The 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi marks an important milestone in the evolution of the bloc, which has changed significantly since Brazil, Russia, India and China first politically materialised the concept. Following South Africa's subsequent accession and recent expansion to include countries from Africa, the Middle East and Asia, BRICS has become a far more representative grouping for the developing world and reflects shifting economic and political power dynamics.
The significance of the New Delhi Declaration lies not only in the number of participating countries but also in what the expanded bloc now represents. Today, BRICS brings together major producers, consumers, energy suppliers, agricultural economies, industrial hubs, technological powers, as well as some of the world's fastest-growing markets.
Member and partner countries collectively represent nearly half of humanity and approximately 40 per cent of global economic output by purchasing power parity. The 2026 Summit, attended by BRICS members, partner states and international organisations, demonstrated the growing reach of this platform.
The Indian presidency places special emphasis on resilience, innovation, cooperation and sustainability. These themes are critical because the world is entering a period where economic interdependence is increasingly accompanied by strategic competition, trade fragmentation, technological rivalry, financial uncertainty and unresolved conflicts. The challenge for BRICS thus goes beyond merely expressing dissatisfaction with an international system that many developing countries consider insufficiently representative. A more difficult task lies in moving away from an outdated, inefficient and unbalanced system to help build practical alternatives and supplementary institutions capable of delivering better outcomes.
The New Delhi Declaration should therefore be understood as part of a continuing transition from BRICS – often described primarily as a grouping of emerging markets – towards a broader platform for economic cooperation, development financing, technology exchange, trade facilitation, institutional reforms, and potentially more structured forms of security cooperation over the longer term.
From Geopolitical Rivalry to Collective Responsibility
There is temptation to interpret BRICS through the traditional language of geopolitical rivalry, especially in light of tensions between Russia and NATO, the war in Ukraine, instability in the Middle East and ongoing competition for the future shape of the international system. Such an interpretation is understandable but risks overlooking a more fundamental question facing the organisation.
That question is whether BRICS can help shift international relations from what we might call "politics by politicians" – created by policymakers and for their own interests – towards people-centred global governance.
The meaning of international politics ultimately lies in its consequences for ordinary people. Economic diplomacy must translate into jobs and new opportunities. Trade agreements must create markets for producers. Infrastructure must connect communities and businesses. Financial reforms must make development financing accessible. Technology must expand human potential, not deepen exclusion. Security must protect both people and the systems on which their livelihoods depend.
In this sense, BRICS has an opportunity to give multilateralism practical meaning. Its greater contribution could lie in supporting a world where multiple centres of economic and political influence coexist alongside one another, cooperating while competing within a more balanced international system.
A more multipolar world should not simply replicate the policy of confrontation with another group of countries. Multipolarity gains true significance when it creates greater choice, broader representation, and more space for negotiation for countries and societies that have historically had limited influence on the rules of international finance, trade, technology, and development.
India's approach is particularly important in this regard. Its strategic autonomy, its relationships with the United States, Europe, Russia, China, and countries of the Global South, as well as its participation in BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BIMSTEC, IORA, and the G20, place New Delhi in a unique position that allows for communication across different centers of power.
From Summit Diplomacy to Economic Architecture
The most significant consequence of the summit in New Delhi may ultimately be more economic than political.
The BRICS Business Forum, which took place immediately before the leaders' summit, involved entrepreneurs, policymakers, and government officials in a broader discussion about BRICS. A new economic reality cannot be created solely through government declarations. Businesses must trade, investors must invest, banks must finance, entrepreneurs must innovate, and logistical networks must transport goods. It is about building an ecosystem that makes economic interaction fairer, more trustworthy, more transparent, more beneficial, and more humane, because markets are ultimately made by people. They are the developers, innovators, builders, and consumers of products, services, finances, currencies, logistics, and infrastructure.
