Economic slowdown in the West, the widespread impact of Covid and the outbreak of conflict in Europe, West Asia and South China Sea accentuated the divide between the West and Russia-China. The contest between the two led to narratives from the West that BRICS was anti-West, while BRICS members responded that it was non-West. Bilateral tensions played a role, G7 was seen as representing the West, BRICS representing the Global South and G20 had elements of both.

However, BRICS founding members were middle powers with economic and strategic potential. They sought to work in partnership with the West and the Global South to achieve their objectives, but could not be bound in alliance formations. At Kazan, BRICS leaders, many of them close partners of the West, pointed out that BRICS sought partnerships and desired good relations with all countries and was not directed against anyone.

The thrust of the BRICS agenda, since early days, was economic development through intra-BRICS cooperation as well as collaboration with multilateral development banks. It expanded to various sectors of the economy, explored projects for cooperation and negotiated action plans. BRICS countries experienced rapid economic growth with tangible benefits to citizens. In fact, BRICS overtook G7 in terms of GDP, economic growth rate, access to critical materials and population.

BRICS members created new instruments and institutions when the global system did not respond adequately to their aspirations. The new instruments, including the Contingency Reserve Arrangement or the New Development Bank, were not alternatives to MDBs, but rather to supplement their efforts.

At Kazan, there was priority on intra BRICS engagement in different economic fields. The expansion of membership gave the group greater heft. Besides, BRICS could engage other members of the Global South.

The Russian presidency promoted the decade-old understanding on trade in local currency and new mechanisms of financial settlement. While this was, in part, a response to sanctions imposed on certain BRICS countries, its broader objective was to achieve flexibility in the exchange of goods and services, new access in BRICS markets and efficiency in financial transactions. There were suggestions for a BRICS currency or a digital currency, but they were premature and would require deeper integration of the diverse economic situations and institutional frameworks. Admittedly, some new trade would be conducted in local currencies, but the dominant presence of the US dollar seems unlikely to be shaken by these measures.

Multilateral institutions such as the UN, WTO and WHO and Bretton Woods structures such as the World Bank and IMF that hold the key to global governance are unable to respond to contemporary challenges on development and security. There is an urgent need for reform, but consensus is lacking and multilateralism is in a coma. Even within BRICS, a founding member has not been helpful, particularly with regard to the reform of UNSC.

At Kazan, leaders had wide-ranging discussions on regional and global issues that were reflected in the Declaration. On the key issue of UN and UNSC reform, it is welcome that the expanded BRICS+ continued with the Johannesburg understanding, even though reference to specific countries and concrete measures for reform could not be agreed upon. On terrorism and its financing, there was an urgent call for closer coordination to fight the menace. Admittedly, reform of global governance can only take place within the multilateral system but groupings such as BRICS, G7, G20 can play a role. Consensus on geopolitical issues could be challenging and the expansion of members may bring more complex situations.

BRICS does not have a secretariat, it depends on the participation of members and the presidency. A cornerstone of the group’s decision making has been its consensus-based approach towards agenda, plan of action and membership.

BRICS’ success became a magnet for other countries. Besides, emerging countries desire more space. The recent inclusion of Egypt, Ethiopia, UAE, Iran and Saudi Arabia was on the basis of agreed criteria. Their participation enriched the cooperation agenda and expanded regional reach. At Kazan, there was agreement on the guidelines for the admission of a new tier of partner countries. With varying economic levels and political structures, an expanded BRICS will need strong commitment to its ethos.

At Kazan, PM Modi highlighted the importance of citizen-centric development, diplomatic initiatives for security challenges, fight against terrorism and urgent reforms in global governance. BRICS could remain open to new members or partners that subscribed to the BRICS ethos, its consensus-based approach and contributed to BRICS’ and global growth.

As a founding member of BRICS, the fifth-largest economy and the fastest growing major economy, India plays a unique role within it. It has not only shaped its agenda and priorities but has been instrumental in being the bridge between Global South, BRICS, G7 Outreach and G20.

The writer is former Sherpa to BRICS during India’s Presidency and Professor of Diplomatic Practice at Jindal Global University