At a moment when global diplomacy often feels like a contest between rival blocs, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar offered a refreshingly pragmatic message: the world does not have to choose between the United Nations and smaller groupings like BRICS. Speaking at a session titled “Ruptures & Ramparts: Building Bridges for a Changing World,” held on the margins of the 81st session of the UN General Assembly in New York, Jaishankar was direct and conversational. The event, organized by the Observer Research Foundation, Reliance Foundation, UN in India, and India’s Permanent Mission to the UN, brought together foreign ministers from Jamaica, Suriname, Ghana, and other global voices. Jaishankar’s central point was simple: the UN is not perfect, but it is irreplaceable. He dismissed the framing of “BRICS or the UN” as a false choice, explaining that smaller groupings are not rival institutions but are, in fact, supportive of the UN and often among its most vocal advocates for reform. He acknowledged that the UN has its flaws and that reform conversations naturally focus on those shortcomings, but he warned against becoming dismissive of an organization that has served the world in profound ways. “At the end of the day, if there wasn’t a UN, we’d all be sitting here trying to invent one,” he said, capturing the pragmatic respect that even critics of the UN often feel once they step back from the debate.
Jaishankar’s defense of the UN was not a blind defense of the status quo. Rather, it was an appeal for balance and perspective. He reminded the audience that the UN has delivered meaningful achievements over the decades, even as it struggles to keep pace with a changed and changing world. The desire to reform the UN, he suggested, is itself a sign of how much the institution matters. If it did not matter, no one would bother demanding that it improve. He also addressed the relationship between the UN and groups like BRICS with a simple analogy: these are “coming together” of countries that share certain viewpoints, interests, and outlooks, and feel comfortable working within that combination. Such groupings do not undermine the UN; they enrich the conversation around it. Jaishankar stressed that one of the key points discussed within BRICS is the centrality of the UN to the international system. Far from being a competitor, BRICS is supportive of the UN, and a large part of the grouping would like to see the UN reformed, perhaps some members more intensely than others. This is a significant clarification, particularly at a time when some observers have tried to frame non-Western groupings as threats to the established multilateral order.
The minister’s remarks were delivered just weeks after India hosted the BRICS Leaders’ Summit on September 12-13, a gathering that was impossible to ignore. Jaishankar noted that there is a great deal of “interesting press” about BRICS, but that much of the mainstream coverage tends to be dismissive of the grouping until it actually meets. Then, he said with a knowing smile, they get a bit worked up about it. He pointed to the expansion of BRICS as a “true test” of its relevance. The grouping originally comprised Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, but has since grown to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. “We doubled our numbers, but believe me, we could have easily gone up four or five times. There was a huge demand from countries,” Jaishankar said. That enthusiasm, he argued, comes from the fact that BRICS offers a platform for “alternative thinking.” For many countries, it represents an opportunity to be heard outside the traditional structures, to share perspectives that may not always fit neatly into the dominant narratives of global governance. The expansion was not simply about numbers; it was a signal that a growing number of nations are looking for spaces where their voices matter and where the conversation is not monopolized by a few powerful players.
Perhaps the most striking part of Jaishankar’s discussion was his characterization of BRICS as a non-Western platform. He was careful not to define it in opposition to the West, but rather to describe it as a reflection of a changing world. Not all BRICS members are post-colonial societies, and they span multiple continents, bringing a remarkable diversity of experiences and traditions. What binds them together, Jaishankar explained, is the conviction that there are strong non-Western viewpoints, contributions, and beliefs that need to be taken into account in global debates. The non-Western segment of the global conversation is growing in weight, and BRICS is one expression of that shift. In that sense, he contrasted it with the G7, which remains a powerful grouping but one rooted in a particular historical and political context. The G7, he suggested, represents one perspective; BRICS represents another, and the latter is becoming increasingly significant as the world becomes more multipolar. This is not about dismissing Western views, but about making room for a broader range of voices. It is a reminder that the global order, if it is to be sustainable, must reflect the realities of the twenty-first century, not just the arrangements of the twentieth.
Jaishankar also connected the work of BRICS to the core issues facing the United Nations today. The themes highlighted by BRICS, he said, are resilience, sustainability, innovation, and cooperation. These are not fringe concerns; they are central to the UN’s agenda as well. When world leaders gather in New York for high-level week, just a few kilometers from the UN headquarters, Jaishankar said he likes to ask what BRICS has done to strengthen the UN and the cause of UN reform. His answer: it nudged the conversation a little bit stronger. It signaled a certain pressure from the bottom up, a grassroots-like call for change that comes not from the top of the international system, but from the many countries that feel the system has not fully worked for them. This is an important reframing. Instead of seeing groups like BRICS as disruptive or dangerous, Jaishankar invites us to see them as catalysts for necessary evolution. They are pushing the UN to become more representative, more responsive, and more relevant to the challenges of the moment. In doing so, they are not weakening the institution; they are helping to build the case for its renewal. It is a subtle but powerful argument: the existence of alternative platforms is not a rejection of multilateralism, but a demand that multilateralism live up to its promises.
Toward the end of the session, Jaishankar was asked a deceptively simple question: when it comes to international relations, what matters most—interest, trust, or value? He laughed and said he would probably try to get the best out of all three. But then he delved deeper, sharing a perspective that felt less like diplomacy and more like human wisdom. Interest, he acknowledged, is common sense; every nation pursues its interests. But trust, he argued, has become a more dominant concept in diplomacy than value. Why? Because “values are often preached and not practiced.” Trust, by contrast, is earned. It is record-based and empirical. If you have done something good, something contributive, people remember it. If you have behaved badly, people remember that too. Trust, in Jaishankar’s view, is one of the most democratic terms in international affairs. You do not have to be big to be trusted; even a small nation can be trusted if it is decent and reliable. This is a deeply humanizing message, reminding us that beneath the grand structures of geopolitics, diplomacy is ultimately about relationships between people and the confidence they place in one another. In a world of ruptures and ramparts, Jaishankar’s words offered a bridge: not between blocs or ideologies, but between the ideal of global cooperation and the simple, enduring truth that trust is built one honest action at a time.