The expansion of BRICS+ in 2024 has fueled expectations that the bloc could emerge as a powerful alternative to the Western-led order. With the addition of countries like Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, the organization is more diverse than ever. Yet, this diversity also exposes a sensitive fault line: religious differences that could weaken long-term cooperation.
Since its founding, BRICS has united countries with vastly different political systems and development paths. But as members increasingly assert their national and cultural identities, religion has become an undercurrent of division.
India, for example, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has leaned heavily into a Hindu nationalist identity, sparking criticism from Muslim-majority states over its policies toward Kashmir and its Muslim minority. At the same time, Russia embraces Orthodoxy as part of its post-Soviet identity, while China enforces strict secularism, including repressive measures against Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
Analysts warn this religious fragmentation could paralyze the bloc.
“There is no dispute resolution mechanism, no shared values charter, and no joint security framework—BRICS is vulnerable to paralysis if religious tensions spill over into policy,” noted one geopolitical expert.
Recent conflicts highlight these divides. On Gaza, Iran and Egypt framed their positions in moral and religious terms, while India and Brazil maintained neutrality. Russia openly criticized Israel, partly as a counter to the West, while China sought to mediate.
“Each BRICS nation calculates from its own values and identities, which makes a common voice elusive on sensitive issues,” said a Middle East scholar.
These tensions may also complicate BRICS’ economic ambitions. A proposed common currency could face resistance if designed without Shariah-compliant principles, alienating Muslim members. Conversely, incorporating such elements would likely draw objections from secular or non-Islamic states like China and India.
Without a framework to manage these divergences, BRICS risks stagnation. While opposition to U.S. dominance is a unifying theme, experts caution it may not be enough to sustain meaningful integration. The group’s future cohesion will depend on its ability to respect religious diversity while preventing identity politics from undermining collective goals.
Unless BRICS clarifies its core values and develops mechanisms for dispute resolution, bold rhetoric about multipolarity may remain just that—rhetoric.
