Home

Featured Articles

Sep 18, 2025
Viren S Doshi

‘Gun Rights’ versus ‘Gun Culture’: The Reality of Firearms in American Life and Beyond

Interesting Discourse on Matured Democratic Statecraft Overview The debate over firearms in the United States is a complex interplay of constitutional rights, cultural traditions, political divides, and historical contexts, often framed as a tension between "gun rights" and "gun culture." This article explores the day-to-day reality of gun ownership in America, addressing concerns about accessibility, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, political polarisation, and historical as well as global perspectives in light of terrorist and other violent threats in democracies. It also contrasts the American experience with the Hindu perspective on weapons and examines global contexts, including India’s historical and modern relationship with civilian arms. Salwa Judum was one of the Indian civilian experiments to counter leftist violence in Chhattisgarh. It also looks into the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-occupied China’s perspective on civilians and guns. Additionally, it highlights stories of self-defence and examines the broader implications of gun ownership, including its historical roots and contemporary challenges. Recent tragic events—such as the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and a surge in mass shootings—have amplified these discussions. “Gun Rights” and “Gun Culture” in the United States In the United States, firearms are deeply embedded in both legal frameworks and cultural identity. The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, states, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This constitutional provision underpins the legal right to own firearms, while the term "gun culture" reflects a societal relationship with guns shaped by certain trends based on rhetoric. Day-to-Day Reality of Firearms in America With an estimated 300 million firearms in civilian hands — nearly one per person — the United States has the highest per capita gun ownership rate in the world. Guns are part of everyday life for millions, particularly in rural areas where hunting and sport shooting are common activities and self-defence is still a common phenomenon. In urban settings, firearms are often associated with self-protection amid concerns about crime, though they also contribute to violence, particularly from the section of illegal immigrants and woke or Jihadi elements. As the saying goes, "It is not the gun that fires, it is the hand on the trigger that fires, it is the heart and the head behind the hand that fires." This underscores that the intent and mental state of the individual, not the mere presence of a firearm, drive its use—whether for protection or harm. Conservative activist Charlie Kirk, whose tragic loss has reignited this debate, emphasised the trade-offs of an armed citizenry, stating, “Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty… I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.” Kirk’s perspective (analogous to driving and vehicles and related intentional or accidental fatalities) highlights the reality that gun ownership, like driving—which claims approximately 50,000 lives annually in the U.S.—involves a societal cost. He argued that gun deaths cannot be eliminated entirely in a free society, but practical measures, such as armed guards at schools or stronger family structures, could reduce violence without utopian expectations. Addressing gun violence, therefore, requires focusing on human factors like mental health and societal conditions as much as on the tools themselves. As of September 2025, the U.S. faces persistent gun violence, with the Gun Violence Archive reporting over 300 mass shootings year-to-date, resulting in 302 deaths and 1,354 injuries by late August. Recent incidents, including a school shooting in Colorado on September 10 that left multiple victims, highlight the sporadic nature of gun violence, even as overall rates have declined from a 30% surge in 2020. Federal and state responses remain polarised: President Trump's February 2025 executive order mandates reviews of firearm regulations to bolster Second Amendment protections, potentially challenging laws like felon-in-possession statutes, while critics warn it could exacerbate violence. Meanwhile, over a dozen states have enacted gun safety measures in 2025, such as Minnesota's binary trigger ban (effective January 1) and expanded extreme risk protection orders, though expansions in states like New Hampshire (e.g., prohibiting employer bans on locked-vehicle gun storage) continue to broaden rights. Concerns about accessibility, particularly for children or those with mental health issues, are valid but nuanced. Federal law requires background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for purchases from licensed dealers. However, gaps exist: private sales in some states do not require checks, and enforcement varies. