- The New Delhi summit pushed for global institutional reforms and featured a high-profile meeting between PM Modi and President Xi to ease border tensions.
- Members encouraged using national currencies for trade to diversify from the US dollar while criticizing unilateral sanctions and restrictive trade measures.
- The grouping functions as a platform for developing nations to challenge the global order, despite internal strategic competition between India and China.
- Regional impacts include potential opportunities for Nepal in hydropower and connectivity, provided it maintains a strategic balance between major powers.
NEW DELHI: The 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi has highlighted the changing balance of power in global affairs, with developing countries pushing for a greater role in international decision-making while major powers such as India and China try to protect their own interests.
The summit attracted particular attention after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The meeting came as India and China continued efforts to improve relations following years of tension along their disputed Himalayan border. Although the meeting does not mean that their disagreements have ended, it was seen as an important sign that both sides are interested in keeping dialogue open.
The broader discussions at the summit focused on trade, finance, technology, climate change, energy, international conflicts and reforms to global institutions. Leaders adopted the New Delhi Declaration, calling for greater representation of developing countries in international organisations and closer cooperation among BRICS members.
The declaration also supported greater use of national currencies for trade and investment and criticised unilateral tariffs and other trade restrictions. BRICS members raised concerns about economic measures and sanctions imposed outside the United Nations framework, reflecting a wider demand among developing countries for greater independence in international economic affairs.
The discussions show that BRICS is gradually moving beyond its original role as a group focused mainly on economic cooperation. The organisation is increasingly being used as a platform for developing countries to raise questions about the existing global order and demand a larger role in shaping international decisions.
However, BRICS is far from being a united political bloc. Its members have different political systems, economic priorities and foreign-policy interests. India and China remain strategic competitors despite their recent efforts to improve relations, while BRICS members also have very different relationships with the United States and European countries.
This diversity is both the strength and weakness of the grouping. Countries do not need to agree on every international issue to cooperate on trade, investment, energy, technology or development. But turning broad political statements into practical agreements will remain a difficult task.
One of the issues that has attracted the most attention around BRICS in recent years is the possibility of creating a common currency. The New Delhi summit, however, did not result in the creation of such a currency. Instead, members supported greater use of their own national currencies for trade and investment and encouraged the development of easier cross-border payment systems.
The distinction is important because using national currencies is very different from creating a currency that could replace the U.S. dollar. The dollar continues to dominate international trade and financial markets, and replacing it would require major changes to the global financial system. BRICS is not close to such a development.
The increased use of national currencies could nevertheless provide member countries with more options. It could help them conduct some transactions without relying entirely on the dollar or existing international payment channels. For now, the effort is better understood as diversification rather than an attempt to replace the dollar.
BRICS' criticism of unilateral tariffs and trade restrictions also carries a wider political message. Some members have objected to the use of economic pressure and sanctions as tools of foreign policy, particularly when such measures are not backed by the United Nations.
That position may be viewed in Washington as a challenge to the existing economic order, but BRICS should not simply be described as an anti-American alliance. Its members have very different relationships with the United States. India has developed strong strategic ties with Washington in defence, technology and Indo-Pacific cooperation, while the United Arab Emirates also maintains close relations with the United States. Brazil has generally sought strategic independence, while China and Russia have much more difficult relations with Washington.
What many BRICS members appear to share is a desire for greater freedom to decide their own economic and foreign policies. They want to work with major powers without necessarily becoming dependent on any one of them.
India's position is particularly important in this regard. New Delhi has strengthened its partnership with the United States while continuing to maintain important relations with Russia and engaging with China. Its participation in BRICS demonstrates that India does not see these relationships as mutually exclusive.
India can cooperate with Washington on defence and technology while working with China, Russia and other BRICS members on trade, finance and global governance. This approach reflects India's long-standing effort to maintain strategic autonomy and keep room for independent decision-making.
The Modi-Xi meeting is especially relevant for Nepal because the relationship between India and China has a direct impact on Kathmandu. India and China are Nepal's two immediate neighbours, and developments between them can affect trade, investment, tourism, energy and regional connectivity.
An improvement in India-China relations could create a more favourable environment for Nepal. Better relations could support greater regional trade, tourism, energy cooperation and cross-border connectivity. At the same time, Nepal should not assume that improved relations mean that strategic competition between India and China has ended.
The two countries continue to have disagreements over their border, trade and wider strategic interests in Asia. They can cooperate in one area while competing in another. For Nepal, that means maintaining good relations with both countries while avoiding excessive dependence on either side.
Nepal is not a member of BRICS, but the country's location between India and China means it cannot ignore developments within the grouping. The decisions and economic initiatives of major BRICS members can influence the regional environment in which Nepal conducts trade, seeks investment and manages its foreign relations.
One of the biggest opportunities could come from Nepal's hydropower sector. Nepal has significant potential to generate electricity, but the country needs investment, transmission infrastructure and reliable markets to turn that potential into economic gains.
