At BRICS, the value of keeping difficult conversations alive

The 18th BRICS Summit comes when wars, disrupted energy supplies and soaring costs are fragmenting the world order. At the same time, the grouping has expanded, and the diversity of its participants and interests gives the summit a special significance. For instance, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which became full members more than two years ago, are embroiled in competition and conflict, and have divergent interests. Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia and Xi Jinping of China are both participating. India, whose foreign policy has long rested on the idea that strategic autonomy is best preserved by maintaining relationships across the spectrum, has a strong interest in making such a forum work. Delhi knows that there is great value in keeping difficult conversations alive.

For Delhi, the summit is a test of whether it can advance its own and the forum’s interests — through more resilient supply chains and greater use of national currencies in trade. These can give countries greater room to navigate a global financial system that is still disoriented and unsettled by the weaponisation of tariffs, over the last year and a half, by US President Donald Trump. Greater economic exchange within the bloc, or more broadly, within the Global South, however, does not make BRICS an anti-Western alliance. It reflects a desire among its members to trade freely, secure supplies from multiple sources and push for reform of global institutions.

Overall Analysis

The editorial examines the importance of the BRICS platform as a space for dialogue despite differences and conflicts among its members. Its central argument is that international cooperation does not require countries to agree on everything; sometimes, the greatest value of a diplomatic forum lies in keeping communication open even when relationships are difficult.

The opening paragraph establishes the challenging global context in which the BRICS Summit is taking place. Expressions such as “fragmenting the world order” and “disrupted energy supplies” immediately create a picture of an unstable international environment. The writer then highlights the diversity within BRICS, particularly by pointing to Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, whose interests may conflict despite being members of the same grouping. This example strengthens the author’s argument that BRICS is significant precisely because it brings together countries with divergent interests.

The phrase “Delhi knows that there is great value in keeping difficult conversations alive” captures the editorial’s core idea. Rather than avoiding disagreements, India should use BRICS as a diplomatic platform to maintain communication with countries with which it may have complicated relationships. The reference to India’s “strategic autonomy” further explains why such a platform matters to India: maintaining relationships across different geopolitical camps gives India greater freedom to pursue its own interests.

The second paragraph moves from diplomatic dialogue to economic interests. The author argues that India should use the summit to promote resilient supply chains and greater use of national currencies in trade. These measures could reduce dependence on a vulnerable global financial system and give developing countries greater flexibility.

An important linguistic feature here is the author’s careful qualification of the argument. The statement “however, does not make BRICS an anti-Western alliance” prevents the reader from interpreting greater cooperation among BRICS countries as hostility towards Western countries. The editorial instead presents BRICS as an attempt to promote freer trade, diversified supply chains and reform of global institutions.

Overall, the language is formal, analytical and diplomatic. The writer avoids aggressive or absolute statements and frequently uses balanced expressions such as “does not,” “reflects a desire,” and “greater room to navigate.” This gives the editorial a measured and nuanced character.

Important Vocabulary – 5

1. Divergent – different; moving or developing in different directions.
2. Resilient – capable of recovering from difficulties or continuing to function despite disruptions.
3. Weaponisation – using something as a tool to exert pressure or achieve a strategic objective.
4. Disoriented – confused, uncertain or lacking a clear direction.
5. Strategic autonomy – the ability of a country to make independent foreign-policy decisions without excessive dependence on another power.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues that BRICS should not be judged by how much its members agree, but by its ability to keep dialogue and cooperation alive despite disagreements. For India, the grouping provides an opportunity to protect strategic autonomy, strengthen economic resilience and push for reforms in global institutions.

Tone: Analytical, diplomatic, balanced, pragmatic and cautiously optimistic.

Go deeper into the BRICS argument