Why is India hesitant about BRICS?

This time India’s attitude towards the BRICS summit has given rise to some controversy. There is a significant continuity in India’s perception of this alliance. The idea is that the BRICS is an alliance of some of the world’s revisionist forces, who do not want the destruction of the existing world order; Just want to include their interests in this system.

But time did not stop. Globalization has already gone haywire and the system of international institutions that underpins it is far from inclusive. While Russia and China are under US sanctions, on the other hand, India’s relationship with the US is perhaps at its highest in history. The two formed almost an alliance; Washington described it as the ‘most important partnership’ of the century. Not only that, it would not be wrong to say that the US sanctions against China are even benefiting India. A case in point is the ongoing closer ties between the two countries centered around the chip industry. Arguably, this could lead to a better quality of life in India. So there can be no reason for the country’s elites to be interested in a fundamental reconstruction of the existing international order, far from being destroyed.
The bottom line is that India will be satisfied if the world can be made a little more fair and stable by bridging the influence of BRICS. And this is not a pipe dream either. Because BRICS is on the right side of history. None of the members of this alliance have the reputation of using their existing economic opportunities and political influence, hard-earned and accumulated over centuries, to establish regional and global hegemony. As a result, India is feeling quite fluent in meeting its objectives.

It is in this context that prompts us to seek answers to the most fundamental question about BRICS – why countries like Indonesia, Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are attracted to the alliance despite such divergent national characteristics, values and interests. These countries even believe that the alliance has the potential to take over the banner of global governance from the West. Of course, such expectations are unreasonable. Because they are based on a certain predetermined direction of evolution of the entire international system, which reality does not support. So it is only natural that Brazil or India may be concerned about how decisive the BRICS can truly become in world governance in the days to come. Frankly speaking, there is uncertainty about whether it is possible for the BRICS to maintain the revisionist behavior of the past in the current situation. The problem is not related to the outcome of the Ukraine conflict. Russia cannot and will not lose this war. However, it is unlikely that Russia’s adversaries will change their view of the world even if Go-Hara loses here.

Therefore, if BRICS expands without regard to norms, alliance unity may weaken and eventually the alliance may become loose and ineffective. This was the case with the Non-Aligned Movement. Yet it is time for transformation; To borrow WB Yeats’s wistful essay about the eternal principle of politics – that ‘the best men lack the least conviction, while the worst men are full of intensity of feeling.’

The situation is acute against the backdrop of the Ukraine conflict and the Biden administration’s dual blockade strategy against China and Russia, the two founding members of BRICS. Surprisingly, in the recent past, China and Russia have made dramatic changes in their worldviews and are strongly contesting US hegemony. The ‘borderless’ friendship between these two big neighbors has set them apart from other BRICS members. It can’t help but affect the chemistry of the alliance. Although their spirit of pragmatism and prudence continues, the spirit of unity continues. It should be noted that many countries want to join BRICS mainly from the idea that it supports a more equitable and less selfish world governance, especially with regard to small and medium-sized states. It can also be termed as a kind of second pillar of BRICS. Not to be forgotten, all the experience of powerful institutions and global governance is possessed by Western alliances built on common values and shared interests. But ironically, it has stuck them in a ‘block mentality’. BRICS lacks coordination and the ability to set the global agenda, which the G-7 has done for decades. That is why a country like India always expects the BRICS as a group to do something to improve the existing world order instead of destroying it. India does not want globalization, collapse of global institutions and international law. Put differently, India prefers to create rules, norms and means of cooperation within the existing system, which make it possible to preserve its advantages and eliminate defects.

For India, this is not only a strategy, but also a strategy. India feels somewhat secure in the conventional rule-based system; It reinforces polycentricity in Asia. It is not right that India is under pressure to ally with the US; It could have been said earlier. But today’s India, especially the current leadership, is consciously expanding ties with the US, which it considers to be in its own national interest. This is the logical outcome of India’s policy on the course of politics since the 1990s and the ‘bipartisan consensus’ between the ruling party and the main opposition. Due to long practice it now seems irreversible.

A number of factors are involved and one of the main reasons, seemingly contradictory, is the unprecedented rise of China, India’s BRICS partner, which has raised concerns within the country. A partnership with the US is one of the few ways that India finds effective ways to address security issues. Nevertheless, India can and should believe that India’s BRICS partners are capable of pursuing an independent foreign policy based on national interests. There is no reason to doubt that India believes in the ultimate influence of BRICS in setting key global agenda items needed to make the world more equitable and stable.

MK Bhadrakumar: Former Indian diplomat and political analyst; Translated by Saifur Rahman Tapan from RT.com