OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between

Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025

375

CIVILIZATIONAL STATES IN A CHANGING GLOBAL ORDER: INDIA’S EMERGING

ROLE IN BRICS

SRESHTHA CHAKRABORTY

Sreshtha90@gmail.com

Assistant Professor, Bennett University (India). https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0912-1880

Abstract

The concept of a non-Western civilisational state, which emphasises preserving and promoting

a nation’s unique cultural and civilisational heritage, challenges the universality of Western

values and contributes to the broader discourse on unipolarity versus multipolarity. India’s

multifaceted identity, shaped by thousands of years of spiritual, philosophical, and political

discourse, positions it as a pivotal actor in the emerging multipolar world order. Through its

evolving multi-alignment policy, India maintains an interest-based approach with emerging

and existing powers while asserting its civilisational ethos as a model of governance that

blends democratic principles with traditional values. This paper also examines India’s

partnership with Russia and China within the Russia-India-China (RIC) grouping within the

BRICS framework, where these states collectively aim to challenge Western ideological

hegemony and reshape global governance to reflect a multipolar, civilisational plural world.

The paper critiques Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilisations” theory and argues for a more

dynamic understanding of civilisational identities, emphasising the interconnectedness of

civilisations such as India, China, and Russia. In this context, the paper argues that BRICS

emerges as a geopolitical and economic coalition, as well as a force for cultural and

civilisational pluralism. The civilisational identities of India, China, and Russia provide a

counterpoint to Western liberalism, advocating for a world order based on mutual respect,

cultural continuity, and cooperation rather than ideological conflict.

Keywords

BRICS, Civilisational values, Non-Western IR, RIC.

Resumo

O conceito de um Estado civilizacional não ocidental, que enfatiza a preservação e a promoção

do património cultural e civilizacional único de uma nação, desafia a universalidade dos

valores ocidentais e contribui para o discurso mais amplo sobre unipolaridade versus

multipolaridade. A identidade multifacetada da Índia, moldada por milhares de anos de

discurso espiritual, filosófico e político, posiciona-a como um ator fundamental na ordem

mundial multipolar emergente. Através da sua política de alinhamento múltiplo em evolução,

a Índia mantém uma abordagem baseada em interesses com potências emergentes e

existentes, ao mesmo tempo que afirma o seu ethos civilizacional como um modelo de

governação que combina princípios democráticos com valores tradicionais. Este artigo

também examina a parceria da Índia com a Rússia e a China no âmbito do agrupamento

Rússia-Índia-China (RIC) dentro da estrutura do BRICS, onde esses Estados visam

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 375-388

Civilizational States in a Changing Global Order: India’s Emerging Role in BRICS

Sreshtha Chakraborty

376

coletivamente desafiar a hegemonia ideológica ocidental e remodelar a governança global

para refletir um mundo multipolar e civilizacionalmente plural. O artigo critica a teoria do

“choque de civilizações” de Samuel Huntington e defende uma compreensão mais dinâmica

das identidades civilizacionais, enfatizando a interconectividade de civilizações como a Índia,

a China e a Rússia. Neste contexto, o artigo argumenta que o BRICS surge como uma

coligação geopolítica e económica, bem como uma força para o pluralismo cultural e

civilizacional. As identidades civilizacionais da Índia, China e Rússia fornecem um contraponto

ao liberalismo ocidental, defendendo uma ordem mundial baseada no respeito mútuo, na

continuidade cultural e na cooperação, em vez do conflito ideológico.

Palavras-chave

BRICS, valores civilizacionais, RI não ocidental, RIC.

How to cite this article

Chakraborty, Sreshtha (2025). Civilizational States in a Changing Global Order: India’s Emerging

Role in BRICS. Janus.net, e-journal of international relations. Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers

In-between Global and Regional Organizations, VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1, December 2025, pp. 375-

388. https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT0525.20

Article submitted on 25th May 2025 and accepted for publication on 18th September

2025.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 375-388

Civilizational States in a Changing Global Order: India’s Emerging Role in BRICS

Sreshtha Chakraborty

377

CIVILIZATIONAL STATES IN A CHANGING GLOBAL ORDER:

