Congress leaders P Chidambaram and Shashi Tharoor have offered contrasting assessments of the BRICS grouping, highlighting an internal difference in how the international forum should be viewed from the perspective of India’s national interests.
While former Union Finance Minister and senior Congress leader P Chidambaram has questioned the tangible benefits India has gained from recent BRICS summits, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has defended the grouping and argued that its diplomatic and strategic value should not be measured only through immediate economic outcomes.
Chidambaram has raised questions about the practical results of India’s participation in BRICS, saying that he has not seen significant tangible benefits from the last few summits. His comments have focused on the need to examine whether participation in multilateral groupings translates into measurable gains for India.
His remarks have prompted a political debate over the purpose and effectiveness of BRICS. The grouping was initially established as a forum for major emerging economies, but it has gradually developed into a broader diplomatic platform. With its membership expanded in recent years, BRICS now represents a substantial share of the world’s population and economy.
Tharoor, however, has taken a different view of the grouping. He has highlighted the diplomatic influence India can gain through BRICS and argued that the forum provides New Delhi with an important platform to engage simultaneously with major powers and countries of the Global South.
For Tharoor, the significance of BRICS extends beyond direct economic agreements. The grouping provides India with an opportunity to participate in discussions on global governance, development, international institutions, economic cooperation and the interests of developing countries.
India is hosting the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi on September 12 and 13, 2026. The summit has brought leaders and senior representatives from the expanded BRICS grouping to the Indian capital.
The expansion of BRICS has increased the geographical and political diversity of the grouping. The current membership includes major economies and countries from different regions, giving the forum a wider representation of emerging and developing nations.
Supporters of BRICS argue that this expanded representation gives India an opportunity to strengthen its voice among countries that form a significant part of the Global South. The platform can also allow India to pursue its interests without being formally aligned with any single major power bloc.
Tharoor has also stressed the diplomatic prestige associated with India hosting a major international summit. Bringing together leaders from countries with different political systems and strategic interests demonstrates India’s growing ability to convene important international discussions.
This aspect is particularly relevant to India’s broader foreign policy approach. New Delhi maintains relationships with countries across different geopolitical groupings, including the United States, European countries, Russia, China and nations across the Global South.
BRICS provides another platform through which India can maintain these multiple diplomatic relationships. Recent analysis has described the grouping as a useful bridge for India, allowing it to engage with major non-Western powers while retaining its strategic autonomy.
The debate between Chidambaram and Tharoor therefore reflects two different ways of assessing multilateral diplomacy. Chidambaram’s position places greater emphasis on measurable outcomes and asks whether international groupings generate concrete economic or strategic advantages for India.
Tharoor’s argument gives greater importance to diplomatic influence, international visibility and India’s ability to shape discussions involving the Global South. From this perspective, the value of BRICS cannot necessarily be measured only through trade figures or individual agreements.
The current BRICS summit also comes at a time of significant international tensions. The grouping is dealing with differences among its members over geopolitical conflicts, economic policies and relations with Western countries. The ongoing conflict involving Iran has added another layer of complexity to the summit, particularly because Iran is a BRICS member.
These differences have raised questions about how effectively the expanded BRICS grouping can reach common positions on major international issues. At the same time, the forum continues to provide opportunities for member countries to cooperate in areas such as economic development, digital technology, infrastructure, climate-related initiatives and financial cooperation.
For India, the challenge is to use the platform while protecting its own strategic and economic interests. New Delhi has sought to ensure that BRICS remains a broad and flexible forum rather than becoming an explicitly anti-Western grouping. Tharoor himself has recently argued that the summit should not be presented as an anti-West platform and that India’s national interest should remain the priority.
The difference in views between the two Congress leaders comes as India seeks to make the most of its BRICS chairmanship. The government has highlighted India’s role in strengthening cooperation among member countries and in promoting the concerns of developing nations.
Recent proposals under discussion include greater cooperation in areas such as startups, innovation and global supply chains. Such initiatives could provide more concrete outcomes if they translate into practical programmes and sustained cooperation among member countries.
The debate also highlights a broader question about the role of multilateral organisations in India’s foreign policy. Participation in international forums can provide diplomatic access and influence, but governments are also expected to demonstrate how such engagement contributes to economic growth, security, trade and other national priorities.
Chidambaram’s comments have therefore placed greater emphasis on the question of measurable results, while Tharoor’s position highlights the longer-term diplomatic advantages of maintaining an active role in BRICS.
The contrasting views do not necessarily mean that Congress has adopted a single position against BRICS. Instead, they show different assessments of the forum’s usefulness and the way India should approach it.
As the New Delhi summit brings together leaders of major emerging economies, the debate over BRICS is likely to continue. India will have to balance the diplomatic opportunities offered by the grouping with its economic and strategic interests.
For now, Chidambaram and Tharoor have provided two distinct perspectives on the same international platform. Chidambaram is seeking clearer evidence of tangible benefits, while Tharoor sees diplomatic influence, Global South representation, international prestige and India’s convening ability as important gains.
The discussion is likely to remain relevant as India evaluates the outcomes of its 2026 BRICS chairmanship and determines how the grouping can contribute to the country’s long-term foreign policy objectives