The BRICS economies now surpass the G7 in output, redefining global power dynamics. Nations no longer look solely to Washington or London for development deals; they weigh offers from Beijing, New Delhi, and Sao Paulo. This marks a decisive shift in global influence.
Richard D. Wolff, an economist and Professor Emeritus, made the above observation while discussing the growing influence of BRICS in global economics and its surpassing of the G7 in output. In 2009, amidst the fallout of the global financial crisis, BRIC convened its inaugural summit in Yekaterinburg, Russia. The timing was symbolic—Western financial dominance had faltered, and the stage was set for emerging economies to assert themselves. South Africa joined the coalition a year later, transforming BRIC into BRICS.
From the outset, BRICS aimed to counterbalance Western dominance, mirroring the creation of the G7 decades earlier. The latter emerged in 1975 as a response to economic upheavals, evolving into a forum for global macroeconomic policy. The G7 later expanded into the G8 with Russia’s inclusion, though this union soured due to Moscow’s authoritarian pivot. Meanwhile, the global financial crisis of 2007–2008 marked a pivotal moment: a problem born in the West required global participation to resolve. This necessity elevated the G20—previously a coalition of finance officials—to a leader-level summit in 2008, cementing its role as a forum encompassing 80% of global trade and GDP.
The G20 shone during the crisis, injecting liquidity, revamping financial institutions, and stabilising the global economy. At the Pittsburgh Summit in 2009, it was declared the “premier forum for international economic cooperation.” Yet, as the G20’s influence ebbed and flowed, the BRICS sought to carve its niche by advocating for global governance reform, creating parallel institutions, and challenging the dollar’s dominance. These efforts, while ambitious, often proved more symbolic than substantive.
In 2015, BRICS launched the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) to rival the World Bank and IMF. However, their impact has been limited. The NDB remains underfunded, with disbursements lagging far behind those of its Western counterparts. Despite rhetoric emphasising equality, its weighted voting structure mirrors the institutions it seeks to supplant. The CRA, a mechanism for short-term liquidity support, has yet to make a significant mark. Efforts to reduce dollar dependency have also stumbled. Despite discussions on a common BRICS currency, obstacles like entrenched dollar hegemony, inadequate financial infrastructure, and China’s currency convertibility issues persist. Instead, BRICS has focused on local currency trade and reserve diversification. Another avenue of resistance has been circumventing U.S.-dominated financial systems. BRICS nations have developed alternatives to the SWIFT payment network, yet ambitious projects like a global BRICS undersea cable network still need to materialise. While BRICS has pursued energy, health, and sustainable development initiatives, internal divisions dilute its coherence and influence.
The coalition’s heterogeneity is striking. BRICS includes democracies like Brazil, India, and South Africa alongside authoritarian giants China and Russia. Diverging political systems and priorities— from India’s strategic autonomy to China’s assertive global stance—challenge cohesion. For instance, while all members support UN Security Council reform, disagreements over specifics highlight their underlying rivalries.
China’s dominance within BRICS adds another layer of complexity. Responsible for 70% of the group’s GDP, it often overshadows its partners. This dynamic played out at the 2023 Durban summit, where China’s push for BRICS expansion overruled caution from Brazil, India, and South Africa, spotlighting tensions beneath the surface. When rats and cats share a kitchen, it’s not love – it’s probably because there’s a bear at the door. History repeatedly demonstrates how geopolitical threats can transform bitter rivals into reluctant allies. Consider how Britain and France, despite centuries of warfare, united against Nazi Germany. Today, we see this dynamic between India and China in the BRICS alliance. After their long border tango in Ladakh, China’s backstep isn’t just India’s diplomatic victory dance; it’s also China’s business brain.
Similarly, Iran and Saudi Arabia, long-standing sectarian rivals, recently mended fences under Chinese mediation, primarily motivated by their shared desire to counter Western influence in the Middle East. Like the proverbial cats and rats uniting against a bear, nations often discover that survival trumps old grudges. BRICS countries are bound by shared goals but separated by distinct geopolitical realities. A closer examination of these differences reveals the complexity of aligning their foreign policy agendas. For India, BRICS represents an avenue to assert leadership in the Global South while counterbalancing China’s dominance. The bloc is a platform for China to promote its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and project global influence. Despite these divergent agendas, both nations recognise the strategic importance of BRICS as a counterweight to Western-led institutions.
Awkward Encounters and Internal Tensions
The much-touted unity of BRICS often cracks during summit meetings, revealing underlying tensions through diplomatic faux pas and awkward encounters. During the 2016 Goa Summit, Prime Minister Modi’s characterisation of Pakistan as a “mothership of terrorism” created visible discomfort for President Xi Jinping, highlighting the delicate balance between national interests and bloc solidarity. The Chinese state media’s subsequent criticism of Modi’s remarks as an attempt to “spoil” the BRICS atmosphere further underscored these tensions.
