It’s India’s turn at the helm of BRICS this year and its position in the bloc — once seen as a counterweight to Western-dominated alliances and a US-led international order — couldn’t be more incongruous. As New Delhi prepares to host the 18th BRICS summit in September this year, India finds itself presiding over a divided grouping while becoming increasingly isolated within it.

The BRICS grouping was already beset with contradictions but the ongoing Iran war seems to have split it wide open. Once projected as a platform for coordinated political assertion, for its commitment to multipolarity, it now appears incapable of even issuing a joint statement on a major geopolitical crisis involving one of its own members.

The BRICS MENA meeting, of deputy foreign ministers and special envoys of West Asia and North Africa, in New Delhi on 23–24 April, ended without consensus, forcing New Delhi to fall back on issuing a ‘chair’s summary’ rather than a collective declaration. That distinction is not procedural; it’s political — you get a chair’s summary when you lack consensus.

The divisions in the group are structural. Iran, now a BRICS member, expected solidarity from the bloc in the face of military confrontation. Yet other members, particularly the UAE, which has since withdrawn from OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), resisted the use of strong language against the US and Israel. China and Russia leant towards Tehran. India equivocated with vague expressions of concern.

This paralysis has left BRICS unable to take a stand even when a member state has been attacked, when its leaders have been assassinated. Draft statements have failed and negotiations have stalled.

India’s role in this deadlock has been revealing. As chair, it was expected to provide direction but has instead chosen ambiguity. India’s reluctance to take a firm stand reveals the contradictions in the Modi government’s foreign policy.

In pursuing what its external affairs minister S. Jaishankar describes as ‘strategic autonomy’, India has developed trade, defence and strategic partnerships with the US and Israel, economic and energy ties with the Gulf, and cultural and diplomatic cooperation with Iran. With the war forcing a show of hands, India has tried to hedge to avoid alienating anyone.

But within BRICS, a grouping that increasingly defines itself through a critique of US dominance, that ambiguity comes at a cost. India’s refusal to take a position on a conflict involving BRICS bête noire US and a BRICS member is seen not as prudence but a lack of commitment. Iran has openly expressed its expectation that India, as BRICS chair, will mobilise the bloc in its favour, but New Delhi’s interests are too deeply embedded in the US–Israel alliance to hazard such a stance.

At the same time, China’s influence within the grouping continues to expand. The enlargement of BRICS, often presented as a sign of its growing global appeal, has in fact strengthened Beijing’s centrality. Many of the newer members share closer strategic alignment with China than with India. The balance within BRICS has shifted decisively. India is no longer a co-equal pillar. It has become a dispensable player in a structure increasingly shaped by China.

This shift has made India’s position more uncomfortable. Its strained bilateral relations with China, marked by unresolved border conflicts and strategic rivalry, limits the possibility of meaningful cooperation within BRICS.

India’s position is further complicated by Trump’s warnings of imposing punitive tariffs on countries pursuing alternative trade arrangements under BRICS. Wary of the Trump administration, the Modi government won’t risk taking a stand that might invite retaliation at various levels it cannot afford.

Consequently, New Delhi has been hesitant about endorsing initiatives that will be seen as a challenge to a US-dominated global economic order. Take for instance, talks of de-dollarisation.

The consequence is a narrowing of India’s strategic space within BRICS. It cannot fully align with the bloc’s more assertive agenda without risking economic and diplomatic repercussions. Yet by holding back, it undermines its standing within the group.

The internal contradictions of BRICS have never been so thoroughly exposed. For the first time, the grouping is confronting a situation where its members are divided over an ongoing military conflict involving one of their own. The inability to forge a consensus reflects deep incompatibilities.

India’s chairmanship has coincided with this rupture, and its own ambiguity has rendered it totally ineffective in managing the contradictions in the group. If anything, the crisis has exposed the limits of India’s influence.

The implications for the upcoming summit are difficult to ignore. Expectations are low. China’s President is unlikely to attend. With divisions unresolved and no shared strategic direction, the summit is unlikely to produce anything of consequence. At best, it will generate carefully worded statements that skirt contentious issues. And this, in turn, will reinforce the perception that India has no locus to lead the Global South.

This moment also raises big questions about India’s foreign policy. Its attempt to straddle competing geopolitical alignments is hard to sustain. Within BRICS, that strategy is already failing. The more India hedges, the more space China occupies. The more India avoids taking a stand on global issues, the less influence it commands.

The credibility of BRICS as the pivot of an alternative global order was already fading. Under India’s chairmanship, that decline has become unmistakable. The grouping continues to expand, add members and meet, but its capacity for meaningful collective action is eroding.

The Modi government’s failure to define a clear role for India within the bloc means that India now chairs BRICS without commanding it. It will play host without shaping the outcome in any way. The September summit in New Delhi will only lay bare its irrelevance.

Ashok Swain is a professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University, Sweden. More by the author here