In aftermath of BRICS, going back to Bandung

Why in the News

The 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi earlier this month produced a 140-point declaration that, in places, echoes the anti-colonial Bandung agenda. The debate is whether BRICS can inherit the mission of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), and whether India, leaning towards Washington, can lead the Global South.

What did Bandung and NAM stand for?

1. Bandung Conference: In April 1955, leaders of 29 newly independent Asian and African countries met at Bandung, Indonesia. They agreed on ten principles, chiefly:
   • sovereignty and non-interference;
   • refusal to join great-power military blocs;
   • support for peoples under colonial rule.
2. Non-Aligned Movement: Six years later, at Belgrade, this became NAM, a platform for decolonisation. It backed Algeria, Vietnam, the anti-apartheid struggle and the Palestinians.
3. New International Economic Order (NIEO): In the 1970s, NAM took to the United Nations (UN) a demand for fair commodity prices, technology access and a voice in global institutions.
4. Loss of direction: India was NAM’s founder and moral centre. After the Soviet Union collapsed, many members, India included, drifted towards the United States (US).
5. The takeaway: NAM survives only in name, so BRICS is judged as its possible heir.

What did the New Delhi declaration say, and leave unsaid?

1. BRICS reach: Formed in 2009, BRICS now represents more than half of humanity.
2. Bandung echoes: The declaration seeks reform of the UN Security Council, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organization (WTO). It also backs:
   • an end to the blockade of Cuba;
   • a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as capital;
   • climate finance for countries that did not cause the crisis.
3. Not NAM’s heir: BRICS members have different systems and interests, and several are close US partners.
4. Silences of consensus: The declaration condemns “unilateral coercive measures” and urges “maximum restraint” in West Asia. It names neither who imposes them nor the aggressor.

Why does BRICS’s limited project still matter?

1. Reform, not rupture: BRICS seeks more than one centre of power, not an end to domination. It would reform the US dollar’s dominance but is silent on poor nations’ debt.
2. Shield against coercion: When tariffs become weapons and sanctions on one country disrupt many, alternatives give governments room:
   • trade in national currencies;
   • development finance without strings;
   • a reserve arrangement, a pooled emergency fund, outside the IMF.
3. Strength in numbers: A larger, stronger BRICS makes it harder for one power to dictate terms.

Can India lead the Global South while leaning towards Washington?

1. Junior partner charge: The critique holds that India acts as a “junior partner” of the US, deepening military and trade arrangements aimed at containing China.
2. West Asia contradiction: India embraces Israel strategically yet signed the Palestinian statehood text. Surveys across West Asia rank Israel and the US as the region’s greatest threats.
3. Selective silence: India has been silent on US actions against Iran, Venezuela and Cuba, and has not clearly condemned the destruction of Gaza.
4. Hidden poverty: Before the summit, the capital’s slums were screened from view.
5. Return to Bandung: The critique urges a return to Bandung’s idea of peoples’ right to decide their own destinies:
   • freedom from US pressure;
   • solidarity with Palestine and opposition to sanctions;
   • payment of climate debt to poorer nations;
   • a BRICS that is more than a lobby.

Challenges

1. India-China rivalry: Border friction between India and China limits BRICS’s strategic cohesion.
2. Expansion without criteria: A larger BRICS risks becoming a talk shop, as NAM did.
3. Dollar dependence: The US dollar still settles over 80% of global trade, so de-dollarisation is slow.

Way Forward

1. Membership criteria: BRICS should set formal criteria for full and partner membership.
2. Stronger bank: Members should raise the capital of the New Development Bank (NDB) and widen its Global South lending.
3. Debt agenda: BRICS should take up sovereign debt relief.
4. Consistent positions: India should judge unilateral actions by one standard, whoever acts.

Conclusion

BRICS offers the Global South a hedge against coercion, not the anti-colonial programme Bandung and NAM carried. Whether India uses BRICS to speak for that programme, or as one more seat at the table, remains unresolved.

About BRICS

1. Origin: A Goldman Sachs economist coined “BRIC” in 2001. The first leaders’ summit met at Yekaterinburg, Russia.
2. Expansion: South Africa joined in 2011. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) joined in 2024, and Indonesia a year later.
3. NDB: Headquartered in Shanghai, the BRICS bank has approved over $35 billion in infrastructure loans.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026] Which of the following countries are members of the European Union? 1. Belarus 2. Poland 3. Germany 4. Switzerland (a) 1, 2 and 4 (b) 1 and 4 only (c) 2 and 3 (d) 2 and 4 only Answer: C”