From May deadlock to Delhi consensus: How India found the words BRICS could agree on

The latest market report highlights that Four months before BRICS leaders adopted the New Delhi Declaration, foreign ministers from the grouping had met in the same city and failed to produce a joint statement.

The reason was not a minor drafting dispute. BRICS members Iran and the United Arab Emirates were divided over the conflict in West Asia, while another member had reservations around parts of the proposed language on Gaza.

India, which holds the BRICS chairship for 2026, issued a chair’s statement instead. It acknowledged that members held different views.

On September 12, the outcome was markedly different. Leaders of all 10 BRICS countries unanimously adopted a 140-paragraph declaration. Iran and the UAE both backed the text.

The journey between those two outcomes offers the clearest public account of how the Delhi consensus was constructed.

The disagreement BRICS could not bridge in May

At the May meeting, Iran wanted BRICS to condemn the US-Israeli attacks against it and accused the UAE of involvement in military operations. The UAE rejected those allegations, according to Reuters.

The Indian chair’s statement nevertheless recorded the areas where positions overlapped. These included an early resolution of the conflict, dialogue and diplomacy, respect for sovereignty, civilian protection, international law and safe maritime commerce.

Those points subsequently became the foundations of the language adopted by leaders in Delhi.

Eight months of consultations

India’s Ministry of External Affairs stated the summit was preceded by eight months of engagement involving more than 350 meetings. BRICS additionally has 22 ministerial tracks covering political, economic and people-to-people cooperation.

When asked how India had brought Iran and the UAE into the same consensus, MEA Secretary for Economic Relations Sudhakar Dalela stated discussions had taken place at the Sherpa, foreign ministers’ and leaders’ marks.

India provided a forum in which members could state their national positions before negotiators looked for “landing zones” and “comfort areas”, he stated.

The final declaration, Dalela further noted, could represent only the “common denominator” among the members. Individual countries remained free to retain their national positions.

That distinction became central to the final document. Consensus did not require every BRICS member to adopt the same view. It required them to identify principles that none of them would reject.

How paragraph 28 found the common ground

Paragraph 28 of the New Delhi Declaration contains the clearest example of this approach.

It expresses concern over the escalation in West Asia but does not assign responsibility to any country. It calls for maximum restraint, the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, and a return to dialogue and diplomacy.

The paragraph additionally connects regional stability with interests shared by every BRICS economy: uninterrupted trade, stable supply chains, energy flows and maritime security.

The following paragraph condemns attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities covered by International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. It again avoids attributing responsibility to a particular country.

The published wording as a result accommodates concerns boosted by different members without requiring agreement on competing allegations.

The diplomatic engagement continued outside the drafting process. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian met Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Khaled bin Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan on the summit’s sidelines. It was their countries’ highest-level meeting since the conflict began, according to Reuters.

The UAE stated the discussion covered de-escalation, stability and efforts to advance regional peace. No resolution of their differences was announced.

Shared principles where national positions differed

The same drafting method is visible in the declaration’s treatment of other geopolitical disputes.

Ukraine is not mentioned by name. Instead, paragraph 24 deals collectively with continuing armed conflicts and calls for a multilateral approach that respects the diversity of national viewpoints. It reiterates peaceful settlement through dialogue, consultation and diplomacy.

On tariffs and sanctions, the declaration focuses on policies rather than individual political leaders. It opposes unilateral tariffs, non-tariff barriers, economic sanctions, secondary sanctions and carbon border adjustment measures without naming the United States or President Donald Trump.

Dalela described this as a consistent BRICS position on measures considered contrary to international or World Trade Organization rules.

Earlier agreements provided ready building blocks

Where BRICS already had an agreed formulation, the Delhi declaration largely retained it.

The terrorism section carries forward the grouping’s condemnation of the April 22, 2025, attack in Jammu and Kashmir in which 26 people were killed. It additionally addresses cross-border terrorism, safe havens, terrorist financing and the movement of terrorists.

On United Nations Security Council reform, China and Russia again backing the aspirations of India and Brazil to play a greater role in the UN, including the Security Council. The formulation had previously appeared in the 2025 Rio Declaration.

Retaining language that members had already accepted allowed the declaration to accommodate identifiable Indian priorities within the wider BRICS consensus.

Why the other 130-plus paragraphs mattered

The geopolitical compromises formed only one part of the declaration.

The government stated India’s chairship produced more than 50 practical outcomes across resilience, innovation, cooperation and sustainability. These included initiatives involving digital agriculture, health, research, startups, digital public infrastructure, trade, finance, energy and urban development.

This placed the contentious geopolitical clauses within a much broader programme of cooperative measures that every member could participate in.

The public record does not reveal every proposed draft or private exchange. It does, that stated, show the method India followed: keep consultations running at multiple marks, allow national positions to be heard, preserve previously agreed formulations and frame new language around shared interests.

BRICS did not emerge from Delhi with identical foreign policies. It emerged with a declaration every member could adopt despite those differences. For India’s chairship, moving the grouping from May’s chair’s statement to September’s unanimous declaration was the central consensus test.