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 mandates background checks, but critics argue that loopholes, such as gun show sales or inadequate mental health reporting, allow prohibited individuals to acquire weapons. Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) shows that in 2024, over 30 million background checks were processed, with roughly 1% denied due to criminal history or other disqualifications. While this suggests a functional system, high-profile cases of mass shootings by individuals with mental health issues, out of wokeist propaganda, fuel scepticism about its efficacy. In 2025, court rulings like the Fifth Circuit's decision affirming gun rights for marijuana users have further complicated enforcement. The National Rifle Association (NRA), with millions of members and substantial funding, advocates for expansive gun rights, framing them as essential to individual liberty and self-defence. Critics argue this influence stifles reform, pointing to the NRA’s financial contributions to political campaigns, primarily supporting Republicans. However, gun control advocacy groups, like Everytown for Gun Safety, also wield influence, often aligning with Democrats. Project 2025 proposals, which aim to invalidate state concealed carry restrictions and defund violence prevention offices, have drawn sharp criticism from leftist propagandists. The Second Amendment: Logic, History, and Justification The Second Amendment’s origins lie in the American Revolution, when militias composed of armed citizens were crucial to resisting British rule. The Founding Fathers, wary of centralised power, saw an armed populace as a check against tyranny. Philosophers like John Locke influenced this view, emphasising the right to self-preservation. Charlie Kirk articulated this principle, stating, “The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government… If that talk scares you, you have not read any 20th-century history.” He argued that historical examples of tyrannical regimes underscore the need for an armed citizenry, a view rooted in the Founders’ scepticism of unchecked power. The amendment’s reference to a "well-regulated Militia" reflects the era’s reliance on citizen-soldiers, while the broader "right of the people" extends to individual ownership, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). Recent 2025 developments, including challenges to state laws post-Bruen (2022), continue to expand interpretations favouring rights, such as rulings against restrictions for young adults or certain misdemeanants. Historically, firearms were essential in a frontier society. Settlers used guns to protect against threats, including conflicts with Native Americans, and to sustain themselves through hunting. Rural areas spread over vast regions with limited law enforcement relied on self-help, embedding firearms in American identity. Today, justifications for gun ownership include self-defence, recreation, and safeguarding against potential government overreach. Critics argue that modern militias are obsolete given professional military and police forces. Political Polarisation: Republicans, Democrats, and Guns The gun debate is sharply polarised. Republicans generally support expansive gun rights, viewing the Second Amendment as a cornerstone of individual liberty and a bulwark against state tyranny and terrorism. They argue that law-abiding citizens should not be penalised for the actions of criminals and emphasise personal responsibility. Democrats, conversely, advocate for stricter regulations, citing gun violence statistics—over 40,000 gun deaths annually, including homicides, suicides, and accidents, per the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). They argue that common-sense reforms, like universal background checks or assault weapon bans, would save lives without infringing constitutional rights. In 2025, this divide has deepened with Trump's pro-gun executive actions and Republican majorities blocking federal reforms, while Democratic-led states advance safety laws. This divide is not absolute. Some Democrats support gun ownership, particularly in rural areas, while some Republicans endorse limited reforms. However, political rhetoric often amplifies extremes, with gun control serving as a fundraising and mobilisation tool for both sides. The tragic loss of Charlie Kirk—fatally shot on September 10, 2025, during his "American Comeback Tour" at Utah Valley University, in what authorities describe as a targeted sniper attack from a rooftop—underscores the human cost of violence, prompting calls for reflection on both rights and responsibilities. Stories of Self-Defence Proponents of gun rights highlight cases where firearms save lives. For example, a 