India and the BRICS: Global Bandwagoning and Regional Balancing
- Authors: Stephen M.D1
- WZB Berlin Social Science Center
- Issue: Vol 16, No 4 (2016): Iran and India in the System of International Relations
- Pages: 595-602
- Section: Articles
- URL: https://journals.rudn.ru/international-relations/article/view/15434
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2016-16-4-595-602
Indian policy makers have welcomed India’s framing as a ‘rising power’ and celebrated the BRICS initiative as a common front in reforming aspects of global governance. Yet China’s rise in Asia has unsettled the balances of power which have underpinned the region, as a consequence of which India has hesitantly pursued a strategic rapprochement with the United States. Assessing New Delhi’s multilateral and geo-strategic diplomacy, this article argues that India bandwagons with the BRICS on a global level, but seeks to balance China at the regional level. On the global multilateral level, India has common cause with other rising powers in reforming the policies and structures of most international organizations. The exceptions are the United Nations Security Council and the Non-proliferation Treaty, where China and Russia can be qualified as established powers. On the regional level, however, India has maintained ties to Russia and cultivated a strong relationship with the United States in an effort to balance and increase leverage relative to a rising China. This underlines that major power rivalries are strongly mediated by issue area and institutional context.
About the authors
Matthew D StephenWZB Berlin Social Science Center
Author for correspondence.
- Armijo, Leslie Elliott, Roberts, С. (2014). The Emerging Powers and Global Governance: Why the BRICS Matter. In Handbook of Emerging Economies. Ed. by Robert Looney. New York: Routledge, pp. 503–24.
- Blank, St. (2007). The Geostrategic Implications of the Indo-American Strategic Partnership. India Review, 6 (1), pp. 1–24.
- Chin, G. (2010). Remaking the Architecture: The Emerging Powers, Self-Insuring and Regional Insulation. International Affairs, 86 (3), pp. 693–715.
- Efstathopoulos, Ch. (2012). Leadership in the WTO: Brazil, India and the Doha Development Agenda. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 25 (2), pp. 269–93.
- Helleiner, E., Kirshner, J. (2009). The Future of the Dollar: Whither the Key Currency? The Future of the Dollar. Edit. by Eric Helleiner and Jonathan Kirshner. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 1–23.
- Hopewell, K. (2014). Different Paths to Power: The Rise of Brazil, India and China at the World Trade Organization. Review of International Political Economy, 22 (2), pp. 311–38.
- Khilnani, S., Kumar, R., Mehta, P.Bh., Menon, P., Nilekani, N., Raghavan, S., Saran, Sh., Varadarajan, S. (2012). NonAlignment 2.0: A Foreign and Strategic Policy for India in the Twenty First Century. New Delhi: Centre for Policy Research.
- Mehta, P. B. (2009). Still Under Nehru’s Shadow? The Absence of Foreign Policy Frameworks in India. India Review, 8 (3), pp. 209–33.
- Nafey, A. (2005). IBSA Forum: The Rise of ‘New’ Non-Alignment. India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, 61 (1), pp. 1–78.
- Narlikar, A. (2013). India Rising: Responsible to Whom? International Affairs, 89 (3), pp. 595–614.
- Nayar, B. R., Paul, T.V. (2003). India in the World Order: Searching for Major Power Status. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Nel, Ph. (2010). Redistribution and Recognition: What Emerging Regional Powers Want. Review of International Studies, 36 (4), pp. 951–74.
- Pant, H. V., Super J. M. (2015). India’s ‘Non-Alignment’ Conundrum: A Twentieth-Century Policy in a Changing World. International Affairs, 91 (4), pp. 747–64.
- Rapkin, D., Thompson, W. (2003). Power Transition, Challenge and the (Re)Emergence of China. International Interactions, 29 (4), pp. 315–42.
- Rehman, I. (2009). Keeping the Dragon at Bay: India’s Counter-Containment of China in Asia. Asian Security, 5 (2), pp. 114–43.
- Sarkar, R. (2016). Trends in Global Finance: The New Development (BRICS) Bank. Loyola University Chicago International Law Review, 13 (2), pp. 89–103.
- Schweller, R. L. (1994). Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In. International Security, 19 (1), pp. 72–107.
- Stephen, M.D. (2012). Rising Regional Powers and International Institutions: The Foreign Policy Orientations of India, Brazil and South Africa. Global Society, 26 (3), pp. 289–309.
- Stephen, M.D. (2014). Rising Powers, Global Capitalism and Liberal Global Governance: A Historical Materialist Account of the BRICs Challenge. European Journal of International Relations, 20 (4), pp. 912–38.
- Stephen, M. D. (2017) forthcoming. Emerging Powers and Emerging Trends in Global Governance. Global Governance.
- Stephen, M. D., Parizek, M. (2015). New Pressures on the WTO: The Rise of Illiberal Trading States. Paper Presented at the 8th Annual Conference on the Political Economy of International Organizations. Berlin: Hertie School of Governance.
- Tellis, A. J. (2005). India as a New Global Power: An Action Agenda for the United States. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
- Vestergaard, J., Wade, R. H. (2015). Still in the Woods: Gridlock in the IMF and the World Bank Puts Multilateralism at Risk. Global Policy, 6 (1), pp. 1–12.
- Vezirgiannidou, S.-E. (2013). The United States and Rising Powers in a Post-Hegemonic Global Order. International Affairs, 89 (3), pp. 635–51.
- von Freiesleben, J. (2013). Reform of the Security Council. In Governing and Managing Change at the United Nations. Ed. by Lydia Swart and Estelle Perry. New York: Center for UN Reform Education, pp. 1–22.
- Wohlforth, W. (1999). The Stability of a Unipolar World. International Security, 24 (1), pp. 5–41.
- Wolf, R. (2011). Respect and Disrespect in International Politics: The Significance of Status Recognition. International Theory, 3 (1), pp. 105–42.
- World Bank. (2016). Global Economic Prospects: Divergences and Risks. Washington D.C.: World Bank Group.
- Ying, F. (2016). How China Sees Russia: Beijing and Moscow Are Close, but Not Allies. Foreign Affairs, 95 (1), pp. 96–105.