Why India Should Leverage BRICS to Call for Ceasefire in West Asia |
The Pulse | Diplomacy | South Asia
Why India Should Leverage BRICS to Call for Ceasefire in West Asia
What makes BRICS silence on the war in West Asia particularly deplorable is that two fellow BRICS members — Iran and the UAE — are directly caught in the war.
India’s Minister of External Affairs S Jaishankar and representatives from BRICS member states pose for a group photograph at the first BRICS Sherpa meeting under the chairmanship of India, at New Delhi, Feb. 9-11, 2026
In his telephonic conversation with Prime Minister Narendra Modi on March 21, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian urged India, in its capacity as the BRICS chair for 2026, to play an “independent role” in brokering an end to the war on Iran. “The nations of BRICS must not stand silent while the sovereignty of a member state is violated,” Pezeshkian said, according to the Iranian presidential office’s readout.
Iran became a member of BRICS in January 2024. The 10-member grouping of emerging non-Western economies initially comprised Brazil, Russia, India and China. South Africa joined in 2011, followed by Iran, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Ethiopia, Egypt and Indonesia in 2024-2025.
Since February 28, when the U.S. and Israel jointly launched air and missile strikes on Iran, the war in West Asia has escalated and spread geographically to include the GCC countries.
Despite the mounting casualties, destruction of infrastructure, and the crippling impact that the war is having on economies worldwide, BRICS has remained silent. Not only has it not issued an official statement on the war, but India, as BRICS chair this year, has not convened an emergency meeting of the member states to discuss it.
What makes BRICS silence on this war particularly deplorable is that two fellow BRICS members — Iran and the UAE — are directly caught in the war.
Indian officials blame divisions within BRICS for the grouping’s failure to issue a statement.
At a media briefing on March 27, India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal pointed to the direct involvement of “some of the BRICS members” in the war. Since “BRICS way of working… [that] is based on consensus… and because we have differing opinions, it has been difficult for us to forge a consensus on this particular conflict,” he said.
Indeed, member states have responded differently to the war. Russia and China were swift in their condemnation of the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran; Russia described the attack on Iran as “a preplanned and unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent U.N. member state,” while China called it “brazen aggression against a sovereign nation.”
India, in contrast, has remained silent on the U.S.-Israeli aggression.
A major stumbling block to BRICS forging a consensus position will be the likely divergent positions that Iran and the UAE will take on the war, given that they are effectively adversaries. Iran has been carrying out drone and missile strikes on the UAE, which hosts American military bases.
There is speculation, too, about India’s interest in BRICS.
BRICS is perceived as an anti-West grouping. It has been exploring options to reduce dependence on the U.S. financial system. This has drawn the ire of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has warned BRICS members that any move on their part towards de-dollarization would have heavy consequences, such as increased tariff rates, for them.
For India, which is yet to finalize a tariff agreement with the Trump administration and is already suffering much turmoil in its relations with the U.S. over the past year, energetically leading BRICS, many of whose members are sympathetic to Iran, could invite more trouble from Trump.
India is on the side of the U.S. and Israel in the ongoing West Asia war. Not only did Modi repeatedly express solidarity with Israeli military actions during his visit to Israel on the eve of the launch of the strikes on Iran, but also, since the war began, Delhi has not issued a single statement criticizing the U.S.-Israeli aggression on Iran.
Although Indian leaders and officials are diplomatically engaging several countries, the focus of its diplomacy has been on ensuring safe transit for its oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz.
In a post on X about his conversation with Pezeshkian, Modi “condemned attacks on critical infrastructure in the region, which threaten regional stability and disrupt global supply chains.” He stressed “the importance of safeguarding freedom of navigation and ensuring that shipping lanes remain open and secure.”
His post made no mention of Pezeshkian’s call for India, as the current BRICS chair, to play an “independent role” in ending the war.
Clearly, Modi does not want to be seen by the U.S. or Israel as supportive of Iran or BRICS initiatives to end the war.
