Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi hosted leaders including Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian at the BRICS summit in Delhi. The group adopted the New Delhi Declaration, which calls for maximum restraint in the Middle East conflict without assigning blame. The gathering highlighted both opportunities for dialogue and persistent divisions among members with competing interests.
What the New Delhi Declaration includes and omits
The declaration urges maximum restraint in the Middle East conflict and condemns attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities. It supports a two-state solution and opposes forced displacement of Palestinians or actions that could legitimise occupation, framing positions around existing UN resolutions. The text makes no reference to Russia's war in Ukraine, a change from earlier BRICS statements. On trade it lists concerns over rising tariffs and unilateral sanctions without naming any country. Twice earlier this year, meetings between BRICS ministers had failed to produce a joint statement. This time a consensus was reached, but by side-stepping issues that members sharply disagree on, with few solutions. The New Delhi Declaration was adopted on the first day of the summit. What is striking is what it does not say. Several members would have been loath to draw President Donald Trump's anger, as he has previously called the group's proposals, including potentially linking central-bank digital currencies for cross-border trade, anti-American. Not mentioning any country by name, even as they condemned the conflict in the Middle East, bears the hallmark of India, says Praveen Donthi, senior analyst at the International Crisis Group. He was pleasantly surprised by the strong reference to tariffs, which India could have wanted to soften. The cautious wording reflects India's role in chairing the summit and allowed members with differing alignments to reach consensus after previous failures.
India's approach to BRICS and Western relations
Modi stated that BRICS is not against anyone. India has sought to maintain ties with countries that hold opposing views on major conflicts. Former ambassador Anil Trigunayat described the outcome as a push for strategic autonomy in an era of war and greater collaboration among members. Some participants would prefer BRICS to position itself more clearly against Western influence, but India has resisted that framing to protect its broader diplomatic relationships. Trigunayat observed that while certain members seek an anti-Western orientation, the grouping has instead focused on internal initiatives that allow members to navigate tensions without forcing alignment against any external bloc. The fact that India gathered these leaders in person testifies to its diplomatic reach, yet agreeing on a new global order proved far harder than the gathering itself. Members such as China, Russia and Iran see BRICS as a vehicle to dilute the influence of the US and western Europe. India has been reluctant to cast the group as an anti-Western bloc. That distinction matters for Delhi, which wants to preserve its relationships with nations at odds with each other. There are countries in the grouping which would like it to become anti-western, but it is not that, Trigunayat says. What India has achieved is initiatives to enhance greater collaboration amongst themselves while avoiding any forced choice between blocs.
Meetings between rivals on the sidelines
The summit created space for direct talks that had appeared unlikely months earlier. Iran's Pezeshkian met Abu Dhabi's Crown Prince Sheikh Khaled bin Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the highest-level face-to-face encounter between the two countries since the Middle East conflict began. Pezeshkian also sought deeper economic links with other BRICS members including Malaysia, India and Ethiopia while facing US sanctions and a naval blockade on Iranian ports. This meeting offered Tehran an opportunity to demonstrate it was not isolated. As Iran tries to withstand US sanctions, Washington's Operation Economic Outcast and the blockade, the encounter allowed it to show it does not stand alone amid military attacks and economic pressure. The countries have histories of border disputes and even military confrontations. Iran and the UAE have been on opposing ends of the war in the Middle East, with Tehran launching missiles and drones at its fellow BRICS member. Xi's visit marked his first trip to Delhi in seven years. The two leaders agreed to strengthen business ties and transport links and to address trade barriers. Their handshake was formal rather than the warmer greeting sometimes used by Modi, and Xi departed before the gala dinner. Relations have remained tense since the 2020 border clash, yet both sides signalled willingness to improve ties gradually. Trigunayat noted the need to trust but verify any progress. The large trade imbalance, with a deficit tilting heavily in China's favour, remains a background factor in these efforts. Whether it will produce substantial progress remains to be seen.
Challenges in defining a new global order
Members agree they want greater influence over international rules, yet translating that goal into concrete steps proved difficult. The summit avoided naming the United States in its trade language, partly to limit friction with Washington. Proposals such as linking central-bank digital currencies for cross-border trade have already drawn criticism from US officials. The gathering demonstrated that BRICS can host conversations among rivals, but agreement on the shape of any alternative order remains limited. The tension between the desire for a new order and the difficulty of agreeing on its details was evident throughout the weekend. Modi announced that together the leaders should increasingly become rule-shapers, not rule-takers, yet the histories of border disputes and military confrontations among them made unified positions elusive. The weekend also provided a platform for countries to reassess their relationships in light of the Iran war. But agreeing on what a new global order should look like and achieving clear, tangible outcomes was a much harder task, and that tension ran through this weekend's summit. The harder question is what happens next. It is clear that members agree they need a new global order more than ever, but what exactly should replace it and how to get there is far more challenging to answer.
Frequently asked questions
Why did the declaration avoid naming parties in the Middle East conflict?
The text calls for restraint and condemns attacks on infrastructure without assigning responsibility. This approach allowed members with differing alignments to reach consensus.
Did the summit produce any new economic agreements?
No specific new trade deals were announced. Leaders discussed reducing barriers and improving transport links, particularly between India and China, but details remain to be developed.
How did India manage relations with both Western and non-Western partners?
Modi emphasised that BRICS is not an anti-Western bloc. This stance preserved Delhi's ties with countries outside the group while still hosting the summit.
What changed in the Ukraine language compared with earlier declarations?
Previous BRICS statements had referenced the conflict in Ukraine. The New Delhi Declaration omitted any mention of it.
Will the Pezeshkian-Crown Prince meeting lead to further talks?
The encounter was the highest-level contact since the conflict began. No follow-up schedule was announced, and outcomes will depend on broader diplomatic developments.
Key takeaways
- The New Delhi Declaration urges restraint in the Middle East without naming parties or addressing Ukraine.
- India hosted rivals including Iran and the UAE for the first high-level talks since the conflict escalated.
- Xi and Modi agreed to ease trade barriers after seven years without a visit by the Chinese leader.
- BRICS members share interest in a new global order but differ on its form and on criticism of Western policies.
- Consensus required avoiding divisive issues that had blocked earlier joint statements.
The summit illustrated both the diplomatic value of BRICS gatherings and the limits on achieving unified positions among members with competing priorities. Further progress on economic cooperation or conflict mediation will depend on follow-up actions by individual governments.
