How India Pulled Off BRICS Consensus on Delhi Declaration Amid West Asia Crisis

New Delhi: India has pulled off a significant diplomatic feat by getting the expanded BRICS grouping to adopt a joint declaration by consensus, despite deep divisions among members over the ongoing crisis in West Asia.

The breakthrough came after prolonged negotiations that reportedly continued until around 4 am, as diplomats worked to bridge differences between countries with sharply contrasting positions on the conflict.

The challenge was particularly acute because the expanded BRICS includes countries directly affected by or closely involved in the West Asia crisis, including Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Iran and the UAE, in particular, have found themselves on opposing sides of the current regional confrontation.

Yet, by the conclusion of the New Delhi summit, the members had agreed on a common document that called for restraint, dialogue and diplomacy without forcing countries to abandon their individual national positions.

The key to India's strategy: avoid forcing unanimity on every detail

India's approach was reportedly to focus on areas of common ground rather than attempting to impose a single geopolitical position on all members.

The final declaration explicitly acknowledges the different national positions of BRICS members while calling for “maximum restraint” over the escalating situation in the Middle East and urging countries to avoid actions that could further worsen the crisis.

That wording was crucial.

Instead of assigning blame to a particular member or country, the declaration concentrated on principles such as sovereignty, international law, dialogue, consultation and diplomatic resolution of disputes.

This allowed countries with conflicting interests to sign the same document without necessarily endorsing each other's positions.

The 4 am negotiations

The final agreement was not reached easily.

According to reports, BRICS negotiators remained engaged in intensive discussions until the early hours of the morning. The negotiations were particularly difficult because of disagreements involving Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, whose interests and positions on the regional crisis differ considerably.

The achievement was especially notable because an earlier BRICS foreign ministers' meeting under India's chairmanship had failed to produce a joint communique.

Instead, ministers had issued a chair's statement and outcome document that acknowledged differences on West Asia, Gaza and navigation rights in the Red Sea and Bab Al-Mandab Strait.

That earlier failure demonstrated just how difficult consensus had become within an expanded BRICS.

India used the Sherpa channel to keep talks moving

India had already been working behind the scenes to manage these differences.

A June analysis by Carnegie India noted that, after the West Asia crisis erupted, the Ministry of External Affairs said India was facilitating discussions among BRICS members through the Sherpa channel because some members were directly involved in the conflict.

The Sherpa process gave negotiators space to work through difficult language before the issue reached the leaders.

That groundwork appears to have been critical when the summit itself began.

Why the final language mattered

The New Delhi Declaration says BRICS members are committed to resolving international disputes through dialogue, consultation and diplomacy and stresses the importance of preventive diplomacy and mediation.

On West Asia, the document expresses deep concern over the continued escalation of tensions and calls for maximum restraint.

Importantly, the declaration recalls the different national positions of members before making its collective appeal.

That formulation gave countries political space while still allowing BRICS to present a unified message.

India avoided turning BRICS into an anti-West bloc

Another important part of India's diplomatic strategy was keeping BRICS from becoming an explicitly anti-Western geopolitical alliance.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has repeatedly stressed that BRICS is not directed against any country or group of countries.

The New Delhi summit followed that approach. While the declaration criticised unilateral protectionist measures and sanctions, India pushed the grouping towards practical cooperation, development and multilateral reform, rather than an ideological confrontation with the West.

The final declaration also avoided some of the more confrontational proposals that could have made consensus harder.

No common BRICS currency push

One example was the handling of financial issues.

BRICS members continued discussions on cross-border payments and settlements using local currencies, but the summit did not produce a commitment to create a common BRICS currency.

The declaration instead backed pragmatic work on payment interoperability and local-currency settlements while recognising that there is “no one-size-fits-all approach.”

This was another example of India favouring incremental, practical cooperation over politically provocative commitments.

Consensus despite Iran-UAE differences

The biggest test of India's diplomacy was perhaps the presence of Iran and the UAE in the same expanded grouping while the region was facing heightened tensions.

Reuters reported that the inclusion of both countries made consensus particularly difficult, yet the leaders eventually agreed on language calling for maximum restraint and diplomatic engagement.

For India, getting both sides to sign the same declaration demonstrated the value of its approach of maintaining working relationships with competing regional powers.

What India gained from the declaration

The successful consensus strengthens India's argument that an expanded BRICS can remain a platform for dialogue among countries with very different strategic interests.

The declaration also incorporated several Indian priorities, including greater representation for developing countries in global institutions, opposition to unilateral protectionist measures, stronger counterterrorism cooperation and practical economic initiatives.

The document commended India's 2026 BRICS chairship and thanked New Delhi for hosting the summit. It also backed China's chairship for 2027.

A diplomatic success, but not the end of BRICS divisions

The consensus should not be interpreted as evidence that BRICS members have resolved their geopolitical differences.

The grouping remains highly diverse, with disagreements involving the Middle East, Russia-West tensions, China-India relations, trade and the future of the international financial system.

What India demonstrated in New Delhi was something more limited—but diplomatically significant: countries that disagree sharply can still agree on carefully negotiated common language.

The overnight negotiations, the earlier failure to reach a foreign ministers' communique and the eventual unanimous adoption of the declaration underline the scale of the diplomatic effort.

For India, the outcome reinforces its preferred image of BRICS as a bridge-building forum rather than an anti-Western alliance—and positions New Delhi as an important convening power in the increasingly fragmented Global South.