Foreign affairs expert Robinder Sachdeva said the BRICS bloc lacks a common program and real cohesion during a meeting in New Delhi.
The assessment highlights the difficulty India faces in maintaining a strategic balance while engaging with a group of nations that often hold contradictory interests. As the bloc expands, the lack of a unified agenda may limit its ability to function as a cohesive geopolitical force.
Speaking during the BRICS foreign ministers' two-day meeting [2] held March 1-2, 2024, Sachdeva said the organization is fundamentally fragmented. He said, "BRICS has bricks but no cement" [1]. According to Sachdeva, the group is a "hugely contradictory organisation" [3] because it includes members with divergent goals, and some nations that are actively at war.
Sachdeva said that this lack of unity makes the bloc largely ineffective. He said that India's primary gains do not stem from the collective organization, but rather from bilateral ties with countries in the Global South [1]. This dynamic forces India to walk a geopolitical tightrope to maintain its international standing.
The challenges facing the group are compounded by external pressures. A reporter from AP News said the talks would test the unity of the bloc amid oil-price volatility and the Iran war [4]. These tensions illustrate the friction between member states that the "bricks" of the alliance cannot easily overcome.
BRICS began with five members 17 years ago [5]. While the group has grown in size and nominal influence, the internal contradictions cited by Sachdeva suggest that numerical growth has not translated into operational unity. The New Delhi meeting served as a focal point for these ongoing structural weaknesses.
“BRICS has bricks but no cement.”
The critique suggests that while BRICS provides a platform for the Global South to challenge Western hegemony, it lacks the institutional framework to act as a single entity. For India, the bloc serves less as a unified alliance and more as a diplomatic umbrella that facilitates individual bilateral relationships without requiring a binding, shared ideological commitment.