The 2017 Xiamen Summit provided another revealing moment when Modi and Xi met for the first time after the Doklam standoff. Their interaction was notably stiff, with photographers capturing what media described as a “forced” and “mechanical” handshake. The two leaders were observed deliberately avoiding eye contact despite standing beside each other, which visually represented their strained relationship. Brazil’s changing stance within BRICS has also produced memorable moments of discord. During the 2018 Johannesburg Summit, then-President Temer’s apparent isolation during the traditional group photo became a metaphor for Brazil’s uncertain position within the bloc. The incident, which saw Temer awkwardly attempting to position himself while other leaders engaged in conversation, highlighted the power dynamics at play within BRICS. More recent tensions emerged during Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency, particularly at the 2019 Brasília Summit. His previous criticism of China’s “predatory” economic practices led to noticeably uncomfortable interactions with Xi Jinping, including a moment when Xi appeared to turn away from Bolsonaro’s attempted conversation during the formal handshake. The transition to virtual summits during and after the pandemic era has not diminished these moments of tension. During the 2023 Virtual Summit, an incident where Xi Jinping appeared to interrupt President Lula da Silva’s speech raised eyebrows. While officially attributed to technical issues, some analysts interpreted the moment as a subtle demonstration of China’s dominant position within BRICS.
These diplomatic incidents sometimes appear trivial but serve as windows into the more profound challenges facing the BRICS. Traditional summit photos, carefully analysed by diplomatic observers, often reveal body language and spatial arrangements reflecting ongoing bilateral tensions and power dynamics within the group.
Diplomatic Strategies for Managing Internal Differences
While the BRICS bloc showcases remarkable potential, it faces several challenges threatening its unity and influence. Despite its economic and geopolitical clout, disparities among its members loom large. China’s GDP vastly overshadows that of other members, creating imbalances that may undermine equitable decision-making. For smaller members like South Africa, asserting their voice amidst China’s dominance can be a struggle.
Geopolitical rivalries within the group, such as the longstanding India-China tensions, add another layer of complexity. These disputes risk overshadowing the BRICS’s shared objectives, creating friction that weakens the bloc’s cohesive strategy. Moreover, the diversity in political systems—from democratic models in India and Brazil to centralised governance in China—reflects ideological divergences that occasionally clash on global platforms, particularly on human rights and governance issues.
Moreover, BRICS members differ in their engagement with Western powers. While Russia and China often stand as counterweights to the West, India, Brazil, and South Africa maintain relatively cooperative relations, leading to divergent views on international issues. If not managed carefully, these variations risk diluting the collective impact of BRICS on the global stage. Navigating the internal divergences within BRICS requires a combination of diplomacy, pragmatism, and strategic alignment. Several strategies have enabled the bloc to maintain cohesion despite its differences. Russia’s war against Ukraine has put a lot of pressure on BRICS. Putin has shown the resilience to go down despite the Biden administration’s calculated manoeuvres—deploying NATO assets, orchestrating sanctions, and even allegedly sabotaging the Nord Stream pipelines. The anticipated collapse of Russia’s economic and military capabilities has not materialised, leaving a profound geopolitical landscape that challenges conventional Western narratives.
The BRICS summit in Kazan became a subtle demonstration of Putin’s diplomatic jujitsu. While the United States hoped to isolate Russia, Putin expanded the bloc, welcoming new members and signalling a significant shift in global power dynamics. The addition of countries like Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE wasn’t just a membership expansion but a strategic reconfiguration of global allegiances.
Most critically, India and China have emerged as Putin’s geopolitical lifelines. Their strategic cooperation has provided Russia with crucial economic buffers against Western sanctions, demonstrating a pragmatic approach prioritising national interests over ideological alignments. The energy markets, particularly oil and gas trades conducted in non-dollar currencies, have allowed Russia to circumvent traditional financial pressures.
Surprisingly, the anticipated domestic and international backlash against Putin has been muted. The expected implosion of Russian society and economy has not occurred. Instead, Putin has managed to navigate through what he acknowledged as the most challenging period of his political career, maintaining internal control and external diplomatic manoeuvrability.
The U.S. presidential election discourse, which should have been dominated by discussions of America’s geopolitical overreach and the limitations of its global influence, has been conspicuously silent. Putin’s strategic resilience has quietly but firmly challenged the narrative of unquestioned American dominance. While Putin has undoubtedly faced significant setbacks—particularly in the Ukraine conflict—he has demonstrated an uncanny ability to adapt, survive, and even expand Russia’s global footprint. The BRICS summit was less a moment of vulnerability and more a statement of continuing relevance.