2022 incident in West Virginia involved a woman using a legally owned firearm to stop an active shooter at a graduation party, preventing a potential massacre. The NRA and other groups compile such stories, estimating millions of defensive gun uses annually, though exact numbers are debated due to varying methodologies. A 1995 study by criminologist Gary Kleck suggested 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, while critics argue the figure is inflated. These stories counterbalance narratives of gun violence, illustrating why many Americans view firearms as essential for personal security. Conversely, recent tragedies underscore the vulnerabilities faced by unarmed individuals, even in everyday settings. On September 10, 2025, Chandra Mouli "Bob" Nagamallaiah, a 50-year-old Indian-origin motel manager in Dallas, Texas, was stabbed and beheaded with a machete by an illegal immigrant, Yordanis Cobos-Martinez, who happened to be a hardened criminal. The attack occurred in front of Nagamallaiah's wife and 18-year-old son, who desperately tried to intervene but were unable to stop the assailant. Cobos-Martinez, a Cuban illegal immigrant with a prior criminal record (including carjacking and assault convictions), was arrested nearby, covered in blood and still armed; he allegedly kicked the severed head into the parking lot before discarding it in a dumpster and has been charged with capital murder. President Trump condemned the incident, vowing stricter measures against "illegal immigrant criminals." Had Nagamallaiah been armed, as permitted under his Second Amendment rights, he might have been able to defend himself and protect his family from this horrific outcome. This incident highlights a broader concern: communities like Indian Americans and Hindu Americans, often recognised as among the most law-abiding and dedicated in the U.S., may possess the fewest firearms and thus become soft targets for violence. Proponents of gun rights argue that such groups, in particular, should exercise their constitutional protections by arming themselves responsibly for self-defence, especially in high-risk professions like motel management, where immediate threats can arise without warning. Nagamallaiah's funeral on September 13 drew the Indian community, emphasising calls for enhanced personal security. Historical Trends and Gun Violence Interestingly, gun violence in America has not always correlated with ownership rates. In the mid-20th century, gun ownership was widespread, yet mass shootings were rare. Factors like cultural shifts, “violent” wokeist leftist propaganda, mental health challenges, and socioeconomic disparities may contribute more to modern violence than sheer availability. For instance, the 1990s saw higher homicide rates than today, despite fewer guns per capita. This suggests that addressing root causes—poverty, mental health, gang activity, leftist propaganda —may be as critical as regulating firearms. In 2025, with 146 school-related gun incidents year-to-date and events like the Colorado shooting, trends show a slight decline from 2020 peaks with persistent challenges, prompting renewed pushes for balanced reforms. Hindu Perspective on Weapons In Hindu philosophy, weapons (shastr) are not inherently evil but must be wielded with wisdom derived from scripture (shastra). The Bhagavad Gita emphasises dharma-guided action, where arms are justified in a Dharma-yuddha—a righteous war to uphold justice. Devas (divine beings) use weapons to protect cosmic order, while Asuras (demonic forces) misuse them for chaos. For humans (Manavas), weapons are a last resort, guided by restraint and moral purpose. This ideal is epitomised in the Mahabharata, particularly in descriptions of Parashurama (the sixth avatar of Vishnu), with the verse: "Agratah chaturo vedah prushtatah sasharam dhanuh | Idam brahmam idam kshatram shapadapi sharadapi ||" In front, the four Vedas; behind, the bow charged with arrows. This is the Brahman, this is the Kshatra; by curse or by arrow. This symbolises the perfect fusion of scholarly knowledge (Brahmin essence) and warrior valour (Kshatriya essence), where one vanquishes evil through wisdom or force, as Parashurama did in eradicating evil. Historically, India’s relationship with arms reflects both valour and caution. The British Indian Arms Act of 1878 disarmed much of the population post-1857 rebellion, consolidating colonial control. Earlier, the Marathas and Sikhs, formidable powers in the 18th century, struggled to adopt modern weaponry, as seen in the Third Battle of Panipat (1761). Their reliance on traditional arms against more advanced forces contributed to British dominance. Post-independence, India’s strict gun laws have limited civilian ownership, arguably aiding stability by curbing internal threats like Naxalism and terrorism. But an experiment like Salwa Judum