All eyes have been on Iran for more than a year. Naturally, the first BRICS summit with Tehran’s membership is bound to breed speculation about what the prospective new world order would look like. At home, there needs to be an examination of India’s bilateral ties with a country that is seen firmly anti-West in its outlook. 

Iran and India are sailing in the same boat, at least momentarily: of the West’s castigation. The temptation may be high on both sides to form a joint front against Western hegemony in the security space. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has held bilateral talks with the new Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian, with a focus on strategic cooperation in and beyond the Middle East.

Global Groupings vs Realpolitik

It can be endlessly debated without inching anywhere close to a resolution whether multilateral global groupings make any difference to realpolitik either domestically or internationally. The signalling, however, remains crucial. To begin with, the West is already perceiving the summit as Russia’s show of strength. Headlines like ‘Putin Gathers Allies’ and ‘Putin Hosts Global South Leaders at BRICS Summit Meant to Counterbalance Western Clout’ in Western media outlets expose apprehension. 

A complex interplay of sectarian interests and regional dynamics shapes Iran’s geopolitical strategy. It is in the direct line of fire, thanks to Israel’s unchecked belligerence. Already reeling under economic pressure owing to the UN sanctions of 2011, the post-October 7 reality for Tehran is even grimmer. Iran blames the US for almost all of its problems. As such, during the last summit, former president Ebrahim Raisi had anointed Iran’s proposed BRICS membership as one of the ways of getting even with the US and the West at large. “Iran’s membership in the bloc is opposition to American unilateralism.”

India Needs To Defines Its Position

Russia and China share this sentiment of BRICS emerging as a counterbalance to the West. But what about India? India has lauded and endorsed Iran’s presence in BRICS, but will New Delhi also endorse Tehran’s oppressive domestic policies in the name of this cooperative alliance? 

India has not stopped buying oil from Iran despite the sanctions and disapproving remarks from the West. Yet, bilateral trade between the two countries has dropped by 26% in one year. Geoeconomics informs Iranian perceptions of the bloc as a critical driver. Iran aims to secure increased volumes of oil and non-oil exports to fellow BRICS members, bypassing the dollar. 

Like Russia, Iran is engaged in a high-stakes battle with the West. China doesn’t particularly enjoy a friendly status, either. New Delhi’s balancing act, therefore, is set to be tested on many tricky issues in the near future, including the Israel-Palestine issue. 

India has been an outlier in a manner. At the last UN General Assembly vote on a resolution calling for the end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, India was the only founding BRICS country to abstain, along with the newcomer Ethiopia. 

During the Modi-Pezeshkian bilateral, India was urged to play a more substantial role in the Middle East peace process. But what are New Delhi’s realistic options? Calling for peace does not usher in peace; arm-twisting the stakeholders does. 

A Sticky Question For New Delhi

Any BRICS decision mandates unanimous agreement. In that sense, it is even trickier than the domestic coalition politics that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has found itself in the midst of after a decade. What will, for example, be India’s stand should Iran want a revival of its nuclear plan? India’s past tussles with the West over its own nuclear programme may trigger another round of strategic unpleasantness over New Delhi’s stance.

India has a long-standing policy of strategic autonomy, and the complexity of its relations with the West is par for the course. The question is only of degree. The scope of India’s support to its alliance partners in any overtures, real or perceived, against the West needs to be clearly defined, if not announced. While BRICS has achieved precious little in tangible terms in the past 15 years, the symbolism of grouping may have consequences for India as ongoing conflicts stretch into the future and new challenges around them emerge.

On the other hand, the internal dynamics of the expanded BRICS are going to pose another challenge. BRICS, only a little more than an ad hoc grouping with diverse challenges and interests, has miles to go to emerge as a counterforce to alliances like the G7 or the Five Eyes, where members have been able to thrash out at least a common minimum programme.  

(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

All eyes have been on Iran for more than a year. Naturally, the first BRICS summit with Tehran’s membership is bound to breed speculation about what the prospective new world order would look like. At home, there needs to be an examination of India’s bilateral ties with a country that is seen firmly anti-West in its outlook. 

Iran and India are sailing in the same boat, at least momentarily: of the West’s castigation. The temptation may be high on both sides to form a joint front against Western hegemony in the security space. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has held bilateral talks with the new Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian, with a focus on strategic cooperation in and beyond the Middle East.

Global Groupings vs Realpolitik

It can be endlessly debated without inching anywhere close to a resolution whether multilateral global groupings make any difference to realpolitik either domestically or internationally. The signalling, however, remains crucial. To begin with, the West is already perceiving the summit as Russia’s show of strength. Headlines like ‘Putin Gathers Allies’ and ‘Putin Hosts Global South Leaders at BRICS Summit Meant to Counterbalance Western Clout’ in Western media outlets expose apprehension. 

A complex interplay of sectarian interests and regional dynamics shapes Iran’s geopolitical strategy. It is in the direct line of fire, thanks to Israel’s unchecked belligerence. Already reeling under economic pressure owing to the UN sanctions of 2011, the post-October 7 reality for Tehran is even grimmer. Iran blames the US for almost all of its problems. As such, during the last summit, former president Ebrahim Raisi had anointed Iran’s proposed BRICS membership as one of the ways of getting even with the US and the West at large. “Iran’s membership in the bloc is opposition to American unilateralism.”

India Needs To Defines Its Position

Russia and China share this sentiment of BRICS emerging as a counterbalance to the West. But what about India? India has lauded and endorsed Iran’s presence in BRICS, but will New Delhi also endorse Tehran’s oppressive domestic policies in the name of this cooperative alliance? 

