India may soon be forced to choose between Brics and the West

India has so far managed to stick to its non-aligned policy, but with China’s vision looking to win out in the Brics grouping, it will have to pick a side
If it chooses the West, New Delhi will stand on the wrong side of history, while Brics could benefit from the inclusion of Iran

Sameed Basha

Published: 6:15am, 23 Aug 2023

Why you can trust SCMP

India stands to make itself an outlier at the Brics summit in South Africa this week with its dubious non-alignment policy. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, India has extracted opportunities from new partners like the US and historical partner Russia by following a policy of courting all, but loyal to none.

India finds itself at the crossroads of geopolitics as it has benefited greatly from cheap oil and increased trade with Russia due to the West’s attempt to isolate the country and has become central to the containment of China as tensions rise with Washington in the Indo-Pacific region.

For the past decade, the Brics nations – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – have proposed policies that can position themselves as a counterbalance to the G7 grouping, comprising Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.

This includes creating a global framework featuring de-dollarisation and discussions around establishing a common currency to prevent the US from weaponising its currency and the Swift financial messaging system, to the detriment of countries that disagree with it.

Overall, the Brics bloc is making significant strides towards creating an alternative power structure that challenges the dominance of the G7, and India has been central to this until now.

India and China have divergent views on the evolution and role of Brics, leading to competing visions. India has been wary of the group’s expansion, which China is pushing, as New Delhi feels threatened by Beijing’s ties with aspirant members that are also stakeholders in its Belt and Road Initiative.

With only five member countries, the Brics bloc gives India a level playing field with China and Russia. But, with no end in sight to Moscow’s isolation from the West, Russia is bound to draw closer to China and favour its proposals, diminishing India’s clout, especially as it looks towards the West.

02:26

China and Russia hold call after Saudi peace talks over Ukraine exclude Moscow

India’s foreign policy embodies elements of the thought of Chanakya, the philosopher and statesman from 300 BC, whose realist ideals helped create the first pan-Indian empire. His interpretation of human nature often led to a pragmatic but pessimistic outlook on the state’s functioning, one in which the national interest was key.

In his Arathshastra, he elucidated his Rajamandala theory, which sheds light on India’s foreign policy. He recommended forming alliances with countries surrounding the state’s hostile neighbours and preventing them from becoming too powerful and threatening its security.

There are echoes of this approach in Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar’s statement that, “this is a time for us to engage America, manage China, cultivate Europe, reassure Russia, bring Japan into play, draw neighbours in, extend the neighbourhood, and expand traditional constituencies of support”. He says India’s foreign policy today involves advancing its national interests by “exploiting opportunities created by global contradictions”.

India has deepened defence cooperation with Japan, Australia, the US and France while treating China as its adversary. At the same time, it is creating an alternative framework with China against its new-found partners in the form of the Brics grouping.

India held its first air exercises with Japan earlier this year, established a pact to use each other’s military bases and agreed to expand anti-submarine warfare training.

Meanwhile, critical and emerging technologies are now the pillar of India’s relationship with the US. The Indian military has improved the safety of its communication with the US, and gained access to sensitive equipment and geospatial data, through the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement, the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement. These are designed to enhance interoperability with the US.

03:04

Biden, Modi hail new era of US-India ties and tout deals

Australia, France, Japan and the US are increasingly courting India to bring it into the Western fold as an economic counterweight to China.

India has also pitched its manufacturing base to Western countries as part of its “Make in India” initiative. It aims to encircle China in line with the Arthashastra’s principle of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

Protectionism won’t give Indian manufacturing the boost it needs

India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, coined the term “non-alignment” in the 1950s as an approach for countries that did not want to side with either the US-led Western bloc or the Soviet-led Eastern one. Eventually, India was forced to choose, and despite being a democracy, it leaned towards the communists out of self-interest.

India may be in a similar situation today, being forced to choose between the West or Brics as New Delhi’s vision competes with Beijing’s. If it chooses the West, it will stand on the wrong side of history, especially as, according to South Africa’s Brics ambassador, 40 countries have shown interest in being inducted into the organisation.

A man walks past a banner during final preparations for the 15th Brics Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, on August 20. Photo: EPA-EFE

The loss of India may only be a short-term concern as Iran could be a valuable replacement for the “I’ in Brics. Iran shares many of the same concerns as China and Russia as it has borne the brunt of US-led isolationist tactics. Tehran has drawn closer to Moscow and expanded defence and economic ties, making it a key stakeholder for any alternative global framework.

India faces a crucial decision in the next decade: either embrace China’s mutually beneficial approach or risk being caught in a zero-sum game orchestrated by the US. Attempting to have it both ways is not a viable long-term strategy, and following an ancient playbook will relegate it to the pages of history.

Sameed Basha is a defence and political analyst with a master’s degree in international relations from Deakin University, Australia