helped a lot in the Naxalite-infested Chhattisgarh. However, this deweaponization contrasts with the United States, where an armed populace is seen as a check on state power, echoing the Mahabharata's balanced ideal of wisdom and weaponry. Global Perspectives: CCP-Occupied China and Beyond In CCP-occupied China, civilian gun ownership is virtually nonexistent. The Firearms Control Law bans private possession, reflecting the regime’s prioritisation of state control over individual rights. This contrasts starkly with the United States, where guns symbolise personal freedom. Communist China’s approach minimises gun violence but eliminates self-defence options, leaving citizens reliant on monolithic state protection—a trade-off unacceptable to Americans. In other nations, approaches vary. Switzerland combines high gun ownership with strict regulation and low violence, emphasising training and civic responsibility. Australia’s 1996 buyback reduced gun suicides and homicides but did not eliminate ownership, balancing rights and safety. These models suggest that culture and governance shape outcomes as much as laws. Conclusion: Reconciling Rights and Realities The United States’ gun rights are inseparable from its history and constitutional framework; it faces modern challenges of violence and polarisation, exacerbated by 2025 events like the Kirk assassination and ongoing mass shootings. The Second Amendment enshrines a right born of necessity, but its application in a society with 300 million firearms raises questions. Stories of self-defence highlight the practical value of guns, while tragedies like mass shootings and the loss of figures like Charlie Kirk underscore the need for solutions that respect both rights and safety. From a Hindu perspective, weapons demand wisdom and restraint—as in the Mahabharata's verse on Vedic knowledge and armed resolve—a principle that could inform American debates. Globally, contrasting models like CCP-occupied China’s total ban or Switzerland’s regulated ownership offer lessons but no perfect template. Ultimately, addressing gun violence requires tackling root causes — Wokeism, Leftist radical propaganda, mental health, inequality, and cultural divides — while respecting the constitutional and historical realities that make firearms a fixture of American life, amid 2025's legislative pushes for both safety and expansion. Only through such reflection can the nation honour both its freedoms and its fallen.

Sep 17, 2025
Ramaharitha Pusarla

Why Should India Deny Oxygen to The Idea of BRICS Currency?

Introduction Postulated as a framework by Jim O’Neil for the emerging economies, originally BRIC in 2006, metamorphosed into BRICS with the China-sponsored membership of South Africa in 2009, despite it not fulfilling any criteria for an emerging economy. While an absence of coherent ideological and governance commonalities is evident from the mere composition of the group, it has consistently grown in its international stature over the decades. With an ascendant economic growth trajectory, the group is slowly evolving into a counter to the G7 countries. The BRICS+ countries, making up 45.2% of the world's population and accounting for 36.7% of global GDP in PPP, 23.3% in global exports, are expected to surpass the G7 as per EY by 2026. The global merchandise exports of the BRIC plus countries increased by 12.6% points from 2000 to 2023, around the same time the G7 exports fell by 16.2% points. The rise of BRICS has eventually narrowed down the global economic landscape into G7, BRICS and others. Indeed, the global exports of the rest of the world marginally increased during the same period. Within the BRICS+, India and China have emerged as prominent players both in terms of their growing economic size and population. Instructively, as per the GDP ranking based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), China is pegged as the number one economy, with India projected to clinch the second position by 2028 1. Other BRICS countries like Brazil, Russia, and the UAE are expected to make a giant leap in terms of global exports. Concomitantly, the economic role of each of these countries is bound to expand. Saudi Arabia remains ambivalent about BRICS and has been hedging its bets. Washington Consensus and the Bretton Woods Institutions The Bretton Woods System was instituted in the aftermath of World War II, which pegged the fixed exchange rates backed by USD or the US gold reserves (22,000 tons). This enabled the US government to convert USD into gold reserves when requested by foreign central banks. This arrangement allowed the US Central Bank to print US dollars depending on the world’s demand without worrying about the inflationary consequences. Soon, growing imbalances in the US economy eroded confidence in the dollar’s stability. Unable to withstand the US inflationary