India has not stopped buying oil from Iran despite the sanctions and disapproving remarks from the West. Yet, bilateral trade between the two countries has dropped by 26% in one year. Geoeconomics informs Iranian perceptions of the bloc as a critical driver. Iran aims to secure increased volumes of oil and non-oil exports to fellow BRICS members, bypassing the dollar. 

Like Russia, Iran is engaged in a high-stakes battle with the West. China doesn’t particularly enjoy a friendly status, either. New Delhi’s balancing act, therefore, is set to be tested on many tricky issues in the near future, including the Israel-Palestine issue. 

India has been an outlier in a manner. At the last UN General Assembly vote on a resolution calling for the end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, India was the only founding BRICS country to abstain, along with the newcomer Ethiopia. 

During the Modi-Pezeshkian bilateral, India was urged to play a more substantial role in the Middle East peace process. But what are New Delhi’s realistic options? Calling for peace does not usher in peace; arm-twisting the stakeholders does. 

A Sticky Question For New Delhi

Any BRICS decision mandates unanimous agreement. In that sense, it is even trickier than the domestic coalition politics that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has found itself in the midst of after a decade. What will, for example, be India’s stand should Iran want a revival of its nuclear plan? India’s past tussles with the West over its own nuclear programme may trigger another round of strategic unpleasantness over New Delhi’s stance.

India has a long-standing policy of strategic autonomy, and the complexity of its relations with the West is par for the course. The question is only of degree. The scope of India’s support to its alliance partners in any overtures, real or perceived, against the West needs to be clearly defined, if not announced. While BRICS has achieved precious little in tangible terms in the past 15 years, the symbolism of grouping may have consequences for India as ongoing conflicts stretch into the future and new challenges around them emerge.

On the other hand, the internal dynamics of the expanded BRICS are going to pose another challenge. BRICS, only a little more than an ad hoc grouping with diverse challenges and interests, has miles to go to emerge as a counterforce to alliances like the G7 or the Five Eyes, where members have been able to thrash out at least a common minimum programme.  

(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

It is 15 years since its first summit. Back then. BRICS was BRIC. And now, it’s not just BRICS but BRICS+. The summit in Kazan is seeing the member nations go up from five to nine, with one more, Saudi Arabia, having been invited to join. According to Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, there are 30 more countries that have been in touch over joining the BRICS+ in some format or the other.

When Goldman Sach’s economist Jim O’Neill coined the acronym BRIC and predicted that the economies of the four member countries – Brazil, Russia, India, and China – would dominate the global economy by 2050, his projection was based only on the growth of the four nations. The grouping now represents a combined GDP that exceeds the G7’s by “about 5 percentage points”, said the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on the eve of the Summit. A briefing note of the European Parliament, titled Expansion of BRICS: A Quest for Greater Global Influence, says that BRICS+ accounts for 37.3% of the world’s GDP. That is more than half as much as the European Union’s 14.5%.

“Artificial Efforts To Maintain Dollar’s Position”

Lavrov also lashed out at the US-led world order, saying, “The United States is unwilling to relinquish the reins of power that they have held since World War II through the Bretton Woods institutions and through the role assigned to the US dollar in the international monetary system, even after the free exchange of US dollars for gold had been cancelled. The leading position of this currency is maintained by efforts that are largely artificial.”

The BRICS+ is in the process of taking the first step to break the dominance of the dollar, by a proposed launch of an international payment system that can circumvent the dollar. India’s foreign secretary, Vikram Misri, confirmed that there had been discussions that had been underway on settlement systems and payment systems. However, he added that as per his understanding, no final agreements have been arrived at yet. “Yes, fundamentally, I think it is a fact that the countries have stressed the importance of the use of local currencies for settlement purposes especially as it comes to or as it pertains to trade. So, strengthening of correspondent banking networks amongst the BRICS partners and enabling settlements in local currencies is being encouraged,” he added.

The Threat Of Sanctions

With Western sanctions faced by Russia in the wake of its war in Ukraine, Moscow is most keen to push the idea through not just to break the dollar’s dominance but also to showcase to the West that it still has allies and partners on its side. Iran, the new BRICS+ member, also faces crippling US sanctions and Moscow hopes for support from the members that have increasingly felt that the West-dominated economic order has short-changed the rest. 

Ahead of the Summit, Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov also called for new institutions, similar to the Bretton Woods institutions, saying the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are not performing their roles. However, the big question is whether a member country like China, which has been a beneficiary of the current global world order, will seek a new parallel system altogether when it is pushing for reforms along with countries like India. 

Reforming The IMF

In a recent IMF publication by India’s former Governor of the Central Bank, Raghuram Rajan sought not just quota reforms in IMF but also a change in the body’s governance to make it both fair and more representative of the current global realities. He said if members reform quotas and governance simultaneously, an independent IMF could bring a fragmenting world together on key issues. “Such comprehensive reforms should happen soon; else the rest could well believe this is an attempt by the Western alliance to hold on to some influence just when power is finally shifting.”

However, the BRICS+ also has its task cut out. Much will depend on the US presidential election outcome too. For example, Donald Trump has said that he will penalise countries that move away from the dollar by imposing a 100% tariff on their goods.

According to the IMF, the dollar remains a dominant force, with 59% of official foreign exchange reserves in the first quarter of 2024, and the euro second at approximately 20%.

Amidst all the speculation, all eyes are keenly trained on Russia for any indication in this direction during the two-day event. The announcement, if any, will have even greater significance because it will come from a country that is at direct loggerheads with the Western world.

(Maha Siddiqui is a journalist who has extensively reported on public policy and global affairs.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author