India’s BRICS presidency is being celebrated in New Delhi as a diplomatic success. The reality is far less impressive.For all the speeches, photo opportunities and declarations, India’s year at the helm of BRICS produced remarkably few tangible outcomes.
The summit generated headlines, but not breakthroughs. There were discussions, proposals, committees and future plans, yet little that fundamentally altered the trajectory of the bloc.
The problem is not that India lacked visibility. It had plenty of that. The problem is that visibility is not leadership.
India currently holds the BRICS presidency, while China will take over in 2027. New Delhi deserves congratulations for its turn in the rotating chair. But a presidency awarded by rotation is not proof of leadership. Holding the microphone does not mean everyone is listening, let alone following.
This became particularly clear on the issue of financial cooperation, one of the most important areas on the BRICS agenda. Brazil has championed the idea of a common currency. Russia wants to reduce dependence on Western financial systems. China is pushing for deeper financial integration. India, meanwhile, prefers limited cooperation through local-currency trade within existing frameworks.
The result is a bloc moving in different directions at the same time.
How does a group achieve financial integration when its members cannot even agree on what financial integration should look like?
According to Reuters, India’s reluctance to deepen financial links with China remains one of the obstacles to more ambitious cooperation. This exposes a fundamental contradiction at the heart of New Delhi’s BRICS strategy. India wants BRICS to become stronger, but it remains uncomfortable with the influence of the very country driving many of the bloc’s most ambitious initiatives.
In effect, India wants the benefits of a stronger BRICS without accepting the realities of a more integrated BRICS.
Ironically, China arrived at the summit with some of the most ambitious ideas on artificial intelligence, supply chains, economic zones and economic integration. Whether one agrees with Beijing’s vision or not, at least China appears to have a vision.
India, despite constant rhetoric about leading the Global South, still seems uncertain about what it actually wants BRICS to become.
That uncertainty was visible throughout the presidency. Modi’s diplomacy generated attention and media coverage, but it failed to produce major institutional gains for India or for the bloc itself. The summit was rich in symbolism but poor in outcomes.
Supportive language on United Nations Security Council reform was once again included in BRICS documents. New Delhi celebrated it as a diplomatic achievement. But supportive language has been appearing in statements for years. What is missing is a roadmap, a mechanism or any sign of actual movement.
A repetition of old promises is not progress.
The same applies to claims that India successfully united diverse BRICS members behind a common declaration. Reaching consensus on a carefully negotiated document is standard diplomatic practice. It does not mean competing interests have disappeared.
Iran and the United Arab Emirates may have endorsed the same declaration, but that does not mean their geopolitical rivalries suddenly vanished. A joint communiqué is not a peace treaty.
The larger issue is that India’s claims of leadership continue to run ahead of its actual influence within BRICS.
New Delhi wants to maintain close relations with the West while simultaneously presenting itself as a leading force in a bloc increasingly viewed as an alternative centre of global power. That balancing act is becoming harder to sustain. Eventually, strategic ambiguity reaches its limits.
Perhaps the most revealing observation comes from Modi himself. The Indian prime minister has repeatedly argued that the world needs “concrete results” rather than promises and ideas.
He is right.
The problem is that the same standard applies to India’s presidency.
Measured against outcomes rather than optics, India’s BRICS year looks underwhelming. The bloc remains plagued by weak economic integration, unresolved questions about expansion, limited financial coordination and an underperforming New Development Bank.
What emerged from India’s presidency was not a stronger BRICS, but another collection of aspirations awaiting implementation.
The distinction between holding the chair and exercising leadership matters.
Presidencies are awarded by rotation. Leadership is earned through results.
India got the chair. The leadership remains unproven.