INDIA’S EMERGING ROLE IN BRICS

SRESHTHA CHAKRABORTY

Introduction

The traditional perspective of International Relations (IR) posits that it is a discipline

rooted in Western philosophical thought, with its issues and solutions predominantly

shaped by Western viewpoints. Academic comprehension of international politics is

primarily considered to originate from Western scholarship and institutions, with theories

such as realism and liberalism being mainly influenced by Western philosophers,

including Hobbes, Locke, and Kant. These theories have become the prevailing paradigms

in International Relations (IR) (Rumelili, 2014). Nevertheless, revisionist scholars

challenge this perspective, contending that the narrative of the Treaty of Westphalia is a

constructed history devised to provide a foundation for traditional or realist theories

(Acharya & Buzan, 2007). There is little doubt that the discipline of International

Relations (IR) and world politics are transitioning from established global powers to

emerging ones. The frameworks led by Western nations that have shaped international

governance since the end of World War II are undergoing increasing transformation. As

new powers, notably the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), enhance their

influence on the international stage, there is a growing call to reevaluate and recalibrate

IR theories and practices to comprehend the evolving dynamics of global politics better.

Following the end of the Cold War, the West’s triumph fostered the belief that its core

values —such as liberal democracy, free markets, and human rights —were universal

principles destined to sustain long-term global dominance.

This research is qualitative and interpretive, grounded in constructivist and postcolonial

understandings of International Relations (IR), with a focus on discourse analysis. The

research is based on various primary and secondary sources. It uses official government

communications, policy texts, and academic literature. The research critically analyses

how India frames its place in the BRICS system using the discourse of civilisational

identity. This study adds to de-centring Western-oriented IR paradigms by highlighting

India’s role as an emerging power and civilisational state, articulating an alternative

vision for global governance based on cultural pluralism and spiritual heritage. It

constructs BRICS as a possible platform for civilisational discussion and South-South

cooperation. However, the research possesses several shortcomings. The findings may

not be generalised across all BRICS members, as they exhibit distinct historical

trajectories and national identities. Due to the dynamic nature of world politics, the

research limits its consideration of the influence of recent geopolitical events, such as the

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 375-388

Civilizational States in a Changing Global Order: India’s Emerging Role in BRICS

Sreshtha Chakraborty

378

Russia-Ukraine conflict or shifting Sino-Indian realities, on the future of BRICS. Despite

these limitations, the study makes a significant contribution to understanding India’s

evolving foreign policy and its ambitions in an increasingly complex, multipolar, and

culturally diverse world order.

Evolving Non-Western International Relations

There is nothing new about scholars of international relations criticising Western centrism

in the field of IR theory; it is a theme that keeps resurfacing. Dependency School and

World Systems theorists have questioned the Western-centric approach to international

relations since the 1960s and 1970s, particularly during decolonisation (Wallerstein,

2004). The development of non-Western international relations theories within peripheral

states has recently gained prominence. The most significant and striking factor in the

transformation of the world is that non-Western civilisational states are playing an

increasingly important role (Acharya & Buzan, 2010). What we mean by this concept is

that we think of states that weigh their legitimacy not on a nation but on their

civilisational heritage. In the West, the primary condition for a state’s legitimacy is its

democratic functioning. Nevertheless, in a civilisational state, the presence or absence of

democracy holds minimal significance. Henry Kissinger (2014) expressed concern that

competing conceptions of civilisation could lead to conflicts that could be even more

dangerous than the conventional conflicts between states. He contended that the

fundamental conflict in the modern world is not merely a struggle for political power or

economic influence; instead, it is a struggle for deeply ingrained cultural and civilisational

values. As a result, states often use historical and cultural narratives to legitimise their

power, making the significance of culture in this context frequently surpass that of

political calculations. This concept is presented in the “civilisational state,” which,

according to the assertions of some Asian academics, is defined not only by political

authority but also by an extraordinary moral authority that distinguishes it from the

Western state model (Mahbubani,2023). Huntington opines that the major civilisations

of the world, Western, Islamic, Confucian, and Hindu civilisations, among others, will be

the dominant sources of conflict in the post-Cold War period. In his argument, Huntington

asserts that civilisational identity, based on religion, culture and historical experience, is

an enduring force that influences global politics. This argument was reawakened in “The

Great Convergence,” as referred to by Mahbubani (2013), who claims that the world is

currently shifting from a Western-dominated international order to a multipolar world,

where, especially in Asia, non-Western civilisations assert their values and models of

governance. The ideological hegemony of the West, including liberal democracy, is now

increasingly challenged by civilisations with different historical narratives, values, and

ways to govern. Non-Western powers, such as China, India, and Russia, are asserting

their civilisational identities in an increasingly purposeful manner and promoting

alternative governance approaches based on historical legitimacy, cultural continuity,

and moral authority within institutions. These nation-states no longer assert their political

influence alone; they also offer political legitimacy based on their civilisational identity.

