The BRICS economic alliance is displaying signs of internal disagreement over efforts to move away from the US dollar, with India positioning itself as a notable dissenting voice. Although BRICS members have often talked about reducing dollar dependence, India’s foreign minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, recently said India has “no interest” in replacing the dollar for BRICS trade settlements and described the currency as “a source of international economic stability.”
This public divergence highlights a growing split within the bloc at a moment of rising global tensions. Discussions about de-dollarization have recurrently surfaced as part of BRICS’ agenda to strengthen economic cooperation and enhance the use of local currencies. However, practical and political considerations tied to trade, finance and market stability have made a swift or uniform shift difficult.
India’s stance reflects several pragmatic concerns. The dollar remains deeply entrenched in international trade, finance and reserve holdings. For many countries, shifting away from the dollar would require complex adjustments to banking systems, settlement mechanisms and legal frameworks, as well as assurances that alternative arrangements can match the liquidity and predictability the dollar provides. Jaishankar’s comments suggest India values that predictability and prefers gradual, carefully managed change rather than abrupt disruption.
Other BRICS members have been more vocal about exploring alternatives, citing the desire to reduce exposure to US monetary policy and sanctions risk. These members view diversified currency arrangements or increased local-currency trade as tools to boost regional resilience and protect national interests. Still, differing economic structures and geopolitical relationships among BRICS countries make a single coordinated approach challenging.
The disagreement comes at a tense geopolitical moment. Relations between the BRICS countries and Western nations have been strained by a range of diplomatic and economic disputes. Heightened rhetoric and threatened trade penalties — including recent commentary about steep tariffs — have amplified calls within some quarters to seek greater financial independence. Yet the practical barriers, and the potential economic costs of moving away from the dollar, temper how quickly those ideas can be implemented.
For BRICS to pursue meaningful de-dollarization, several practical steps would be required: developing reliable mechanisms for currency settlement among members, deepening financial markets to provide alternatives to dollar-denominated assets, and building mutual trust on cross-border payments and central bank cooperation. Any transition would likely be incremental and contingent on careful coordination to avoid destabilizing markets.
India’s refusal to endorse replacing the dollar for BRICS trade underscores the complexity of the issue. It signals that, even within an alliance seeking greater economic sovereignty, individual members may prioritize stability and continuity over rapid systemic change. The divergence also suggests future BRICS discussions on currency strategy will involve extensive negotiation as members balance strategic ambition with economic reality.
Ultimately, BRICS’ long-term approach to currency diversification will depend on each member’s domestic priorities, external relationships and readiness to reform financial infrastructure. While the group may continue to explore ways to lessen dollar dependence, India’s position makes clear that any shift will be cautious, gradual, and built around practical measures that preserve market stability.