Consensus has eluded the grouping so far
As chair of an eleven-nation bloc that now includes parties directly entangled in the West Asia conflict, India finds itself holding a diplomatic thread that frays the moment it is pulled too tightly. New Delhi is working through formal channels and quiet back-room formulations to produce a joint BRICS statement — an act that is less about words than about whether a coalition built on shared dissent from Western institutions can hold together when its own members stand on opposite sides of a crisis. The outcome will say something not merely about India's diplomatic skill, but about whether BRICS represents a genuine alternative voice or a convenient arrangement that dissolves under pressure.
- Three BRICS members — Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE — are active participants in the West Asia conflict, making any collective statement an exercise in threading contradictions.
- India's foreign ministry has publicly admitted that consensus has so far eluded the bloc, a rare acknowledgment of stalled diplomacy from the chair of a major multilateral grouping.
- External Affairs Minister Jaishankar has spoken with Iran's foreign minister four times in two weeks and coordinated with Russia's Lavrov, signaling the intensity of behind-the-scenes pressure.
- India's Sherpa has convened virtual meetings of all eleven members, most recently on March 12, as the search continues for language that offends no one and commits everyone.
- A successful joint statement would bolster BRICS's claim to geopolitical relevance; failure would lay bare the internal fractures that its critics have long argued make the bloc more symbolic than substantive.
India's chairmanship of BRICS has placed it at the center of a diplomatic knot it did not tie. The eleven-member bloc — which now includes Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE — is struggling to find a common position on the West Asia crisis, precisely because three of its own members are not bystanders but participants in the conflict itself. Any statement broad enough to satisfy everyone risks meaning nothing at all.
Randhir Jaiswal, spokesperson for India's Ministry of External Affairs, acknowledged on Saturday that consensus has so far eluded the grouping. The admission was notable: India has been working hard to prevent exactly this outcome. External Affairs Minister Jaishankar has spoken with Iran's foreign minister four times since the conflict began, and held a separate call with Russia's Sergey Lavrov the same day Tehran pressed New Delhi to secure BRICS solidarity. India's Sherpa has been convening virtual meetings of all eleven members, the most recent on March 12, searching for formulations that can accommodate competing interests without forcing any member into an untenable position.
The stakes extend beyond the immediate crisis. BRICS was conceived in part as an alternative to Western-dominated international institutions — a coalition capable of speaking with a different voice on global affairs. But that voice depends on internal coherence, and the current impasse tests whether the bloc can function as a genuine actor when its members are not merely divided in opinion but divided by direct involvement. India's leadership will ultimately be measured by whether it can navigate that narrow corridor — and what the attempt reveals about the limits of multilateral solidarity.
India's role as chair of BRICS has landed it in a delicate diplomatic position. The bloc of eleven nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Indonesia—is fractured over how to respond to the escalating West Asia crisis. Three of its own members are directly caught in the conflict, making any unified statement a puzzle with pieces that refuse to fit together.
Randhir Jaiswal, India's Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson, acknowledged the impasse on Saturday. New Delhi has been working to craft language that all members could accept, but the effort has stalled. "We are trying our best to develop a common BRICS position, but because of differing views consensus has eluded the grouping so far," Jaiswal said. The problem is structural: Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are not neutral observers. They are participants in the conflict itself, which means any statement that tries to satisfy everyone risks satisfying no one.
India has been conducting intensive diplomacy to break the logjam. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has been in regular contact with his counterparts across the bloc. On Thursday, he spoke with Iran's foreign minister—their fourth conversation since the conflict began roughly two weeks earlier. During that call, Tehran pressed India to secure BRICS solidarity on the deteriorating situation. The same day, Jaishankar also spoke with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to discuss the path forward. These conversations are happening through formal channels: India's Sherpa, the senior official who coordinates BRICS matters, has been facilitating virtual meetings among all eleven member states. The most recent gathering took place on March 12.
The real work is happening behind closed doors. BRICS members are engaged in what officials describe as preliminary discussions, searching for formulations that could accommodate the interests of all parties. This is diplomatic code for: we are trying to find words that won't offend Iran, won't isolate Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and won't force Russia or China into positions they find untenable. It is a narrow corridor, and India is trying to navigate it.
What makes this moment significant is what it reveals about BRICS itself. The bloc was built partly on the idea that it could offer an alternative voice to Western-dominated international institutions. But when its own members are at odds, that voice fractures. The failure to produce a joint statement on a major geopolitical crisis would expose those fractures publicly. Success, by contrast, would demonstrate that BRICS can still function as a coherent actor on the world stage—a claim that carries weight in the competition for global influence. India's leadership will be judged on whether it can thread this needle.
Citas Notables
We are trying our best to develop a common BRICS position, but because of differing views consensus has eluded the grouping so far.— Randhir Jaiswal, India's Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson
Some members of BRICS are directly involved in the current situation...this has obviously impacted forging a common BRICS position on the conflict.— Randhir Jaiswal
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does it matter that BRICS can't agree on a statement about West Asia?
Because BRICS exists partly to show that countries outside the Western sphere can coordinate on major issues. If they can't speak with one voice when three of their own members are in conflict, it suggests the bloc is more fragile than it claims to be.
But isn't it normal for a group of eleven countries to have different views?
Of course. The difference is that BRICS markets itself as a unified alternative. When you can't produce even a joint statement on something this significant, you're admitting your unity is mostly rhetorical.
What's the actual obstacle? Is it just that Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are on different sides?
That's the core of it. How do you write a statement that doesn't take sides when three of your members are the sides? You end up with language so vague it says nothing, or you don't issue a statement at all.
What's India trying to do exactly?
Find formulations—language—that each member can live with. It's not about getting everyone to agree on the facts or the right outcome. It's about finding words that don't force anyone to contradict their own position.
And if they can't find those words?
Then BRICS looks divided at a moment when it's supposed to be projecting strength. That matters for how the bloc is perceived globally, and for India's credibility as chair.
So this is really about India's reputation?
Partly. But it's also about whether BRICS can function as a bloc at all when its members have genuinely conflicting interests. That's the deeper question.