This includes the New Development Bank, greater use of national currencies, more efficient cross-border payment mechanisms, financial technology, digital infrastructure, investment platforms, infrastructure development, connectivity, and mobilization of private capital. Financial discussions within BRICS also continue to emphasize more accessible, faster, and safer cross-border payments and wider use of local currencies.
The New Delhi Declaration is significant in that it does not attempt to force the immediate introduction of a common currency. Instead, it focuses on practical financial cooperation, including settlement in national currencies, interoperability of payment systems, and strengthening the ability of financial institutions to support cross-border trade.
The future of international finance will likely not be determined by a simple choice between the US dollar and a new BRICS currency. A much more important question is whether international trade will have more than one viable financial route.
If Brazilian exporters, Indian manufacturers, Chinese investors, African producers, Russian energy companies, Middle Eastern financial institutions, and businesses in Southeast Asia are able to settle an increasing proportion of their transactions through national currencies, interconnected payment systems, and other mechanisms, they can reduce costs and vulnerabilities associated with excessive reliance on a single financial channel.
This does not mean that the dollar should disappear anytime soon, nor that BRICS has created a replacement for the existing international monetary system. It means that a more diverse financial environment is emerging, in which countries have greater choice and a more practical and potentially resilient way of conducting international trade.
The New Development Bank and an Alternative Path to Development
Another important element of the emerging architecture is the New Development Bank. The NDB was established because developing economies have long recognized that their infrastructure and development needs cannot be adequately met solely through existing international financial institutions. Its goal is not to replace the World Bank or other multilateral development banks, but to offer an additional institutional source of financing and a different perspective on development.
Its importance could grow significantly in the future if it expands financing in local currencies, mobilizes private capital, and supports infrastructure projects and sustainable development in both BRICS countries and the wider global South.
The problem facing Africa is not a lack of natural resources, but a lack of infrastructure, processing capacity, access to finance, reliable energy sources, efficient transportation systems, technology, and access to markets, all of which are essential for transforming these resources into economic activity with higher added value.
A strategic question is whether BRICS can contribute to the transition from an Africa that primarily exports commodities to an Africa that increasingly participates in manufacturing, processing, technology, logistics, financial services, and knowledge-based industries. This would mean supporting the creation of added value directly in Africa, rather than simply facilitating the export of African raw materials. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and Agenda 2063 represent an important foundation for transforming continental market integration from an institutional ambition into a tangible commercial reality.
Fintech and the Digital Foundations of the New Economy
Finance is also changing because the financial infrastructure itself is changing.
Digital public infrastructure, fintech, artificial intelligence, digital identity, mobile payments, and increasingly sophisticated financial technologies are transforming the way citizens and businesses interact with banks, governments, and markets.
India has shown how much digital public infrastructure can support financial inclusion and economic participation. BRICS cooperation is increasingly focused on sharing experiences with digital systems and new technologies, whose impacts extend far beyond the banking sector.
A farmer who can receive digital payments, a small business gaining access to foreign markets, a manufacturer able to digitally track the movement of goods, a student participating in online education, or a patient using digital healthcare services – all are participants in a changing economic system.
The emerging BRICS agenda in areas such as artificial intelligence, fintech, digital public infrastructure, cybersecurity, and technology therefore raises a broader development question: who will have access to the technologies that will shape the economy of the future?
If access remains concentrated in the hands of the largest corporations and wealthiest countries, technological progress could further exacerbate existing inequalities and create conditions for its own failure. Greater accessibility through cooperation, investment, skills development, and knowledge sharing could enable technology to play a more significant role in development.
Economic and security issues are increasingly intertwined. Financial systems, telecommunications networks, data centers, ports, satellites, and digital public infrastructure are becoming critical national assets. Their resilience will therefore be an increasingly important part of not only economic but also national security.
Infrastructure and Logistics Will Determine Whether Ambitions Become Reality
Financial systems cannot function in isolation from the physical infrastructure.