pressures, the Bretton Woods System collapsed and in 1971, then US President Nixon suspended the convertibility of the USD into gold. Ever since, the USD has continued to remain as the global reserve currency, though it wasn’t backed by any formal treaty. There is no international treaty obligating nations to use USD, as the so-called Washington Consensus has withered away. To reduce reliance on the USD, the IMF has introduced Special Drawing Rights (SDR) as a supplementary reserve asset. However, following the sudden escalation of prices following the Yom-Kippur war in 1973, SDRs failed to finance global trade. Economists attribute various reasons for the USD’s dominance. Prominent among them are the size of the US economy, full convertibility, a full-fledged financial system to back it, capital mobility, a strong banking system and an independent central bank. Although China has a large economy, it falls short of other requirements. In the case of the Euro, the monetary union is not backed by a fiscal union. For any currency to have wider acceptance, it must have the above-mentioned factors. The emerging global economic trendlines are accompanied by a swift decline in the share of the US dollar as the international currency for global trade from 71.5% in 2000 to 58.2% in 2024 2. Given the increasing share of the BRICS countries, the economic policies of individual countries and the group collectively are going to have an impactful influence on the global economic landscape. It is notable that despite the uncertain US economic policy and dollar weaponisation post Russian invasion of Ukraine, the dollar share has remained unchanged. US Unilateral Measures However, driven by geopolitical factors, Trump’s trade tariff war, to insulate their economies, BRICS+ is attempting to coordinate their policies. A coherent approach would eventually translate into downsizing the dominance of the US dollar as the choice of global payments and transactions. Pertinently, BRICS might even want to circumvent the SWIFT trading helmed by clearance from US Bank and might be interested in creating new financial instruments. After Trump unilaterally withdrew from Iran’s nuclear peace plan, JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) and reimposed punitive sanctions on Iran, they proved to be very effective as Iran was shunted out from the SWIFT system. The other European countries that still wanted to honour the agreement announced plans to create an alternate system to continue payments. However, they couldn’t get far ahead with their efforts for fear of America’s weaponisation of the dollar. This decline in usage of the dollar, increasingly seen as de-dollarisation, has triggered fears of a shift in the balance of power, eventually reshaping the global economy and markets. Luis Oganes at J.P. Morgan said, “The concept of de-dollarisation relates to changes in the structural demand for the dollar that would relate to its status as a reserve currency. This encompasses areas that relate to the longer-term use of the dollar, such as transactional dominance in FX volumes or commodities trade, denomination of liabilities and share in central bank FX reserves,” 4. But as of now, the US dollar makes up for 88% of global traded forex volumes as opposed to 7% of the Chinese yuan. Though China has unseated the US as the topmost global exporter, the US dollar continues to maintain its overall dominance. Its share in global markets is five times the United States’ share of global imports. Indeed, owing to its extensive use, emerging economies, which by far have increased global activity, are currently subjected to the turbulence stemming from the volatile US markets. Alluding to the US dollar’s entitled status that can create a ripple effect across the globe, French Finance Minister Valery Giscard d’Estaing, in the 1960s, termed it as an “exorbitant privilege”, and it continues to wield a disproportionate control over global trade. Mark Carney, currently the Prime Minister of Canada, in his role as the governor of the Bank of England, in 2019, suggested that emerging countries must join to create their own replacement reserve currency to circumvent the ‘destabilising role” of the US dollar 5. Indeed, leveraging this ‘exorbitant privilege’, US trade advisor to Trump, Peter Navarro issued summary threats to India and warned it to “act like a strategic partner of the US” 6. BRICS Currency: To be or not to be! Except for sizeable combined economic activity, BRICS+ doesn’t have anything in its favour to launch a common currency. Geographically flung apart, with dissimilar economic sizes and monetary policies, achieving fiscal and monetary integration of the BRICS nations is extremely difficult. The EU is a striking example of issues that countries must face when the economies are not equal and comparable. Absence of ideological coherence, strong