India, July 7 -- The Brics Summit currently underway in Brazil is stirring a great deal of unease, curiosity, enthusiasm, and hope - depending on your geographical location - about the potential influence of this 11-member grouping in shaping global geopolitics as the post-war order unravels. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's participation at the Brics, following the country's recent attendance at the Quad foreign ministers' meeting, its presence at the G7 summit in mid-June, and the Defence Ministers' Meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) a few weeks ago, highlights the complex geopolitical fault lines Delhi must navigate. So what value does the Brics provide to its members? Brics offers its member countries different value propositions. For many nations, particularly in the Global South, Brics functions as a significant platform to voice their historical grievances and concerns that have often been overlooked by developed countries. For Russia, China and Iran, this is a growing global forum where they can challenge the US and its allies and discuss ways to forge a global geopolitical alternative to the US-led order (even though both Russia and China are key members of that order by virtue of being members of the UN Security Council). For new and aspiring members, Brics represents a promise of future geopolitical influence; no one wants to be left behind as discussions about shaping the new world order gain momentum. But even as Brics is faced with several major challenges, it is seeking to enlist more members believing that expanding its membership will enhance its influence and transform it into a more pivotal global forum. But the more it expands, the more we are likely to witness glaring internal contradictions. There is less unity and more differences among Brics members on various issues even when they agree to long summit declarations (the 2024 Kazan Summit Declaration has 134 paragraphs). In a sense, member countries sign on summit declarations rich in rhetoric because they are likely aware of their limited impact. At the core of the challenges facing Brics is that what primarily unites its member countries is not themselves but a shared opposition to the US-led world order, which they believe fails to address the needs of much of humanity. Yet, there is little consensus among the members regarding the extent and nature of their opposition to the US-led order. For example, India and Russia often hold sharply divergent views on how to reform the existing system or how to construct a new one, reflecting their differing strategic interests and their respective relationship with the US and the West. Can the Brics as a grouping emerge as a credible global geopolitical alternative? The answer, in my opinion, is a resounding no. If so, should India geopolitical hitch its wagon to Brics? I would say no. International politics is not black and white, surely: There are lots of shades of grey. Therefore, there is value in being part of forums like Brics primarily for the purpose of geopolitical hedging. For Delhi, Brics is a significant non-western platform where some of the most influential alternative sentiments on the global order currently find voice, even if much of this remains at the level of rhetoric. For India, the Brics rhetoric serves as a valuable tool to enhance its leverage in other forums like the G7 and G20 as a bridge State. More so, since Brics consistently echoes concerns important to the Global South, it holds a great deal of instrumental value for Delhi as it seeks to position itself as a leading voice within the Global South. If you are not part of forums that focus on the concerns of the Global South, you may lack the legitimacy or platform to effectively represent or speak for its interests. And yet, such symbolic value could become counterproductive if it leads to or becomes entrenched in more sharply divided geopolitical positions. For instance, the anti-West rhetoric is a good starting point for India to get more receptivity and attention from the West but when such rhetoric becomes too radical to India's liking given its reformist tendencies, it loses its utility for Delhi. The utility of Brics diminishes for India when its rhetoric exceeds its symbolic value. Second, India must be realistic about what the Brics members will do for each other. They may stand with each other when an individual member is in trouble, but as individual States. This is something India saw during the India-Pakistan standoff when neither Brics as a platform nor individual Brics members expressed solidarity with India. The objective of Brics is to discuss issues of common interest among its members without necessarily catering to the specific needs or interests of any single country. Therefore, India must approach engagement with Brics with this understanding, ensuring that its participation only supports modest shared interests of the group. More so, it must ensure that its efforts do not inadvertently advance the revisionist goals of any other member country. For India, Brics is a tool for strategic hedging in uncertain times. It helps Delhi balance and engage simultaneously, gives it some flexibility in navigating opposites while being ambiguous about where its real interests lie, and managing its competing interests. The key to India's approach to Brics then is careful hedging, not ideological solidarity....