Mahbubani (2013) argues that the world is transitioning from an international order

dominated by the Western world to a more multipolar world in which non-Western

civilisations, particularly those in Asia, assert their values and models of governance.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 375-388

Civilizational States in a Changing Global Order: India’s Emerging Role in BRICS

Sreshtha Chakraborty

379

This perpetually evolving geopolitical dynamic highlights the escalating tension that

manifests on the international stage between a universalism driven by the West and the

resurgence of distinct civilisational values, which compete or cooperate. Huntington has

encountered considerable criticism, predominantly for his reductionist and essentialist

approach to civilisational identities, with numerous critics concentrating on

deconstructing the debates (Adib-Moghaddam, 2010). Nevertheless, one of the most

concerning aspects of his theory is his categorisation of civilisations such as Chinese,

Hindu, and Eastern as discrete, separate entities. This perspective fails to recognise these

civilisations’ historical and contemporary interconnectedness and affinities. In contrast to

Huntington’s reductionist framework, International Relations (IR) scholarship has largely

overlooked the long-standing and enriching interactions between Chinese and Indian

civilisations. This paper critiques the assumptions underlying civilisational identities

defined solely by cultural, religious, or geographical distinctions and highlights their

limitations. It examines the discourse surrounding civilisations in International Relations

(IR) and discusses the concept of “civilisation-states” within the context of the BRICS.

Specifically, it explores the critical components of civilisational overlaps and exchanges

between these countries and how both invoke their “civilisation-state” identities in

contemporary bilateral relations.

Civilisations are dynamic entities that evolve through their internal diversity and

interactions with one another (Cox, 2002). Unlike the rigid borders of nation-states,

civilisations surpass national limits and challenge traditional ideas of territoriality.

Historical inter-civilisational exchanges have been crucial; for example, Europe’s journey

towards modernity was significantly shaped by exchanges with China, India, and the

Islamic world (Arnason, 2006). These interactions take on political importance when

civilisations are used to construct identities. Civilisational identity is vital in defining a

community’s boundaries by distinguishing between “self” and “other.” How individuals,

states, and regions position themselves globally and assess others is essential. In China

and India, both at the institutional and societal levels, the narratives of their rich

civilisational histories have been utilised to guide their transformations from less

prosperous eras to potentially brighter futures. The histories of these states extend

beyond museums, artefacts, or archaeological finds; their civilisational legacies are

vibrant narratives that continue to influence their definitions of national excellence. This

perception of their civilisational heritage is meaningful in enhancing national identities,

shaping their ambitions, and preserving national interests. However, asserting such an

identity is insufficient. For civilisational identity to possess social and political significance,

other international actors must recognise it as legitimate.

It is China and India who are in constant tussle to prove their assertion as the custodians

of their ancient civilisations. These assertions are not universally recognised but are in

the process of receiving acknowledgement from and within the international order. Such

recognitions not only influence both domestic and international relations but also indicate

political relevance within the BRICS framework. It asserts that it comprises emerging

powers united not only by political or economic aims but also by shared cultural and

civilisational values. These values directly challenge Western dominance. The political

significance of civilisational heritage, rather than being a matter of history, continues to

play a vital role in shaping contemporary geopolitical discourse. Sharing a sense of

cultural heritage may facilitate the resolution of past disputes, instead of being

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 375-388

Civilizational States in a Changing Global Order: India’s Emerging Role in BRICS

Sreshtha Chakraborty

380

entrenched in a perpetual cycle of inevitable conflict over cultural differences, as

Huntington posits, the clash of civilisations. These two civilisations demonstrate that a

common history and culture can foster coexistence and enhance their present relations.

Recognising their civilisational inheritance is essential for promoting diplomatic

engagement and cooperation.

Viswa-Guru: India’s claims to civilisational exceptionalism

India’s claims of civilisational exceptionalism in the international system have deep

historical origins. In the fight against colonialism in the years before independence in

1947, Indian leaders and thinkers often espoused the idea that India’s moral and spiritual

heritage was a counterpoint to Western preoccupation with material advancement and

superiority of Eastern spirituality vis-à-vis Western materialism, thus situating India in a

singular position to offer moral leadership to world society (Estrada, 2023). This

civilisational identity became central to India’s conception of itself and worldview,

especially as it struggled to establish an alternative world order based on moral and

religious values (Volodin, 2020). It later helped India secure its post-independence

position as a strict defender of the Global South. Civilisational entitlement was used to

justify India’s assertion to act on behalf of humanity as a nation-state and moral model.