The geopolitical chessboard remains complex, and Putin has proven that reports of Russia’s diplomatic and economic death have been greatly exaggerated. The world watches as traditional power structures are redefined, and Putin plays a pivotal role in this ongoing transformation. BRICS has adopted an issue-based approach, focusing on areas of common interest while sidestepping contentious issues. This strategy allows members to collaborate on shared goals such as economic development, climate change, and digital innovation, even as they disagree on geopolitical matters.
Establishing institutional mechanisms like the New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement has strengthened BRICS’ ability to deliver tangible outcomes. These initiatives enhance the bloc’s credibility and provide a platform for deepening cooperation. BRICS often employs strategic ambiguity to accommodate differing perspectives. For example, the bloc’s statements on global conflicts, such as the Russia-Ukraine war, are carefully worded to balance the interests of all members. Leadership within BRICS plays a crucial role in managing differences. India and South Africa, in particular, have positioned themselves as mediators, leveraging their non-aligned traditions to bridge divides within the bloc.
When nations shake off the chains of poverty and dependence, sovereignty comes strutting in like a long-lost cousin at a family reunion—bold, overdue, and unapologetic. After all, a full belly doesn’t just dream of food; it craves freedom, pride, and a seat at the big table. The global landscape in which BRICS operates is undergoing profound changes. The rise of new powers, the intensification of great power competition, and the growing importance of transnational challenges such as climate change and digital governance have created both opportunities and challenges for the bloc.
BRICS has sought to expand its influence by engaging with other emerging economies and forming partnerships with regional organisations. Initiatives like the BRICS Outreach and Plus formats aim to build a broader coalition for global reform. Global conflicts, such as the Russia-Ukraine war, have tested BRICS’ ability to navigate complex geopolitical landscapes. While these conflicts expose internal divisions, they also highlight the bloc’s potential as a platform for dialogue and diplomacy.The COVID-19 pandemic and the digital revolution have underscored the need for BRICS to adapt to new challenges. Collaborative efforts in vaccine production, digital innovation, and sustainable development demonstrate the bloc’s capacity for collective action.
Balancing Act and Future Prospects
Despite these moments of discord, BRICS leaders have generally managed to maintain a facade of unity through institutional frameworks and shared economic interests. The establishment of the New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement demonstrates their ability to cooperate on concrete initiatives despite personal and political differences.
However, these awkward encounters and diplomatic missteps suggest that BRICS’ internal cohesion remains fragile. As the bloc continues to evolve and potentially expand, managing these personal dynamics and national differences while maintaining collective effectiveness will remain a crucial challenge for its future development. Initially envisioned as an economic bloc in 2001, BRICS emerged as a symbol of the shifting global economic centre from the West to the Global South. The addition of South Africa in 2010 expanded the group’s geopolitical significance, integrating Africa into its ambit. Over time, BRICS has evolved beyond its economic roots, taking on a political role by advocating for a multipolar world order, reforming global institutions such as the United Nations and International Monetary Fund, and countering Western hegemony.
Shared experiences of marginalisation in global governance structures have driven this evolution. BRICS countries have often been excluded from key decision-making processes, prompting them to push for greater representation and influence. However, as the bloc has sought to assert itself as a unified voice for the Global South, internal differences have frequently complicated its trajectory. In a bold display of diplomatic assertiveness, India stood firm against US pressure to cut oil imports from Iran. When Nikki Haley, then-US Ambassador to the UN, attempted to dictate India’s energy policy, New Delhi’s response was unequivocal. India made it crystal clear that external demands would not compromise its national interests. The strategic resilience showcased by Indian diplomats sent a powerful message: India chooses its path. With India’s unwavering stance, the United States was forced to moderate its tone, recognising that emerging powers like India would not be bullied into submission. This moment epitomised India’s growing confidence on the global stage.
Building on India’s diplomatic assertiveness, Trump’s trade war against China inadvertently catalysed a profound transformation within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The result was not a weakening but a reinforced commitment to their developmental paths, largely independent of Western prescriptions. This strategic recalibration was most evident in the CCP’s dramatic crackdown on tech billionaires, symbolising the party’s determination to reassert control over economic elites. By curtailing the autonomy of tech moguls like Jack Ma, the CCP sent a clear message: national interest supersedes individual corporate ambitions.
The episode underscored a critical geopolitical dynamic in the Global South: the continuous process of nation-building. Unlike established Western democracies, emerging powers must actively cultivate national identity and loyalty. For countries in BRICS and beyond, this means constantly negotiating between diverse internal constituencies and projecting a unified national narrative. What’s happening here is more significant than just economic growth—it’s about rethinking how countries in the Global South interact with the world. And that’s where Karl Polanyi, the economist, really gets it. He had this idea that might sound simple but is profound: “It’s not just about the money, honey.”