political institutions and different levels of development and their capacity to take on debt further render unrealism to the idea of a common currency. A single currency needs a common interest rate. Given the existence of different price levels in BRICS currencies, stitching a cohesive monetary policy is very difficult. For the first time at the 14th BRICS Summit, in the shadow of the Ukraine war, Russian President Putin announced the BRICS plan to issue a “new global reserve currency” 7. BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) President Dilma Rousseff indicated that there is an agreement in principle to use a new settlement currency called the Unit, which will be backed 40 per cent by gold and 60 per cent by local currencies in the BRICS bloc. The idea initially received some traction at the 2023 Johannesburg Summit. Ahead of the summit, Brazilian President Lula, expressing support, queried, “Who decided that the dollar was the (trade) currency after the end of gold parity?” 8. Drawing wisdom perhaps from the struggles faced by the European Union countries post-2008 financial crisis to maintain fiscal balance, BRICS has junked the idea of a common currency. Setting the record clear, Yury Ushakov, adviser to Putin, stated that BRICS countries are focusing on increasing cross-border trade and settlements in local currencies and indicated Russia’s intention to create an independent BRICS payment system based on digital technologies and blockchain. Subsequently, at the 2024 Kazan BRICS Summit, Putin clarified that they are not fighting the dollar but deterring the weaponisation of the SWIFT platform 9. Indian Response to the Idea of BRICS Currency From the beginning, India has consistently stayed away from the idea of BRICS currency. Reiterating India’s stand, EAM Jaishankar has clarified that India would back out of creating a new currency. The root of BRICS' frustration with the dollar is the loss of autonomy over economic policy. The euro was launched 50 years after France and Germany set aside their hostilities. Unfortunately, old and new members of BRICS have long-standing rivalries, viz, India Vs China, UAE Vs Iran, which will preclude the idea of fiscal convergence. But the idea of BRICS currency can potentially unsettle the US, as the BRICS nations are part of large trade blocs, and together these trade blocs include 64 countries. Though the concept is a non-starter, any alternate payment mechanism adopted by BRICS can have an impact on the dominance of the US dollar. Trump’s America First Policy, driven by the discriminatory tariff war and secondary sanctions, has substantially increased the financial volatility. Amid heightened fears of weaponisation of the dollar as a geopolitical tool, to mitigate vulnerabilities of dollar exposure and US monetary policy, BRICS countries are rapidly increasing trade in local currencies, which has surged to 90% from 65% two years ago 11. At the heart of India’s approach to BRICS currency is to uphold economic sovereignty, which aligns with its quintessential policy of strategic autonomy. Central to its foreign policy is the advocacy of a multipolar, inclusive and equitable world. A world where power is diffused among several power centres and not concentrated in one or two powerful states, with a range of middle powers contesting for influence. Such a diverse world comprising nations with greater autonomy would foster greater international stability, security and prosperity. Centred on this principle, India promotes ‘multi-alignment’, stitching diversified partnerships with different countries. India believes that a critical rebalance of power would prevent a unipolar or bipolar world. Given its principled approach for a multipolar world order, India firmly stands with the BRICS countries, which is a diverse group of countries with common interests seeking to navigate the global challenges through collaboration and cooperation. This is also reflected in its committed stand to develop an alternate financial system that is more inclusive and less vulnerable to geopolitical coercions. India is not interested in replacing the US dollar and its dominance. For that matter, India is not in favour of a common BRICS currency. However, it is keen on exploring parallel mechanisms where countries are sufficiently insulated from the looming threats of ‘economic warfare’. Diversification is the mantra that India seeks to strongly promote to evade the wanton weaponisation of trade and financial structures by powerful nations. India and China are the powerful economic weights within BRICS+. Making 60% of BRICS GDP and as a major trade partner of all BRICS nations, they wield immense heft. Beijing has markedly benefited from the surge in the intra-BRICS trade in recent years. The expansion of BRICS has augured well for its trading prowess, with the balance