New Delhi: Once coined as an economic acronym by Goldman Sachs, BRICS has evolved over 15 years into a forum with undeniable global weight, thanks to expanded membership, financial institutions, and growing influence in governance.
But the question remains: can it deliver tangible outcomes for the Global South, or does it remain an informal talk shop?
As a formal grouping, BRICS started after the meeting of the Leaders of Russia, India and China in St Petersburg on the margins of the G8 Outreach Summit in 2006.
The grouping was formalised during the first meeting of BRICS Foreign Ministers on the margins of UNGA in New York in 2006. The first BRICS Summit was held in Yekaterinburg, Russia, in 2009.
With global debt crossing $102 trillion — $31 trillion owed by developing countries — fiscal space for essential investments in health, education, and climate adaptation is shrinking. In this strained context, BRICS is increasingly cast as a “silver lining”, offering alternatives to debt-ridden economies through people-centric and non-conditional platforms, according to a report by ‘Modern Diplomacy’.
Brazil and India exemplify this pragmatic approach. For Brazil, BRICS is less an anti-Western bloc than a bridge for convergence, pushing climate finance, vaccine R&D, and digital trade facilitation. President Lula da Silva recently likened BRICS to the Non-Aligned Movement, calling it a platform for multipolarity.
Brazil also backs India’s demand for a permanent UN Security Council seat, signalling support for institutional reform. India, meanwhile, views BRICS as a vehicle for delivery. New Delhi plans to push low-cost digital solutions, energy security via the International Solar Alliance, and women’s development via this grouping.
India’s experiments with local currency settlements and adapting its Unified Payments Interface (UPI) for cross-border use are seen as scalable innovations that could cushion developing economies.
Yet paradoxes persist. While India, Brazil, and South Africa emphasise reform within multilateral structures, China and Russia often frame BRICS as a counterweight to the West.
Beijing has promoted platforms like the New Development Bank and BRICS Pay, while Moscow leans on anti-Western rhetoric, as seen at the 2024 Kazan summit.
Proposals for a BRICS Secretariat highlight growing calls for institutionalisation.
The grouping’s credibility now hinges on delivery — extending finance without intrusive conditionalities, advancing trade, and amplifying the Global South’s priorities sidelined elsewhere.
(IANS)