Post-independence, the civilisational narrative further changed. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s

first Prime Minister, espoused a secular and plural vision of Indian civilisation based on

diversity and peaceful coexistence. Influenced by a liberal intellectual tradition, Nehru

thought of Indian civilisation as open-ended and internally diverse, shaping his approach

towards foreign policy. His emphasis on non-alignment and peaceful coexistence of

nations was a direct carryover of this civilisational outlook (Estrada, 2023). India’s right-

wing government offered a more exclusivist view, asserting that Hinduism fundamentally

and solely defines Indian civilisation. This definition repeatedly recurred within India’s

foreign policy framework, particularly when the right-wing party assumed power. With

Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), civilisational discourse in Indian

politics has taken a more essentialist and assertive turn since the party came to power

in 2014 (Srivastava, 2023). The emphasis on Hinduism today is accompanied by greater

assertiveness and an integral understanding of India’s role in the world, linked to its

Hindu civilisational identity. While a part of the state is involved in the globalisation

process, a civilisational identity has emerged, both as a reaction to it and as a component

of the process itself. Globalisation claims to recognise and value the distinctions and

plurality of identities within and between states across our new global contexts. While

there is an ongoing debate as to whether using “civilisation” is an adequate analytical

category, it is, or has become, clear that the frequent references made to it in cultural

and political contexts indicate its presumed utility after a long time. Yeşiltaş (2014)

believes that civilisation is an institution and a participant in international politics.

Civilisations are cultural constructs based on actual or perceived social relationships. In

this Indian context, civilisational thinking is revitalised by three broad changes to the

global political order and discourse. Since its inception, the liberal international order has

been overwhelmingly shaped by Western powers. However, it has faced significant

challenges, particularly following the 2008 global financial crisis, which revealed deep-

seated flaws in neoliberal economic models. Europe has grappled with quasi-

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 375-388

Civilizational States in a Changing Global Order: India’s Emerging Role in BRICS

Sreshtha Chakraborty

381

constitutional crises, including the stalled EU constitution, the Eurozone debt crisis,

setbacks in foreign policy in the Middle East (the Arab Spring) and Ukraine, migration

issues, and the Brexit referendum. These developments have highlighted a substantial

limitation in liberal democratic values and the EU’s soft power (Öniş & Kutlay, 2019).

Furthermore, the West has lost its monopoly over globalisation, with alternative

development models and value systems emerging. This crisis of the international

neoliberal order has overlapped with a global upsurge in identity politics and populism,

which have emerged from both left and right movements, mobilised against international

governance and cosmopolitan elites, stressing sovereignty and national culture (Kriesi et

al., 2008). It emerges simultaneously with the rise of Asian powers, namely China and

India, breaking the assumed link between modernisation and Westernisation, as they

prefer to embody political and economic paths that are foreign to liberal democratic

norms (Acharya, 2020).

Technological advancements have disrupted the global information landscape, creating

competing narratives amplified by digital platforms and state media. In this context,

civilisational identities are making a comeback and becoming politicised. In the newly

emerging multipolar world, regional powers such as Russia, China, India, Turkey, and

Iran are adopting civilisational discourses to validate their global roles and expand their

influence. These developments have brought civilisations back into the forefront of

international politics, transforming them from mere cultural categories into strategic

narratives.

A foundational part of Modi’s foreign policy narrative is the assertion that India possesses

a unique and valuable worldview, predicated on unity and universalism —a perspective

that Prime Minister Modi frequently expresses through the phrase “Vasudhaiva

Kutumbakam” (Hall, 2019). This concept has been a prominent feature of Modi’s

speeches on global platforms. As recently as 2020, PM Modi’s comments to the 75th

United Nations General Assembly included the assertion that India has embraced the

ideals of the UN since time immemorial because our cultural philosophy has long viewed

the world as one family. In this instance, he highlighted India’s long-standing

commitment to peacekeeping and the country’s desire for an increased role in the UN.

Modi’s references to ‘One World, One Family’ have appeared in other contexts, with policy

circles and foreign policy elites in India discussing both ideas on multiple occasions.

