The 18th summit in New Delhi represented more than just an annual diplomatic meeting. It reflects the growing demand from emerging economic powers to play a greater role in shaping the rules of the international system. At the same time, the summit highlighted the contradictions within a group that encompasses strategic rivals, energy exporters and importers, and both democracies and authoritarian regimes, while also underscoring the complexity of relations between nations positioned on opposing sides of contemporary international conflicts.

BRICS comprises 11 member states: the five founding members—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa; the four nations that joined in 2024—Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates; Indonesia, admitted in 2025; and Saudi Arabia, although the latter's formal status remains unclear in international reporting. Alongside full members, a circle of ten partner countries has been established—Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam—giving the group an even broader reach across Eurasia, Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. This expansion has transformed BRICS into a grouping representing approximately 48.5% of the global population, compared to less than 10% for the G7. In terms of purchasing power, BRICS nations account for about 40.7% of global GDP, versus 28.4% for the G7; however, in nominal terms, the G7 retains the lead with around $54.5 trillion, compared to nearly $32 trillion for BRICS. The gap has also narrowed in the trade of goods, with BRICS accounting for roughly one-quarter of global exports, while the G7 maintains a slight edge. The picture is more complex regarding technology: the G7—and the United States in particular—continues to dominate private investment and the most advanced artificial intelligence models; yet China, the technological engine of BRICS, leads the world in patent applications and scientific publications on artificial intelligence, aiming to close the qualitative gap.

India’s task at the BRICS summit on September 12–13 was to demonstrate that the bloc is still capable of reaching common positions and fostering concrete forms of cooperation—precisely at a time when expansion threatens to dilute its original purpose. The official theme of the summit was "Building resilience through innovation, cooperation, and sustainable development," and it was deliberately focused on development rather than ideological clashes. The unanimous adoption of the New Delhi Declaration on the very first day marked a significant diplomatic success for India. Consensus was by no means guaranteed. The escalating conflict in the Middle East had created sharp friction between Iran and the United Arab Emirates, while the war in Ukraine, relations with the United States, and divergent national interests continue to create different blocs within BRICS.

However, the declaration itself also reveals the fundamental nature of BRICS: a space where, on the one hand, dissatisfaction with the existing international order is voiced, yet on the other, there is great caution when it comes to defining a shared alternative. Its strength stems from the political, economic, and demographic weight of its member countries, whereas its weakness lies in the difficulty of translating that weight into coordinated action.

REFORM, NOT ABANDONMENT

The clearest takeaway from the New Delhi Summit was the reform of global governance. BRICS leaders called for a more representative international system and a comprehensive reform of the United Nations, including the Security Council. China and Russia reiterated their support for India and Brazil's aspirations for a greater role within the UN, while the declaration also acknowledged Africa's long-standing demands for stronger representation.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi described the existing order as a pyramid where decision-making remains concentrated at the top, while the nations most affected by those decisions have limited influence. In his view, Security Council reform must be accompanied by broader changes, including the reform of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

This agenda should not be interpreted simply as a rejection of multilateralism. BRICS seeks more multilateralism, but a form of multilateralism less defined by the institutions and power dynamics established after World War II.

It could be said that BRICS (at least openly) does not propose abandoning the existing international system, but rather rebalancing it.

THE SUMMIT: ECONOMICS OVER IDEOLOGY

India also sought to steer the summit toward concrete economic issues. The declaration envisages stronger cooperation in trade, economic development financing, food and energy security, artificial intelligence, and digital public infrastructure. Calls are being made for more resilient supply chains, alongside criticism of unilateral tariffs, sanctions, and other coercive economic measures that member states deem incompatible with international law. Despite persistent speculation and hopes to the contrary, BRICS did not announce the creation of a common currency. Indian officials clarified that no such proposal is currently under consideration. The more realistic objective is to foster trade and investment in national currencies and to gradually enhance interoperability between cross-border payment systems.