He meant that capitalism isn’t something you can study in a vacuum, like analysing a fish, but ignoring the water it swims in. To truly understand capitalism, you need to look at the whole picture—the state, society, and all those quirky little details, like the plastic castle in the corner of the fish tank. And at its core, this became the game of “us versus them.” Communities weren’t just asking for a fair share of resources—they wanted their share and didn’t want anyone else getting in on the action. It’s like setting up a VIP list at a club where everyone used to dance together, but now only a select few are allowed in.
While the West has been busy forecasting the downfall of BRICS economies, these nations were quietly building shopping malls and expanding their middle class faster than anyone could have imagined. Sure, poverty didn’t disappear overnight, but try telling today’s BRICS teens that their grandparents would have considered a bicycle a luxury. They’d probably pause their Instagram scroll long enough to reply, “Got it, thanks for the history lesson.” Despite some of the most palpable differences, BRICS countries are united by a shared vision of a more equitable global order. Three core principles underpin their cooperation. First is multipolarity; the bloc champions a multipolar world where power is distributed more equitably among nations. This vision challenges the unipolar dominance of the United States and the West, advocating for a system that reflects the diversity of global perspectives. Second is Sovereignty, as the bloc emphasises the importance of national sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs. This principle resonates strongly with BRICS members, who have often been subjected to Western criticism or intervention in their internal matters. The third is Global Governance Reform, a cornerstone of the BRICS agenda. The bloc has called for greater representation of developing countries in bodies like the United Nations Security Council and the International Monetary Fund. Initiatives such as the New Development Bank (NDB) exemplify BRICS’ commitment to creating alternatives to Western-dominated institutions. Nevertheless, BRICS has demonstrated remarkable resilience and adaptability, underscoring the importance of diplomacy and strategic alignment in navigating its complex internal landscape.
The Art of Collective Evolution
As BRICS charts its course in the evolving global landscape, the alliance stands at a critical juncture, balancing remarkable potential with complex challenges. The bloc’s future hinges on its ability to transform internal diversity into collective strength, navigating a path that demands nuanced diplomacy, strategic vision, and a commitment to reimagining global cooperation.
The core imperative is to transform their differences into a collective advantage. This means managing internal tensions and actively turning them into a source of dynamism. Strengthening cohesion isn’t about creating uniformity but building a resilient framework that can accommodate diverse national interests while maintaining a unified strategic vision. The expansion of membership must be carefully curated—not as a numbers game but as a strategic integration of economies and perspectives that genuinely align with the bloc’s core principles.
The global governance landscape offers BRICS a unique opportunity to reshape international institutions. The alliance can challenge the existing Western-centric models by advocating for reforms that reflect the economic and political realities of the 21st century. This isn’t about creating rival institutions but about making global platforms more representative and responsive to the needs of emerging economies.
The global power landscape is shifting, and the BRICS nations are the architects of this transformation. While they share a fundamental goal of reshaping the international order, each country brings its unique vision. China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, India’s fierce pursuit of strategic autonomy, and Brazil’s regional leadership aspirations aren’t just policies but statements of intent.
When India’s foreign minister, S. Jaishankar, bluntly told a conference moderator, “Europe must get out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems,” it was more than a diplomatic rebuke. It was a mic-drop moment that exposed the long-simmering frustrations of the Global South. What had been whispered in diplomatic corridors was now boldly proclaimed on international platforms.
The internal dynamics of BRICS are beautifully complex—like a high-stakes family reunion where everyone has a different agenda but a shared underlying mission. Imagine coordinating a group selfie where each participant pulls in a slightly different direction. There are tensions, historical baggage, and competing national interests. Yet beneath the surface, there’s a profound, unifying desire to break free from outdated global paradigms.
This isn’t about creating a perfect, harmonious alternative to Western-dominated institutions. It’s about finding a new rhythm, a more inclusive global conversation. The BRICS nations are essentially saying: We’re rewriting the rules, not to antagonise, but to create a more balanced world order. The group isn’t seeking to destroy existing structures but to expand them to make them more representative. It’s a delicate, sometimes messy process of negotiation, but one driven by a collective vision of a more equitable global system. Despite its aspirations, BRICS remains a work in progress. Its vision of a multipolar world order is compelling but hindered by internal divisions and external constraints.
For now, it serves as a reminder of the evolving contest between established and emerging powers, where ambitions often outpace achievements. As one can sum up, “The West’s thundering monologue in global affairs has inadvertently become the most effective recruitment tool for blocs like BRICS. Every dismissive Western decree, every unilateral action, adds another brick to the foundation of alternative alliances. It’s perhaps history’s greatest irony – the harder the established order tries to maintain its exclusive orchestra, the more compelling the call for a new global concert.”
Author Brief Bio: Mr. Anurag Punetha is Controller (Media Center), Indira Gandhi National Center for Arts, New Delhi.