However, as Hansen (2013) notes, even discourses that claim universalism are based on

implicit distinctions. For example, ‘universal human rights’ create the distinction between

those who support and oppose such rights. The same logic applies when applied to

civilisational values. Although Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam suggests a global collective

identity, the contemporary nature of Foreign policy immediately localises that notion

within Indian culture by stating it is an element of “our culture, character and thinking.”

It creates a binary situation between India, which holds these values, and others who do

not hold or reject these values. This inclination to culturally ground universal values

appears in various contexts. At the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference

(COP26), Modi opened his speech with a Sanskrit mantra promoting collective unity in

thought and action. He highlighted that his inspirations derive from a cultural heritage

that advocates for “Happiness for All” (Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah). The seemingly

universal goal is again portrayed as an Indian addition to the global discussion.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 375-388

Civilizational States in a Changing Global Order: India’s Emerging Role in BRICS

Sreshtha Chakraborty

382

Understanding the ideological stakes of Modi’s universalism requires an appreciation of

the intertextual and philosophical elements in his rhetoric. It must also be noted that

while these aspects of Modi’s rhetoric are not always meticulously referenced, they are

an essential part and, again, a normative, robust appropriation of the contemporary neo-

Vedanta thought system. Modi’s rhetorical genres and representations assimilate well as

discursive formations, which draw heavily on the neo-Vedanta, as presented by

nineteenth-century figures such as Swami Vivekananda. In this, not only were Vedic texts

favourably interpreted, but they were also situated as foundation texts of Hinduism and,

hence, the core of the spiritual essence of Indian civilisation. This perspective is reflected

in contemporary nationalism. Advaita Vedanta, a Hindu philosophical system, was

founded in the 8th century CE and is associated with the philosopher Shankara. Advaita

Vedanta is the singular or non-dualistic conceptualisation of the universe; however, in

the nineteenth century, thinkers like Vivekananda and Aurobindo developed a national

interest and interpreted Advaita Vedanta, albeit vaguely, into a nationalist perspective

with a transcendental or metaphysical basis for those constructs in India.

India-China Civilisational Claims: Cooperation and Contestation

India and China are the two leading Asian powers that express their roles in the world

through the narrative of the “civilisational state.” Both claim legitimacy not just from

economic growth and geopolitical stronghold, but also by referencing their long

civilisational histories. This parallel positioning creates a dual dynamic of cooperation and

conflict that increasingly shapes the conversation about world order.

China and India both base their foreign policies on civilisational narratives, but they do

so in very different ways. China relies on Confucian ideals of harmony, order, and

hierarchy. It presents itself as a guardian of ancient wisdom while showcasing its

technological and developmental strengths. India, on the other hand, emphasises

pluralism, democracy, and spirituality. India views itself as a civilisational actor that can

provide moral and philosophical guidance while remaining open to diverse identities and

democratic practices. Their civilisational narratives create openings for cooperation. Both

countries reject the universality of Western liberal values, advocate for cultural pluralism,

and support a multipolar world. The relationship between India and China is not merely

a “clash of civilisations” but a competition over who truly represents Asia’s civilisational

heritage. How these narratives develop, whether they promote dialogue within the BRICS

or lead to rivalry, will have a significant impact on regional and global governance. These

approaches come together most clearly in multilateral forums like BRICS. Both countries

use this platform to assert their civilisational identity and challenge Western universalism.

However, their strategies differ. China prefers centralised, state-led development. India

supports inclusivity and pluralistic governance. This disagreement makes it difficult for

the BRICS to present a clear non-Western vision of the world order. It also influences the

group’s internal dynamics, with India often trying to balance China’s dominance through

more decentralised, dialogue-focused initiatives. BRICS serves as a space where multiple

civilisational narratives coexist, provided there are mechanisms to ensure dialogue, build

consensus, and manage conflicts informally. Shared philosophical principles, such as

harmony, community, and shared leadership responsibilities, can be applied to

discussions about development justice, multipolarity, and sovereignty. Recognising these

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 375-388

Civilizational States in a Changing Global Order: India’s Emerging Role in BRICS

Sreshtha Chakraborty

383

common values enables India and China to collaborate effectively without losing their

differences.

India and BRICs: Civilizational Ethos

The ongoing debate about BRICS is important, especially for India. The global political

landscape has undergone significant changes since the group formed in the early 2000s.

BRICS is a varied coalition made up of powers focused on different issues. These

members lack a common overall strategy or shared vision (Nafey & Kashyap, 2020).