As BRICS chair this year, India will host the BRICS foreign ministers meeting in mid-May and a summit in September. Invitations for the May meeting have already gone out to member states. Indian officials are reportedly uncertain whether Iran and the UAE will attend the upcoming meeting in May. Citing officials, The Hindu newspaper reported that “as of now,” the BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting will be in-person.
Will BRICS be able to forge a consensus of sorts in the coming weeks?
It is not that BRICS is incapable of forging a consensus. It has done so in the past, and issued statements that were strong.
Following the U.S.-Israel military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in June 2025, BRICS condemned their action against Iran as “a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations,” and expressed serious concern over “deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities under full safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in violation of international law and relevant resolutions of the IAEA.” The statement also underscored “the necessity of establishing a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East,” a position that would have ruffled feathers in Israel and the U.S.
Will BRICS be able to repeat that robust performance this year?
The situation that the grouping faces today is different. Last year’s U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran did not expand geographically. Iran did not target the GCC countries. The UAE was not hit by Iranian drones and missiles and could therefore come on board the BRICS statement. This time around, getting Iran and the UAE to agree to the same text will be enormously challenging.
Besides, Brazil was chairing BRICS last year. It robustly steered BRICS member states towards a consensus on a strong statement denouncing the U.S. and Israel. India, in contrast, is looking to keep a low profile on the Iran war. It could end up pushing for an anodyne statement.
More than Brazil, India has an interest in ending the war in West Asia. The Indian economy is heavily dependent on oil from the region. India has a large expatriate population living and working in West Asia. They send home foreign exchange that is vital not only for the Indian economy but for the sustenance of hundreds of thousands of families. India’s ambitions of developing trade routes to Central Asia and Europe hinge on peace and stability in West Asia.
This makes an end to the war imperative for India. It should leverage BRICS to call for a ceasefire in West Asia. Doing so as BRICS chair may be its best bet.
Get to the bottom of the story
Subscribe today and join thousands of diplomats, analysts, policy professionals and business readers who rely on The Diplomat for expert Asia-Pacific coverage.
Get unlimited access to in-depth analysis you won't find anywhere else, from South China Sea tensions to ASEAN diplomacy to India-Pakistan relations. More than 5,000 articles a year.
Unlimited articles and expert analysis
Weekly newsletter with exclusive insights
16-year archive of diplomatic coverage
Ad-free reading on all devices
Support independent journalism
Already have an account? Log in.
In his telephonic conversation with Prime Minister Narendra Modi on March 21, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian urged India, in its capacity as the BRICS chair for 2026, to play an “independent role” in brokering an end to the war on Iran. “The nations of BRICS must not stand silent while the sovereignty of a member state is violated,” Pezeshkian said, according to the Iranian presidential office’s readout.
Iran became a member of BRICS in January 2024. The 10-member grouping of emerging non-Western economies initially comprised Brazil, Russia, India and China. South Africa joined in 2011, followed by Iran, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Ethiopia, Egypt and Indonesia in 2024-2025.
Since February 28, when the U.S. and Israel jointly launched air and missile strikes on Iran, the war in West Asia has escalated and spread geographically to include the GCC countries.
Despite the mounting casualties, destruction of infrastructure, and the crippling impact that the war is having on economies worldwide, BRICS has remained silent. Not only has it not issued an official statement on the war, but India, as BRICS chair this year, has not convened an emergency meeting of the member states to discuss it.
What makes BRICS silence on this war particularly deplorable is that two fellow BRICS members — Iran and the UAE — are directly caught in the war.
Indian officials blame divisions within BRICS for the grouping’s failure to issue a statement.
At a media briefing on March 27, India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal pointed to the direct involvement of “some of the BRICS members” in the war. Since “BRICS way of working… [that] is based on consensus… and because we have differing opinions, it has been difficult for us to forge a consensus on this particular conflict,” he said.
