From Discord to Consensus: How the BRICS Summit in Rio Repaired the Mistakes of Qingdao

In the world of international diplomacy, words carry weight- sometimes more than weapons. The events that unfolded between the BRICS Defence Ministers’ Meeting in Qingdao and the Leaders’ Summit in

Rio de Janeiro offer a telling case of how subtle omissions and delayed acknowledgments can damage trust, and how timely corrections can restore balance- at least temporarily.

In June 2025, when Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh refused to sign the joint communiqué at the BRICS Defence Ministers’ meeting in Qingdao, it sent a rare but powerful signal. His decision stemmed from what many in New Delhi viewed as a glaring omission: the draft declaration made no mention of the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, in which 26 innocent lives were lost. The omission was not incidental. It was a deliberate choice, reportedly influenced by one BRICS member state’s unwillingness to name or even address terrorism that does not align with its own geopolitical narrative.

That decision fractured the fragile consensus that BRICS strives to maintain. By refusing to sign, India made a principled yet confrontational move- reaffirming its long-standing position that terrorism cannot be selectively condemned. The symbolism of that moment was not lost on global observers. A multilateral forum founded to challenge Western-dominated global governance structures had failed to address the most basic and universal of global concerns: terrorism.

Worse, the communiqué subtly referenced unrest in Balochistan- Pakistan’s restive province- without condemning terror activities in India. This indirect narrative engineering, whether intentional or not, was seen in India as an unacceptable moral equivalence and a betrayal of BRICS’ avowed principles. India’s abstention exposed a crack in the unity of the bloc and left many wondering whether BRICS could function as a genuinely equitable platform if it failed to respect the core security concerns of one of its largest members.

Fast forward to the first week of July 2025, and the tone in Rio de Janeiro could not have been more different. The BRICS Leaders’ Summit under Brazilian chairmanship corrected the course. For the first time, the leaders’ declaration explicitly condemned the Pahalgam attack, acknowledging the loss of Indian lives and reaffirming a collective commitment to fight terrorism in all its forms. The text even went further to call out “double standards” in dealing with terrorism- clearly echoing India’s oft-repeated diplomatic phrasing.

This turnaround did not happen in a vacuum. Diplomacy is rarely about overnight reversals. Between Qingdao and Rio, intense backchannel negotiations took place, led by Indian diplomats and aided by Brazil’s constructive mediation. India made it clear that it expected not just token recognition, but real diplomatic alignment on its most pressing security concern.
Brazil, for its part, deserves credit for anchoring the dialogue in principles rather than politics. Unlike China or Russia, whose geopolitical alignments often complicate consensus-building within BRICS, Brazil maintained neutrality and pushed for language that could satisfy India’s security concerns without provoking opposition from other members. It helped that global sentiment, including from the UN and Western capitals, had been supportive of India’s position after the Pahalgam attack. The result was a declaration that did what the Qingdao communiqué could not- it stood on the right side of moral clarity.

But the Rio success also reveals something deeper about the evolution of BRICS. The group, once seen as a counterweight to Western hegemony, now must wrestle with its own internal contradictions. It houses democratic powers like India and Brazil, but also autocracies with conflicting worldviews. It speaks of multipolarity but often falls victim to bilateral posturing. In that sense, the Rio consensus was not just a victory for India- it was a stress test for BRICS itself.

The entire episode- from Qingdao to Rio- also underscores a larger point about India’s emerging diplomatic assertiveness. In earlier decades, New Delhi might have signed a flawed declaration for the sake of unity or optics. Today, it is willing to walk away if national interests are compromised- and return only when principles are upheld. That transformation is not just tactical but strategic.

The correction made in Rio may not erase the missteps of Qingdao, but it does offer a renewed sense of purpose for BRICS. If the bloc truly aspires to shape the global order, it must begin by building trust within. And trust begins with recognizing that security threats are not negotiable- least of all for the world’s largest democracy.

As BRICS looks to expand its role on issues ranging from economic cooperation to digital governance, its future relevance will depend not on how well it echoes its founding rhetoric, but on how consistently it acts on shared values. The Rio summit was a timely reminder that consensus is possible- but only when principles are not sacrificed at the altar of geopolitics.

Ashutosh Jha writes on geopolitics, Indian diplomacy, and strategic assumptions.