These countries often differ in political systems, economic strength, and foreign policy

directions. China’s significant economic influence starkly contrasts with the more

balanced aims of countries like India, Brazil, South Africa, and Russia (Kumar, 2018).

Moreover, personal and societal links among BRICS nations are still underdeveloped,

which makes the grouping loose and informal. Despite these differences, India sees value

in BRICS as a collective force to counter what is often viewed as a Western-dominated

and unequal global governance system. The BRICS nations share a normative criticism

of the Bretton Woods institutions and the UN system, which still fail to adequately reflect

the realities of a multipolar world (Dutta, 2021). Although their economic power has

grown, their political influence remains relatively limited. India utilises BRICS to

underscore its emerging status and advocate for the aspirations of the broader Global

South, aligning with its civilisational values.

Pragmatic interests and civilisational values drive India’s participation in BRICS. India

views collectivising its platforms and agents in BRICS as a reservoir for its civilisational

and institutional task of promoting the democratisation of global governance and South-

South cooperation - activities that are offered to BRICS member states as an ode to

India’s former historical identity as a postcolonial champion of non-alignment and

supporter of multilateralism. BRICS is at the hub of the broader shift in power to the

Global South, with India supporting BRICS while strengthening its internal

institutionalisation, promoting the use of cooperative mechanisms among members, and

cautiously welcoming external institutionalisation that includes interested, like-minded

developing countries.

India’s civilisational worldview provides BRICS with a normative basis for its role within

the organisation. For example, India’s promotion of dialogue over dominance,

multipolarity over unipolarity, and developmental equity over-exploitation supports a

BRICS agenda of a more equitable global architecture (albeit with a multitude of

competing actors). Ultimately, the effectiveness of BRICS will depend on its ability to

transcend its members’ internal contradictions and establish deeper levels of trust among

its members and with the broader community of emerging powers.

Nye (2001) argues that the ability to attract and co-opt through foreign policy, political

values, and culture is just as important as, if not more so, economic or military might.

However, according to Dugin, this neoliberal framework of influence lacks the ingrained

underpinnings that a civilisation is said to be built upon. According to him, when freedom

and democracy are divorced from their metaphysical underpinnings and historical

continuity, they become tools of cultural homogenisation rather than authentic

expressions of civilisation. Dugin views soft power as a cover for ideational hegemony

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 375-388

Civilizational States in a Changing Global Order: India’s Emerging Role in BRICS

Sreshtha Chakraborty

384

that undermines authentic cultural identities, whereas Nye sees it as a civilising force

that promotes global security and liberal principles (Kalinin, 2019). India appears to be

pursuing a hybrid strategy that blends Alexander Dugin’s concept of civilisational identity

with Joseph Nye’s soft power theory.

India balances its practical international participation with a deeper expression of cultural

difference within BRICS, which offers a unique platform to promote its soft power and

civilisational identity. Following Joseph Nye’s concept of influence through appeal, India

presents itself as a responsible and attractive partner through its efforts in health,

education, digital innovation, and cultural exchange within the BRICS framework.

However, its goals for global governance changes and focus on connections among

ancient civilisations highlight a desire to resist cultural uniformity and amplify the voices

of other civilisations. Therefore, India can both establish its civilisational identity and

project modern soft power through BRICS, thereby creating a distinct identity that

transcends Western liberalism and its alternatives. India seeks to establish a more

inclusive and multipolar global order, resonating with the goals of BRICS, a multilateral

entity that exists alongside the West-led order. The objective is derived from India’s own

historical identity as a non-Western culture with its unique intellectual traditions. BRICS

provides a platform to highlight a model that promotes technological advancement and

developmental expertise, along with a civilisational ethos, thereby enhancing soft power

in the Global South.

The civilisational vision of BRICS is presented as a provider of “strategic autonomy of the

non-West. This positions India’s engagement not just in economic or geopolitical terms

but more broadly as a civilisational assertion. This would be alongside China’s

Confucianism, Russia’s Eurasianism, and Iran’s Islamic republicanism. In this light,

BRICS serves as a space that enables its members’ diverse cultures and orientations to

coalesce and share without being bound by a Western liberal agenda. However,

ethnopluralism and cultural integrity could also lead to conflict. While preserving the

distinct civilisational values of its members can add to the BRICS project, it could equally

maintain distinct worldviews, policy interests, and historical tensions. The challenge is to

manage the civilisational diversity in BRICS and realise economic and political cohesion,

and a normative commitment to multipolarity without isolationist cultural identity and

geopolitical rivalry.