A more competitive regional environment could give Nepal additional choices for investment, technology and electricity markets. Hydropower, renewable energy, tourism, digital infrastructure and climate-related projects could all attract greater regional interest.
But Nepal will need to look beyond the size of foreign investment announcements. A large investment does not automatically mean a good deal for the country. Issues such as debt, procurement, employment, technology transfer, market access and long-term financial returns need to be carefully examined before agreements are signed.
For Nepal, the important question should not simply be where the money comes from. The more important question is what the country will gain from the investment and whether the benefits will last.
Connectivity is another area where Nepal could benefit from closer regional cooperation. As a landlocked country, Nepal depends heavily on roads, trade routes and other forms of cross-border infrastructure. Better transport links could reduce costs and make it easier for Nepali businesses to reach regional markets.
However, large infrastructure projects can also create long-term economic dependence. Roads, railways, energy corridors and other major projects can influence a country's commercial relationships for decades. Nepal therefore needs to examine such projects based on their long-term economic value rather than the size of the initial investment.
Climate change also provides an area where Nepal could work with BRICS countries and other international partners without becoming caught in major-power competition. Floods, landslides, changing rainfall and other climate-related risks are serious concerns for the Himalayan country.
Cooperation in climate research, disaster preparedness, early-warning systems, water management and renewable energy could bring direct benefits to Nepal. The challenge, however, is developing the technical and institutional capacity needed to identify useful projects and negotiate agreements that serve Nepal's interests.
China's expected BRICS chairmanship in 2027 will also be worth watching. Beijing is expected to use its leadership to promote greater cooperation in trade, finance and technology among developing countries. China has also been pushing for stronger cooperation among countries of the Global South.
But China's leadership will not mean that all BRICS members will follow Beijing's position. India, in particular, is likely to continue pursuing its own foreign-policy interests. Other members also have their own economic and strategic priorities.
That diversity could determine how BRICS develops in the coming years. The group may not become a tightly organised political alliance. Instead, it may continue to focus on areas where members can find common ground while leaving more sensitive issues to individual countries.
The real test for BRICS will therefore come after the summit. Declarations and political statements can set goals, but they do not by themselves change the international system. The more important questions are whether trade in national currencies actually increases, whether cross-border payments become easier, whether development financing expands and whether members can cooperate more effectively in areas such as technology, energy and climate change.
The same applies to calls for reform of global institutions. Developing countries have demanded greater representation in the United Nations and international financial institutions for decades. Turning that demand into actual institutional reform will require agreement among countries with very different interests.
For the United States, the growing influence of BRICS does not mean the end of its global leadership. Washington remains a major economic, military, technological and diplomatic power. BRICS has also not created a replacement for the existing international system.
What has changed, however, is the willingness of many countries to maintain relationships with several major powers rather than permanently align themselves with one side. India's foreign policy is perhaps the clearest example of this approach.
The same principle could be important for Nepal. Kathmandu does not need to choose between competing global powers. But it also cannot afford to accept major projects or agreements without considering their long-term consequences.
Nepal can maintain its longstanding relationship with India, expand economic cooperation with China, work with the United States and other Western countries, and continue cooperation with Europe, Japan and international development organisations. The objective should be to expand Nepal's choices rather than narrow them.
Diversification will be important in trade, investment, energy markets, technology and connectivity. Having several partners can give Nepal more bargaining power and reduce the risk of becoming overly dependent on one country.
But diversification alone will not solve the problem. Nepal also needs stronger institutions, better economic planning and officials with the expertise to negotiate complex international agreements.
The changing global environment could bring Nepal new opportunities, but it could also bring greater pressure. India, China, the United States and other major powers all have their own interests in South Asia. Nepal cannot control those interests, but it can decide how it responds to them.
That is why major decisions on infrastructure, energy, trade and connectivity should be judged first by their value to Nepal. Transparency, careful negotiations and a clear national strategy will be increasingly important as competition among major powers grows.
The New Delhi BRICS Summit did not create a new world order. It did, however, provide another sign that the international system is becoming more diverse and competitive.
Developing countries want a greater say in global institutions. BRICS members want more choices in trade and finance and greater cooperation in areas such as technology, energy and climate change. At the same time, the members remain divided on many major geopolitical questions.
For China, BRICS offers a platform to expand its international influence. For India, it provides another space to pursue strategic autonomy. For Russia, it remains an important forum outside the traditional Western-led system. For other developing countries, it offers another source of economic and diplomatic opportunities.
For Nepal, the changes are particularly significant because of its position between India and China.
Kathmandu cannot decide whether its two neighbours will cooperate or compete. What it can do is prepare itself for both possibilities.
The best approach may be to keep Nepal's options open, strengthen relations with a wide range of countries and make sure that major economic decisions are based on the country's own long-term interests.
The future of BRICS will depend on whether its members can turn their declarations into practical cooperation. For Nepal, the bigger question will be whether it can make use of the opportunities created by a changing world without allowing those opportunities to become new forms of dependence.