Trade requires ports, roads, railways, airports, warehouses, energy networks, telecommunications, industrial zones, and reliable logistics. The ability to make a payment has limited value if the product cannot be efficiently transported from the manufacturer to the consumer.
Therefore, cooperation within BRICS could become increasingly important for infrastructure corridors, maritime connectivity, energy security, telecommunications, and industrial development. The goal is not only to build more infrastructure but also to create infrastructure that connects production with markets and enables communities and businesses to participate in regional and international value chains.
Protecting these systems will be equally important because they connect the economic, technological, and geopolitical dimensions of BRICS. Ports, energy facilities, railway networks, undersea cables, satellite systems, and digital payment infrastructure are vulnerable to disruption. Economic and security resilience are therefore becoming increasingly intertwined.
The question for the future is how deeper security cooperation might look as economic and strategic cooperation within BRICS continues to expand.
BRICS is not a military alliance in the style of NATO, and there is currently no reason to believe that it should become one. The diversity of political systems, strategic interests, and regional priorities among its members would make such a transformation complex and unnecessary.
Security cooperation does not necessarily mean creating a joint military command or committing to mutual defense.
The future security agenda for BRICS could develop in areas such as maritime security, counter-terrorism, organized crime, cybersecurity, protection of critical infrastructure, disaster response, humanitarian aid, peacekeeping operations, or securing vital trade and energy corridors.
Protecting an undersea cable, a major port, an energy facility, a digital payment network, a food supply chain, or a strategic transportation corridor can have significant implications for national security without involving conventional warfare.
Furthermore, the development of artificial intelligence, robotics, drones, satellites, and autonomous systems is blurring the lines between civilian and military technologies. Cooperation in these areas could therefore include both defense and civil applications, such as disaster management, search and rescue operations, environmental monitoring, reconstruction, or humanitarian operations.
This creates an opportunity for a broader concept of security in service of development.
For developing countries in particular, security is inseparable from economic stability. A society cannot prosper if its infrastructure is constantly threatened, trade routes are unsafe, digital systems are vulnerable, or conflicts repeatedly destroy its production capacity.
Defensive diplomacy could therefore become one of the most interesting areas of future BRICS cooperation, provided that it remains based on respect for sovereignty, international law, conflict prevention, and the protection of civilian life.
India's position is particularly important given its membership in the Quad group along with Australia, Japan, and the United States.
At first glance, these two relationships may seem contradictory. BRICS brings together India, China, and Russia, while the Quad provides a strategic framework for cooperation with the United States, Japan, and Australia. From the perspective of older logic of competing geopolitical blocs, it seems that India is caught between two different camps.
However, this may be precisely why India is so important for understanding the emerging international order.
India's approach can be better understood through the concepts of strategic autonomy and multilateral engagement. New Delhi demonstrates that it does not view international cooperation as a commitment to exclusive membership in a single geopolitical camp. It can cooperate with one group on maritime and regional security, with another on development financing, and yet another on trade, technology, or diplomacy, while maintaining its own national interests.
The Quad is also broader than a typical military alliance. Its cooperation includes maritime situational awareness, critical and emerging technologies, connectivity, resilient supply chains, disaster response, and regional stability. Therefore, its existence does not necessarily conflict with India's participation in BRICS. Rather, it illustrates the increasingly overlapping nature of international cooperation.
This could become a significant feature of the future international system.
Instead of asking whether BRICS and the Quad represent competing security architectures, it may be more useful to ask whether they represent different layers of an increasingly interconnected international environment.
Of course, there are areas of strategic competition and real differences between their members. These cannot simply be ignored. At the same time, there are common challenges that transcend geopolitical boundaries: maritime safety, terrorism, cyber threats, natural disasters, pandemics, climate-related emergencies, supply chain protection, and the resilience of critical infrastructure.
Therefore, there is a possibility of cooperation between different security networks without requiring their institutional merger.