Huntington would likely perceive the BRICS coalition as a strategic yet precarious bloc

formed in response to Western hegemony. This perspective aligns with his broader

argument that civilisational, rather than ideological, conflicts will govern the post-Cold

War era. While BRICS represents a collective push for a multipolar world, Huntington’s

work challenges the notion that its members, who are rooted in distinct civilisations, lack

a unifying cultural foundation, making sustained cooperation inherently difficult. He

would interpret the emphasis on civilisational identity and cultural preservation as a

double-edged sword. While it enables non-Western nations to exercise sovereignty and

counter cultural homogenisation, it brings the danger of internal fragmentation due to

alternative worldviews and regional aspirations. Therefore, in Huntington’s view, BRICS

might be an effective alliance in the short term. However, its stability in the long term is

doubtful unless its members overcome their profound civilisational differences through

shared interests and diplomatic equilibrium.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 375-388

Civilizational States in a Changing Global Order: India’s Emerging Role in BRICS

Sreshtha Chakraborty

385

A significant motivating factor contributing to the growing popularity of BRICS is its

commitment to uniting nations with diverse national interests, while also striving for

enhanced strategic autonomy. Even nations that maintain relatively favourable relations

with the West regard BRICS as a means to integrate more deeply into an increasingly

fragmented global economy, progressively diminishing Western dominance. However,

BRICS should not be perceived as a monolithic and self-proclaimed anti-American bloc;

instead, there are ongoing internal discussions concerning the extent to which the bloc

should explicitly challenge U.S. interests. While nations such as Russia view BRICS as a

counter to Western dominance, others are more content with an approach that strives

for multipolarity, yet does not sever relations with the United States. The success of

BRICS in reshaping global governance will depend on whether it can reconcile these rival

visions, ranging from strategic hedging to outright systemic revisionism, and how united

the West is in its response.

Conclusion

India’s involvement with the BRICS coalition transcends a mere strategic, economic, or

geopolitical alignment; it is ultimately interconnected with a more expansive civilisational

proposition that challenges the epistemic narratives of Western liberal internationalism.

This paper argues that the emergence of BRICS should be interpreted not just as a

pragmatic response to a changing multipolar world, but as part of a civilisational claim in

which countries, including India, China, and Russia, seek to assert governance models

rooted in their own India’s involvement with BRICS stands out because it lies between

its history as a diverse, democratic nation born from colonial rule and a revival of a

civilisational identity that has evolved over thousands of years of spiritual, philosophical,

and political thought.

India often bases its foreign policy on its deep-rooted cultural values, particularly the

concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, which translates to “the world is one family.” This

provides India with a moral foundation to view itself as a responsible global player. It is

a different approach from the Western narratives, which usually emphasise liberal

democracy and free-market economies as the standards for international order. Instead

of conforming to the Western order, India focuses on its cultural heritage and civilisational

values, advocating for a more comprehensive and diverse global community. It seeks to

strike a balance between material interests and moral principles, presenting itself not

only as an emerging power but also as a civilisational state that brings unique

perspectives to global governance.

BRICS provides a crucial foundation for this vision. It enables India to lead reforms in

global governance, act as a representative for the Global South, and resist pressures for

cultural uniformity. India’s emphasis on a multipolar structure and cultural diversity

exemplifies its broader approach to fostering dialogue among different traditions, rather

than endorsing the dominance of one single model. Within the BRICS framework, the

relationship between India and China extends to various regions globally, where both

states utilise civilisational narratives to influence these areas. India highlights shared

colonial histories and spiritual connections to promote goodwill. They propel competing

efforts in infrastructure, technology, and political involvement throughout the Global

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 375-388

Civilizational States in a Changing Global Order: India’s Emerging Role in BRICS

Sreshtha Chakraborty

386

South. At the same time, past interactions, like the dissemination of Buddhism and

exchanges along the Silk Road, show that shared civilisational traits can facilitate

dialogue instead of strife.

However, BRICS also faces its own conflicts. Economic inequalities, varied political

systems, and conflicting historical narratives complicate the effort to maintain a unified

identity rooted in civilisational diversity. For India, this presents both challenges and

opportunities. Its impact will depend on how effectively it can balance civilisational

dialogue with practical governance, employing diplomatic flexibility to strengthen its

position while avoiding the pitfalls of rivalries among BRICS states.