within BRICS increasingly shifting towards Beijing. An increase in intra-BRICS trade is helping China to counterbalance the impact of the trade war with the US. Steadily buttressing its economic position, Beijing is evolving as a dominant player and might gain more mileage with a common BRICS currency. Dollar Hegemony versus Yuan Hegemony China would use the proposed BRICS currency to gain financial hegemony. As the Euro experience suggests, Germany, which has been the economic heavyweight in the European Union, has driven the entire exercise of creating the new currency and made it the intervening currency. Being a dominant economy, China would likely emulate the same and call the shots12. All other nations would have to oblige to Chinese dictates. Yuan is a minor international currency and part of the SDR currency basket; a common BRICS currency will boost its dreams of internationalising the yuan and even challenge the hegemony of the US Dollar. Though China is the largest exporting market and an economic superpower, the dream of making Renminbi a global reserve currency has been rather wishful despite efforts by China since 2009 onwards. A BRICS currency can lead to the dominance of the Yuan and China’s monetary policies. Central to the idea of BRICS currency is to reduce dependence on the US dollar and bestow economic policy autonomy for countries. But by effectively integrating the monetary policies under China’s overbearing influence in BRICS would replicate the same process that BRICS countries want to avoid. BRICS currency would, in fact, make China more powerful, lending it the power to veto to stall or allow plans to suit its economic interests. BRICS has been formed to reduce reliance on any powerful bloc and attempts to change the Western-led world order into a multipolar system where developing countries can wield a proportional influence commensurate with their global economic activity. China’s Geoeconomic Trap India and China have contrasting visions for BRICS, which is evident from Beijing’s enthusiasm for expanding the group to turn into a support organisation for its geopolitical agenda, including promoting its Belt and Road Initiative and Global Development Initiative. It was an attempt to strengthen its influence among the developed countries. Nations seeking an opportunity to get economically closer to China reposed great interest in joining BRICS. Watchful of Beijing’s geopolitical agenda for BRICS, India has been cautiously supportive of the process. China silently harboured the ambitions of turning BRICS into a China-centric group and was inclined to position BRICS as another venue for “anti-US political activism”13. Beijing harbours a vision to dethrone the US as the sole hegemon, while India is desirous of a world order where a wider range of voices, particularly from the developed world and the Global South, are objectively considered for decision-making processes. In fact, India’s discussions at BRICS have been development-oriented with a focus on South-South economic and financial cooperation. With an economic potential to evolve into a counterpart of the G7 countries, India wanted to promote engagement between both groups. The 2025 Rio Declaration explicitly called for a comprehensive reform of multilateral institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the UNSC to make it more inclusive, credible and representative of contemporary global realities14. India’s approach underscores a more equitable participation, advocating for the right of development within the global system. China nurtures an ambition of a unipolar Asia and a bipolar world. Being a revisionist power, China is inherently hegemonistic with a tendency to utilise every intergovernmental organisation to promote its initiatives. Historically and culturally, India is hard-wired to strategic autonomy and resists a subservient relationship. It refuses monopolisation of organisations or institutions and believes in building partnerships and fostering cooperation for shared developmental goals. India’s solutions for reducing reliance on the US dollar stem from the domestic success of the digital payment infrastructure, Unified Payment Interface (UPI), that revolutionised India’s efforts towards financial inclusion and seamless financial integration. Having firmly rejected the idea of a common BRICS currency, with tech-driven innovation, India is now working on an alternative to the SWIFT system through UPI. India is exploring connecting with other alternative payment mechanisms like the BRICS Pay System and others. India is prioritising internationalisation of the rupee by bringing through transformative cross-border payments with UPI and making it globally interoperable. Bolstering the BRICS call for trade in national currencies, the RBI is now allowing foreign banks to open Special Rupee Vostro Accounts (SRVAs) to