiliation and unfair tariffs imposed by Mr. Trump.

The Iran war has revealed the internal contradictions within BRICS and exposed the fragility of its efforts to challenge U.S. hegemony, despite Mr. Trump’s tantrums.

Mr. Rubio’s Munich speech was remarkable for its candour and offered a logical explanation for Mr. Trump’s irrational decisions. While it may be a case of providing a rationale for illogical actions, it clearly presents a world view within the U.S. establishment that can exploit the chaos and instability caused by Mr. Trump.

Mr. Rubio expressed pride in the West’s imperialist expansion over five centuries, attributing it to the creation of vast empires and, indirectly, to global development. He lamented the West’s retreat after 1945, which he saw as paving the way for “godless communist revolutions and anti-colonial uprisings”.

He called for a unified effort to compete for market share in the economies of the Global South while declaring the UN and other international institutions as defunct and ineffective.

The Iran war in this context, yet to be authorised by the U.S. Congress, reminds analysts of East India Company’s expansion, where a private company seized control of trade, resources, and governance in India through commercial dominance and military force, not formal state conquest.

BRICS was partly formed to resist the control of financial systems and markets by the U.S. and the West. It stands paralysed now.

Iran joined in 2024, signalling BRICS growing influence across the globe. It faced U.S.-Israel aggression in June 2025 also, when its nuclear installations were targeted and top military and scientific leadership was eliminated by the U.S. and Israel in a 12-day conflict.

BRICS was then chaired by Brazil. Under its leadership, BRICS issued a strong joint statement calling Israeli attacks as a violation of international law.

A non-actor

In stark contrast, India’s chairmanship has reduced the group to a non-actor. No joint statement has been issued, no emergency session has been convened, and no collective response has been articulated. Iran’s membership has proved strategically worthless and India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi dismally failed to rise up to the occasion.

Brazil, Russia, and China have individually condemned the U.S. offensive. But India’s political leadership did not even express condolence at the assassination of Ayatollah Khamanei. The 10-nation bloc, which was designed to challenge U.S. hegemony, now stands in tatters, reduced to 10 separate foreign policies of 10 nations, under Mr. Modi’s leadership.

This failure is further amplified by India’s dereliction of its role as net security provider in the Indian Ocean, with the U.S. torpedoing the unarmed Iranian warship IRIS Dena. In stark violation of bilateral agreements, the U.S. did not share intelligence with India, did not inform India of its presence in international waters in India’s area of influence and didn’t consult India before mounting an attack on its guest. India has responded with silence, eroding its claim to Global South leadership.

The current crisis, precipitated by India’s abdication of BRICS leadership, exposes its deep fault lines. The bloc now has member states with incompatible strategic orientations. India has gravitated towards Quad and has given up on Nehruvian non-alignment. India terms it “strategic autonomy”, but in practice it has come to mean brazen alignment with the U.S., regardless of Mr. Trump’s insults and forced capitulation in U.S.-India trade deal. Mr. Modi’s India consciously gave up the option of utilising the crisis to negotiate a collective way out of unfair U.S. pressure. Instead, it has surrendered its claims for Vishwaguru and hinged itself on to the United States.

The Rubio doctrine considers BRICS a “revisionist power bloc” that must be countered. His objective of “a Western supply chain for critical minerals not vulnerable to extortion from other powers” is actually a challenge to BRICS member states’ hold on supply chains.

To maintain that control, BRICS needed to assure that its stands by its members. But the war has sent out a message that cost of resisting U.S. primacy can be fatal.

India had an opportunity. As BRICS chair, it could have played a transformative role in this crisis. It had historical relationships with both Iran and the U.S. Its diaspora work in the U.S., Israel, Iran and all countries of West Asia and is influential too. It is the world’s largest democracy, with a marked tradition of moral leadership, civilisation advantage and a history of ethical positions.

Instead, Mr. Modi visited Israel 48 hours before the attacks and then gave up even the pretence of neutrality.

Stress test

BRICS now faces the most serious stress test and is at a critical juncture. It can develop a credible alternative forum for non-Western states to coordinate positions and amplify collective pressure, or else, scatter.

But with Mr. Modi’s latest position, India is no more its leader. It’s an obstacle. A U.S.-aligned India, along with China and Russia as active challengers to Western primacy, is a discordant team. The Iran crisis has made this contradiction undeniable.

The question for India’s Opposition parties and its people is whether they stand by this dereliction by the Modi government or plan to challenge it. The Congress under Rahul Gandhi has already articulated its Opposition to abject surrender by the Modi government. But criticism alone is not sufficient. The moment demands a credible expression of what Indian foreign policy could be under different leadership.

That vision is available. India’s historical non-aligned, ethical leadership equips it with credibility to be a genuine mediator. It is a country with enough relationships on all sides to speak credibly to Tehran, Jerusalem, Washington, and Beijing.

Mr. Rubio’s Munich speech indicated that the world is dividing into competing civilisational blocs, and middle powers must choose their alignment. Mr. Modi, under duress, chose to join the U.S. bloc. Instead of resisting and competing U.S. design to capture “market share” in the Global South, Mr. Modi has chosen to assist that design. It is surprising, as India is not a Trump ally in this grand game, it is a target, a challenge to be addressed, a power to be vanquished.

India must stand against this Trumpian dream. The East India Company is yet not a forgotten chapter. Its memories and independence struggle are still part of collective Indian consciousness.

The alternative is not hostility to the West, but genuine independence from it: the capacity to say no when Indian interests and international law require it, to build institutions that serve Indian workers and Indian energy security, and to exercise the moral authority that India’s history and size uniquely afford.

BRICS may not be a perfect grouping, but was painstakingly developed over past decades to collectively move forward. There is no wisdom in loitering the gains.

It can still provide a framework of political solidarity. It can provide coordinated diplomatic responses to sovereignty violations, collective energy-sharing arrangements that reduce individual member vulnerability, devise newer supply chains and present institutional capacity to speak with one voice on matters of international law. India must must not let it down.

Gurdeep Singh Sappal is a Permanent Invitee to the Congress Working Committee and Executive Trustee, Samruddha Bharat Foundation. Views expressed are personal