References

Allen, D., & Smith, M. (2012). Relations with the rest of the world. In N. Copsey & T.

Haughton (Eds.), The JCMS annual review of the European Union in 2011 (pp. 162–177).

Wiley-Blackwell.

Rumelili, B. (2014). Conflict resolution and ontological security: Peace anxieties.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315796314

Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2007). Why is there no non-Western international relations

theory? An introduction. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7(3), 287–312.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/26159492

Fukuyama, F. (2012). The end of history and the last man. Penguin Books.

Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction (1st ed.). Duke

University Press.

Mahbubani, K. (2023). Contours of a future world order. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-

981-19-9872-0_12

Kissinger, H. (2014). World order: Reflections on the character of nations and the course

of history. Allen Lane.

Nafey, A., & Kashyap, A. (2022). BRICS and multipolarisation of the global order: It

works for India. Indian Foreign Affairs Journal, 17(3/4), 170–189.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/48772508

Cox, R. W., & Schechter, M. G. (2002). The political economy of a plural world: Critical

reflections on power, morals and civilisation. Routledge.

Coker, C. (2019). The rise of the civilisational state. Polity Press.

Cox, R. W. (2000). Thinking about civilisations. Review of International Studies, 26(5),

217–234.

Lyons, J. (2014). Islam through Western eyes: From the Crusades to the War on

Terrorism. Columbia University Press.

Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilisations and the remaking of world order (pp.

262–265). Penguin.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 375-388

Civilizational States in a Changing Global Order: India’s Emerging Role in BRICS

Sreshtha Chakraborty

387

Raghavan, P. S. (2017). The making of India’s foreign policy: From non-alignment to

multi-alignment. Indian Foreign Affairs Journal, 12(4), 326–341.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/45342011

Mishra, R. (2023). From non-alignment to multi-alignment: Assessing India’s foreign

policy shift. The Round Table, 112(1), 43–56.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00358533.2023.2165367

Mahbubani, K. (2013). The great convergence: Asia, the West, and the logic of one world.

Public Affairs.

Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (Eds.). (2010). Non-Western international relations theory:

Perspectives on and beyond Asia. Routledge.

Adib-Moghaddam, A. (2014). A metahistory of the clash of civilisations: Us and them

beyond Orientalism. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199333523.001.0001

Volodin, A. G. (2022). India as a civilisational state. Herald of the Russian Academy of

Sciences, 92(Suppl 9), S827–S837. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331622150102

Srivastava, J. (2023). The narratives and aesthetics of the civilisational state in the ‘new’

India. International Affairs, 99(2), 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad031

Kumar, R. (2018). India’s role in BRICS: A comprehensive analysis. Asian Journal of

Political Science, 24(2), 1–19.

Yeşiltaş, M. (2014). Turkey’s quest for a ‘new international order’: The discourse of

civilisation and the politics of restoration. Perceptions, 19(4), 43–76.

Acharya, A. (2020). The myth of the ‘civilisation state’: Rising powers and the cultural

challenge to world order. Ethics & International Affairs, 34(2), 139–156.

Modi, N. (2021). National statement by Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi at the COP26

Summit in Glasgow. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1768712

Jacques, M. (2012, July 19). China is a civilisation state. The Economic Times.

http://www.martinjacques.com/when-china-rules-the-world/china-is-a-civilization-

state/

Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frey, T. (2008). West

European politics in the age of globalisation. Cambridge University Press.

Öniş, Z., & Kutlay, M. (2019). Global shifts and the limits of the EU’s transformative

power in the European periphery: Comparative perspectives from Hungary and Turkey.

Government and Opposition, 54(2), 226–253.

Hall, I. (2019). Modi and the reinvention of Indian foreign policy (p. 83). Bristol University

Press.

Ollapally, D. M. (2018). India and the international order: Accommodation and

adjustment. Ethics & International Affairs, 32(1), 61–74.

Dutta, A. (2021). BRICS and the new global governance: India’s role and influence. Asian

Geopolitics, 15(2), 91–110.

Nye, J. S. Jr. (2001). The future of power. Public Affairs.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 375-388

Civilizational States in a Changing Global Order: India’s Emerging Role in BRICS

Sreshtha Chakraborty

388

Kalinin, K. (2019). Neo-Eurasianism and the Russian elite: The irrelevance of Aleksandr

Dugin’s geopolitics. Post-Soviet Affairs, 35(5–6), 461–470.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2019.1663050