India may be one of the countries best positioned to support such practical cooperation due to its relationships across these platforms. Its participation in BRICS, the Quad, G20, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, BIMSTEC, and IORA provides it with connections to several geographic and strategic areas.
This does not mean that India can or should mediate every dispute between these institutions. Nor does it mean that strategic competition will disappear. Its significance lies rather in demonstrating the possibility of maintaining multiple different relationships without each one having to be part of a single geopolitical arrangement.
For BRICS, this is an important conceptual distinction. Strategic autonomy does not necessarily mean strategic isolation. It can mean sufficient independence to allow cooperation with various centers of power while also preserving space for dialogue, collaboration, and de-escalation.
From State Security to Societal Security
This may be one of the more significant aspects of the broader debate about BRICS.
Traditional international relations typically understood security primarily through states, borders, and military capabilities. However, the emerging global environment requires a broader conception.
Food, energy, health, cyber, financial, maritime, and environmental security are interconnected. Disruptions in one system can quickly affect others.
A large-scale cyberattack can disrupt financial transactions. A conflict can disrupt energy supplies. A blocked shipping route can increase food prices. Droughts can create migration pressures. Pandemics can destabilize supply chains. Financial crises can undermine political stability.
Therefore, a comprehensive approach to security must recognize these interconnections. Military capabilities are placed within a broader framework of national and human resilience.
At the same time, it opens up potential space for cooperation between military, civilian, and humanitarian institutions. Defense capabilities can support disaster relief, search and rescue operations, reconstruction, medical response, communication, and the protection of humanitarian corridors. Technologies developed for defense can find civilian applications, while civil technological infrastructure is gaining increasing strategic importance. It is here that the concept of defensive diplomacy becomes more important.
Such an approach could offer BRICS another way in which security can contribute to stability, rather than simply reflecting confrontation.
The Emerging BRICS Ecosystem
The individual areas of cooperation together point to the emergence of a BRICS ecosystem that is much broader than the original concept. It includes political and diplomatic cooperation, development financing, and effective connections between its various parts. The future of BRICS will be determined by how these different elements begin to reinforce each other.
A New Economic Order Does Not Have to Mean a New Economic Wall
With growing influence comes responsibility. BRICS should resist the temptation to become just another closed geopolitical bloc. A world divided into competing economic fortresses may not be more stable or prosperous than the system that BRICS is trying to reform. The goal should be diversification without isolation.
The opportunity that BRICS represents ultimately concerns entrepreneurs, investors, manufacturers, farmers, technology companies, carriers, financial institutions, universities, and ordinary consumers. The success of economic diplomacy should be visible in the expansion of opportunities.
People Must Remain at the Center
International relations and diplomacy ultimately exist to create conditions in which people can live with greater security, dignity, and opportunity.
That is why the Delhi Declaration has significance beyond the formal language of the summit. It reflects a BRICS that is moving from the symbolism of an alternative voice to a much more demanding responsibility: helping to create functional mechanisms for a changing world.
India's position shows possible paths. Its involvement in both BRICS and the Quad demonstrates that international cooperation does not necessarily have to be organized around exclusive blocs. It suggests that countries can maintain different strategic relationships while also seeking areas where practical cooperation is possible.
This could prove to be one of the defining characteristics of the emerging multipolar order – a world of overlapping networks, in which countries cooperate in various ways depending on the specific problem they face.
BRICS could become one important economic and political network, the Quad another, and SCO, BIMSTEC, or IORA others. Their memberships may overlap, their interests may intersect, and in some areas they may also compete. The possibility of dialogue between these networks may be just as important as the competition between them.
The central question arising from the Delhi summit is whether BRICS can help to reshape the existing international system.
If so, BRICS will move beyond simply reflecting a shifting balance of power and become one of the institutions that will help shape what comes next.
Kirtan Bhana,
The Diplomatic Society/gnews.cz