Pakistan’s envoy to China, Ambassador Khalil Hashmi, has raised a critical concern that could challenge the political credibility and inclusivity narrative of the BRICS bloc: if BRICS continues to exclude Pakistan at India’s behest, its global message of equity, cooperation, and multilateral reform will “ring hollow.”
In a recent interview with South China Morning Post, Hashmi made it clear that while Pakistan supports multipolarity and the expansion of global governance platforms like BRICS, political obstruction by one member state—India—undermines the bloc’s stated commitment to represent the Global South. His remarks come amid growing frustration within Islamabad over what it sees as India’s unilateral leverage in shaping BRICS membership outcomes based on bilateral disputes.
Pakistan’s Exclusion from BRICS: A Structural Challenge
Despite the BRICS expansion in 2023, which welcomed new members including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran, Pakistan remains absent from the grouping. There has been no formal process initiated to include Pakistan, even though Islamabad has repeatedly expressed its willingness to join BRICS and contribute to its vision of multipolarity.
Ambassador Hashmi underscored that Pakistan’s continued exclusion due to Indian opposition contradicts BRICS’ own foundational principles of inclusivity, sovereign equality, and mutual respect. If political disagreements are allowed to dictate the platform’s engagement, he argued, BRICS risks becoming a politically fragmented bloc, rather than a cohesive counterbalance to Western-led institutions.
This critique comes as BRICS positions itself as an alternative global leadership framework. In 2024, the group emphasized south-south cooperation, sustainable development, and reform of global financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank. Yet, its silence on South Asia’s most militarized conflict—Kashmir—and India’s role in blocking Pakistan, undermines this messaging.
Recent India-Pakistan Tensions: Heightened Risks to Regional Stability
Adding further urgency to the issue, recent escalations along the Line of Control (LoC) and diplomatic spats between India and Pakistan have intensified, increasing risks of destabilization in South Asia. Cross-border ceasefire violations and rhetoric from both sides have strained what fragile mechanisms for dialogue existed. These developments compound the dilemma for BRICS, which is urged to demonstrate that it can engage with complex regional conflicts without allowing bilateral disputes to derail broader multilateral cooperation.
Pakistan views these tensions as directly linked to the broader geopolitical exclusion it faces, including the denial of BRICS membership. Islamabad argues that ignoring these flashpoints while pursuing selective partnerships undermines not only regional peace efforts but also the credibility of BRICS as a truly inclusive forum capable of managing global challenges.
China’s Stance and Pakistan’s Diplomatic Calculations
China, a founding BRICS member and a close strategic partner of Pakistan, has supported Islamabad’s case for inclusion in multilateral forums such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). While Beijing has not officially opposed India’s position within BRICS, Chinese officials have stressed the need for the bloc to be inclusive and politically neutral.
Hashmi reiterated that Pakistan does not expect any state to “take sides” but emphasized that neutrality should not enable one member to use its position to block another. He pointed out that constructive mediation—by China or even by external actors such as former U.S. President Donald Trump—should be encouraged if it contributes to de-escalating regional tensions, particularly over Kashmir.
Pakistan’s stance reflects a broader trend in its foreign policy to internationalize the Kashmir issue, particularly in light of India’s 2019 revocation of Article 370, which removed Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status. Islamabad continues to push for dialogue under UN resolutions, which India has consistently rejected, framing Kashmir as a domestic matter.
BRICS’ Strategic Dilemma: Multipolarity vs. Bilateral Obstruction
India has effectively used its strategic and economic weight within BRICS to shape its agenda. However, if BRICS intends to project itself as a genuinely multipolar platform capable of reforming global governance, then excluding Pakistan—home to over 240 million people and a nuclear power with a strategic location in the heart of South Asia—raises questions about its coherence.
Moreover, the India-Pakistan conflict is not a bilateral issue in isolation. With China involved in territorial disputes with India and the Line of Actual Control (LAC) remaining tense, there are broader regional stability implications. The fact that India maintains strained relations with three of its key neighbors—China, Pakistan, and Bangladesh—should concern BRICS, especially as it aspires to shape global security and economic discourse.
Mediation and the Role of Third Parties
Ambassador Hashmi suggested that China or even Donald Trump could play a role in mediating the Kashmir issue. Trump has previously offered to mediate during his presidency, though India rejected the offer. The suggestion reflects Pakistan’s willingness to consider pragmatic diplomatic channels, even as it remains skeptical of India’s unilateralism.
However, mediation remains unlikely without significant shifts in Indian policy. The Modi government has taken a firm stance against third-party intervention in Kashmir, preferring bilateral frameworks that Pakistan views as ineffective given India’s post-2019 actions in the region.
Still, the broader point raised by Pakistan is less about who mediates and more about the structure of multilateralism: if platforms like BRICS avoid addressing key conflicts among member or aspirant states, they risk becoming platforms of convenience rather than genuine instruments of global reform.
Implications for the BRICS 2025 Agenda
As BRICS prepares for its 2025 summit under Russia’s presidency, the group is expected to further debate its expansion model, currency alternatives, and institutional restructuring. But if internal divisions—such as the India-Pakistan conflict—are left unaddressed, these ambitions may stall.
There is a growing expectation among neutral observers and excluded states that BRICS must move beyond rhetorical commitments to pluralism and reflect these in its institutional practices. Blocking Pakistan while admitting states that have deep bilateral frictions with other BRICS members exposes a double standard that could erode the group’s moral authority.
Ambassador Hashmi’s statements are a direct challenge to BRICS’ credibility. For the bloc to remain relevant and representative, it must resist internal politicization and adopt an equitable framework for engagement. If political considerations continue to override inclusive multilateralism, the bloc risks losing its appeal among the very states it seeks to represent.
The Kashmir conflict, India-Pakistan hostilities, and Pakistan’s exclusion are not marginal issues—they are central tests of BRICS’ ability to act as a legitimate alternative to existing global governance structures. If BRICS does not address these tensions constructively, its calls for a fairer world order may increasingly be seen as selective and strategically hollow.
Related stories:
BRICS Extends Friendly Ties With Europe as US Tariffs Hit
Which Two BRICS Nations Officially Agree To Ditch the US Dollar For Trade?
BRICS bank dedollarizes: pledges 30% of loans in local currency