facilitate trade settlements in rupees. As of now, India is expanding its rupee trade with 18 countries. Alongside, RBI is piloting a digital rupee to eventually use for cross-border projects like mBridge, a multilateral central bank digital currency initiative (CBDC) 15. In the process of reducing dollar dependence, India has never sought to replace it with any other currency. On the contrary, it is actively pursuing alternative globally operable payment mechanisms for trade and financial transactions. In other words, “India is not anti-dollar. It is anti-weaponisation of the dollar”. Trump’s aggressive sanctions, tariffs and penalties have sparked a reassessment among nations and galvanised their efforts to reduce reliance on the US dollar. The double whammy of being subjected to the vulnerability of the US dollar and a systemic risk of sanctions is pushing nations to explore alternatives. As a dominating trading partner within BRICS, any common currency arrangement will be dominated by Beijing. Being an authoritarian state with questionable transparency, weak institutional checks and limited commitment to the rule of law, India will never agree to a common BRICS currency. With a comparable demographic and diplomatic heft, ordaining consensus-based functioning, India pushed back calls for a common BRICS currency. The overarching goal of Chinese foreign policy is to turn BRICS into a counterbalance to the US. Besides, China’s plot of keeping the border issue alive and its efforts to encircle India and its strategy to challenge India’s status as the regional security power have brought things to a nought. Beijing’s constant needling of India’s external security interests with military and diplomatic support to Pakistan has constantly fed into New Delhi’s suspicions. The festering, unsettled border dispute has long foreclosed the chances of a Sino-India entente. Additionally, China’s belligerent, muscular expansion has always been a constant source of instability and peace in the region. China’s utter disregard of India’s three Ms- mutual sensitivity, mutual respect and mutual interest has pushed India into circumspection. While the lack of trust and rivalry can be a source of dissension, in the long term would sufficiently safeguard the BRICS platform from turning into a Sino-centric organisation and lay the foundations for a pragmatic multipolar world order. Conclusion Trump’s economic coercion in his second term will further force nations to further diversify their relation, undermining the organisational foundations of the Western-led world. Emerging countries are now increasingly coopting advanced technology to bolster their foreign policy to navigate through the geopolitical uncertainties. Blockchain-backed bitcoins were used by countries in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis to avoid central bank surveillance. In the face of burgeoning punitive sanctions, nations are taking a fresh recourse to technology for creating a new parallel financial architecture to carry out transactions without a hitch. References 1.https://www.ey.com/en_in/insights/tax/economy-watch/brics-to-pave-the-way-for-a-multipolar-currency-era 2.https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-international-role-of-the-u-s-dollar-2025-edition-20250718.html 3.https://www.ambassadorllp.com/ap-insights/the-exorbitant-privilege-under-threat-will-the-us-dollar-remain-the-worlds-main-reserve-currency 4. https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/global-research/currencies/de-dollarization 5.https://www.reuters.com/article/business/world-needs-to-end-risky-reliance-on-us-dollar-boes-carney-idUSKCN1VD28C/ 6.https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/navarro-reminds-modi-of-americas-exorbitant-privilege-3690500 7.https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/brics-explores-creating-new-reserve-currency/articleshow/94628034.cms?from=mdr 8. https://investingnews.com/brics-currency/ 9.https://www.firstpost.com/world/dedollarisation-brics-independent-payment-system-digital-technologies-blockchain-13745631.html 10.https://indianexpress.com/article/news-today/putin-advocates-for-swift-like-system-to-counter-us-dollar-dominance-9628629/ 11.https://www.ebc.com/forex/brics-currency-explained-benefits-risks-and-strategy#:~:text=Sanctions%20on%20Russia%2C%20Iran%2C%20and,65%25%20just%20two%20years%20prior. 12.https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/brics-currency-india-unlikely-to-endorse-the-move-may-just-ignore/article67215868.ece 13.https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/china-and-india-are-at-odds-over-brics-expansion/ 14. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2142786 15.https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/as-brics-debates-reducing-dollar-dependence-why-india-is-walking-a-fine-line-2753797-2025-07-10