Observers say India seeks to redefine leadership through strategic autonomy and interest-driven diplomacy rather than aligning with any single power bloc
BRICS was conceived not merely as an economic grouping, but as a political assertion that the Global South deserved a more democratic, multipolar, and equitable world order free from domination by any single power bloc.
For many countries in the Global South, BRICS represented more than economic coordination. It symbolised the possibility of a world less dominated by Western military alliances, financial institutions, and geopolitical double standards. India, with its long history of anti-colonial struggle and leadership in the Non-Aligned Movement, was expected to play a central moral and political role within that vision.
India’s status within BRICS is now under increasing scrutiny, with the country facing significant diplomatic friction because of its balancing act between its strategic partnership with the US-Israel axis and its obligations within the 11-member bloc. While India holds the rotating BRICS chair for 2026 and continues to drive initiatives on digital currencies, trade, and economic cooperation, what critics describe as its increasingly pro-Israel posture has generated tensions within the grouping.
India’s balancing act became diplomatically costly during the April 2026 BRICS consultations in New Delhi, where disagreements over Gaza, Lebanon, and Palestine exposed deep fractures within the bloc.
The diplomatic rupture became visible during the April 2026 BRICS Deputy Foreign Ministers and Special Envoys meeting in New Delhi. India, chairing the bloc for 2026, reportedly attempted to dilute language condemning Israeli actions in Gaza and Lebanon and sought removal of references to East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state — positions that departed from formulations adopted at the Kazan (2024) and Brasilia (2025) summits.
The proposals met strong resistance from Russia, China, Iran, Egypt, and several other members, resulting in the rare failure to issue a joint communiqué. Instead, India released only a Chair’s Statement, exposing deepening fractures within BRICS over West Asia and India’s evolving geopolitical posture.
According to reports in The Hindu, extended late-night parleys and heated debates marked the New Delhi meeting. Officials from India’s Ministry of External Affairs reportedly attempted to replace direct references to Israel in criticisms of military operations in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon with the phrase “occupying power,” while also seeking the removal of references to East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.
The move surprised several member states because India had previously endorsed stronger language on Palestine in other multilateral forums. Analysts interpreted the episode as evidence of India’s growing strategic proximity to Israel and the West, raising concerns about whether New Delhi was drifting away from the traditional anti-colonial and non-aligned principles that once defined its international identity.
The impasse was further complicated by tensions between Iran and the United Arab Emirates over the wider Middle East crisis. While India continues to formally support a two-state solution, its recent diplomatic conduct has been viewed by many within BRICS as prioritising US-Israeli strategic sensitivities over the collective political mood of the Global South.
India argues that it is playing a constructive balancing role by advocating dialogue and diplomacy. Yet its refusal to endorse the stronger anti-Western language preferred by several BRICS members has created what many now see as a tightening diplomatic tightrope.
Despite these tensions, India continues to chair critical BRICS meetings in 2026 while attempting to focus on economic, technological, and digital infrastructure cooperation. However, critics increasingly argue that India is becoming excessively aligned with Israeli and Western strategic interests, thereby weakening perceptions of its strategic independence.
In summary, although India remains a core BRICS member, its ability to function as a cohesive political leader within the bloc is being tested by its simultaneous proximity to the US-Israel axis and the sharply opposing positions of key BRICS states such as Iran, Russia, and China.
A month later, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi played a prominent and confrontational role at the opening of the BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting on May 14. Arriving amid escalating regional tensions, Araghchi transformed the platform into a rallying point against US and Israeli policies in the Middle East.
He accused Washington and Tel Aviv of “illegal aggression” against Iran and called upon BRICS nations to condemn such actions collectively. Urging the bloc to resist what he described as “US bullying” and coercive global practices, Araghchi declared that such policies must be pushed “into the dustbin of history.”
Although initially avoiding direct criticism of regional neighbours in the interest of unity, he later accused the UAE of facilitating attacks against Iran. Araghchi also arrived in India aboard a plane displaying the phrase “Minab168,” referencing a school attack in Iran that Tehran attributes to a US strike — a symbolic gesture underscoring the political intensity of the visit.
He used the BRICS platform, and specifically India’s presidency, to push for a stronger collective diplomatic response against Western military actions. Defending Iran’s position in the Strait of Hormuz, Araghchi maintained that Tehran would defend itself while remaining open to diplomacy. His intervention exposed the widening ideological and geopolitical divisions within the expanded BRICS bloc.
In an unfortunate departure from its earlier image of solidarity with anti-colonial struggles and the Global South, India is now navigating a difficult dual-track strategy: pursuing global leadership while simultaneously attempting to preserve strategic relationships with competing geopolitical camps.
The current consensus among many observers is that India seeks to redefine leadership through strategic autonomy and pragmatic, interest-driven diplomacy rather than alignment with any single power bloc. India’s supporters argue that this flexibility allows New Delhi to function as a crucial “neutral pole” capable of engaging both the West and the Russia-China axis in an increasingly polarised world.
India’s advocates also point to its projected contribution to global economic growth, its push for digital public infrastructure, and its emphasis on development-oriented global governance reforms. Through forums such as the G20 and BRICS, India has sought to amplify concerns of the Global South on debt restructuring, climate finance, and technological inclusion.
Yet these arguments are increasingly failing to convince important sections within BRICS. Many perceive India as attempting to operate on both sides of a growing geopolitical divide — a form of political opportunism that risks leaving it trusted by neither camp fully.
The United States and European powers continue to press India to move beyond strategic ambiguity toward clearer alignment, particularly regarding Russia and China. Simultaneously, India faces the long-term challenge of managing competition with China while maintaining stability in the Indo-Pacific through frameworks such as the Quad.
India’s foreign policy is therefore increasingly characterised by balancing rather than leading. It seeks to act as a “Vishwa Bandhu” — a friend of the world — presenting itself as a bridge between the Global North and the Global South rather than as part of a confrontational anti-Western bloc.
But India would do well to remember that strategic autonomy without moral consistency eventually risks becoming indistinguishable from opportunism.
India now stands at a defining diplomatic crossroads. It cannot indefinitely speak the language of the Global South while simultaneously shielding the geopolitical priorities of Washington and Tel Aviv. Strategic autonomy loses credibility when it appears selective, hesitant, or morally inconsistent.
For decades, India earned international respect through principled non-alignment, anti-colonial solidarity, and support for Palestinian self-determination. That legacy gave India moral stature far beyond its economic weight. But moral capital, once diluted, is difficult to recover.
India’s dilemma reflects a wider crisis confronting emerging powers in an increasingly polarised world order: whether strategic flexibility can coexist indefinitely with ethical ambiguity. Balancing interests may produce short-term diplomatic room, but over time, nations are also judged by consistency, reliability, and the principles they appear willing to defend.
BRICS does not merely test India’s diplomatic skill; it tests its political authenticity. A nation seeking leadership in a multipolar world cannot continue operating a see-saw foreign policy that attempts to satisfy opposing camps without eventually losing the trust of both.
The concern is not merely about policy differences, but about the erosion of trust in India’s political consistency.
————–
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