India has also proposed potentially linking central bank digital currencies for cross-border payments. In theory, such a mechanism could reduce transaction costs and reliance on existing financial channels. In practice, however, significant political, regulatory, and technical hurdles remain, while the use of official digital currencies is still limited. This distinction is not merely technical; BRICS is not on the verge of replacing the dollar with a new currency. Its approach is more gradual and less dramatic, aiming to establish additional payment channels that allow member states to trade using their own currencies. For Russia and Iran, this would offer a safeguard against Western sanctions. For India and other members, it would bring diversification without requiring a complete break from the dollar-based financial system.

The New Development Bank remains the group's most concrete institutional achievement. According to its data, it has approved approximately $42.9 billion in financing for 139 projects. The New Delhi Declaration calls on the bank to expand financing in local currencies and strengthen its role in sustainable infrastructure and long-term development.

However, the gap between BRICS' ambitions and its institutional capacity remains significant. The New Development Bank is important, yet its scale remains modest compared to the World Bank and the financial needs of developing nations. The true test will not be the number of commitments listed in the declaration, but the member states' willingness to provide the resources needed to turn them into actual projects.

CONSENSUS IN THE SHADOW OF WAR

The joint declaration expressed "deep concern" regarding the escalating conflict in the Middle East and involving Iran; it called for "maximum restraint" and emphasized dialogue, consultation, and diplomacy. It is fair to say that the declaration did not directly assign responsibility to any specific state. This measured wording made unanimity possible to a certain extent, yet it simultaneously revealed the limits of BRICS diplomacy.

This does not mean the agreement lacked significance. At a time when diplomatic forums often merely mirror geopolitical divisions, having Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Russia, China, India, and other states align behind the same declaration carries political weight. However, agreement on certain general principles should not be confused with a shared foreign policy or the creation of a BRICS peace mechanism. The same caution applies to the issue of Ukraine. India continues to insist on dialogue and diplomacy, with Modi reiterating the need to end the conflict during talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Yet, BRICS remains unable to formulate a detailed collective stance, as its members differ profoundly in their relationships with Moscow and the West.

INDIA BETWEEN CHINA AND RUSSIA

Some of the summit's most significant diplomacy took place outside the official sessions. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit was his first to India in seven years. This visit offered an opportunity to stabilize relations between Asia’s two major powers. In their bilateral meeting, Modi and Xi agreed that differences should not escalate into unmanageable disputes and expressed support for a fair, mutually acceptable resolution to the border issue. They also discussed structural trade imbalances, supply chain uncertainties, and the need for more predictable market access. These statements do not yet amount to a strategic reset of relations. Nevertheless, the meeting illustrates why the group matters, even when its statements do not yield immediate changes.

India’s relations with Russia reflect a similar careful balance. Modi and Putin discussed energy, trade, and Ukraine, with India reiterating the importance of dialogue and maritime trade security. New Delhi seeks to maintain historic ties with Moscow without allowing those relationships to limit its options elsewhere.

A LARGER COALITION

The expansion of BRICS has increased the group's geographic reach and international visibility, while simultaneously making it more difficult to manage. Member nations agree that the Global South deserves a stronger voice, though not necessarily changing the shape of the new order. Some view BRICS primarily as an instrument to curb Western influence, while others see it as a negotiating platform for reforming existing institutions. India largely aligns with the latter approach. Its emphasis on technology, development finance, food security, energy sustainability, and institutional reform aims to give BRICS a practical identity that does not rely solely on opposition to the West. This approach makes the grouping more attractive to states seeking greater autonomy but wishing to avoid being forced to choose between rival geopolitical camps.

This may well be where the most significant role of BRICS lies. It need not transform into a unified alliance to influence international politics. By coordinating demands for UN reform, greater representation in financial institutions, and increased policy-making space for developing nations, the group can shift the very terms of the global debate. Its existence reflects a world where power is dispersing across multiple centers and where Western states can no longer expect their priorities to automatically dictate the international agenda.

*Academician Prof. Dr Anastas Angjeli is economy expert, former SP MP and Economy Minister, founder and president of the Mediterranean University of Albania