Indeed, member states have responded differently to the war. Russia and China were swift in their condemnation of the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran; Russia described the attack on Iran as “a preplanned and unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent U.N. member state,” while China called it “brazen aggression against a sovereign nation.”
India, in contrast, has remained silent on the U.S.-Israeli aggression.
A major stumbling block to BRICS forging a consensus position will be the likely divergent positions that Iran and the UAE will take on the war, given that they are effectively adversaries. Iran has been carrying out drone and missile strikes on the UAE, which hosts American military bases.
There is speculation, too, about India’s interest in BRICS.
BRICS is perceived as an anti-West grouping. It has been exploring options to reduce dependence on the U.S. financial system. This has drawn the ire of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has warned BRICS members that any move on their part towards de-dollarization would have heavy consequences, such as increased tariff rates, for them.
For India, which is yet to finalize a tariff agreement with the Trump administration and is already suffering much turmoil in its relations with the U.S. over the past year, energetically leading BRICS, many of whose members are sympathetic to Iran, could invite more trouble from Trump.
India is on the side of the U.S. and Israel in the ongoing West Asia war. Not only did Modi repeatedly express solidarity with Israeli military actions during his visit to Israel on the eve of the launch of the strikes on Iran, but also, since the war began, Delhi has not issued a single statement criticizing the U.S.-Israeli aggression on Iran.
Although Indian leaders and officials are diplomatically engaging several countries, the focus of its diplomacy has been on ensuring safe transit for its oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz.
In a post on X about his conversation with Pezeshkian, Modi “condemned attacks on critical infrastructure in the region, which threaten regional stability and disrupt global supply chains.” He stressed “the importance of safeguarding freedom of navigation and ensuring that shipping lanes remain open and secure.”
His post made no mention of Pezeshkian’s call for India, as the current BRICS chair, to play an “independent role” in ending the war.
Clearly, Modi does not want to be seen by the U.S. or Israel as supportive of Iran or BRICS initiatives to end the war.
As BRICS chair this year, India will host the BRICS foreign ministers meeting in mid-May and a summit in September. Invitations for the May meeting have already gone out to member states. Indian officials are reportedly uncertain whether Iran and the UAE will attend the upcoming meeting in May. Citing officials, The Hindu newspaper reported that “as of now,” the BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting will be in-person.
Will BRICS be able to forge a consensus of sorts in the coming weeks?
It is not that BRICS is incapable of forging a consensus. It has done so in the past, and issued statements that were strong.
Following the U.S.-Israel military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in June 2025, BRICS condemned their action against Iran as “a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations,” and expressed serious concern over “deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities under full safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in violation of international law and relevant resolutions of the IAEA.” The statement also underscored “the necessity of establishing a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East,” a position that would have ruffled feathers in Israel and the U.S.
Will BRICS be able to repeat that robust performance this year?
The situation that the grouping faces today is different. Last year’s U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran did not expand geographically. Iran did not target the GCC countries. The UAE was not hit by Iranian drones and missiles and could therefore come on board the BRICS statement. This time around, getting Iran and the UAE to agree to the same text will be enormously challenging.
Besides, Brazil was chairing BRICS last year. It robustly steered BRICS member states towards a consensus on a strong statement denouncing the U.S. and Israel. India, in contrast, is looking to keep a low profile on the Iran war. It could end up pushing for an anodyne statement.
More than Brazil, India has an interest in ending the war in West Asia. The Indian economy is heavily dependent on oil from the region. India has a large expatriate population living and working in West Asia. They send home foreign exchange that is vital not only for the Indian economy but for the sustenance of hundreds of thousands of families. India’s ambitions of developing trade routes to Central Asia and Europe hinge on peace and stability in West Asia.
This makes an end to the war imperative for India. It should leverage BRICS to call for a ceasefire in West Asia. Doing so as BRICS chair may be its best bet.
Sudha Ramachandran is South Asia editor at The Diplomat.