India Should Rethink Quad Membership Amid BRICS Realignment, Says Jeffrey Sachs

In a candid interview recorded in New York and released by India Today on 10 September 2026, world‑renowned economist Professor Jeffrey Sachs offered a stark assessment of India’s strategic posture in a rapidly shifting global order. Sachs, whose advisory work spans the United Nations, the World Bank and numerous national governments, warned that India’s current alignment with the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue – the Quad – may be at odds with the longer‑term interests of the country and the broader Global South. He urged India to exit the Quad, to prioritize a constructive role within BRICS, and to seek a diplomatic settlement of its historic border dispute with China. The remarks, made against the backdrop of the BRICS summit and ongoing India‑China tensions, have ignited debate across ministries, think‑tanks and academic circles about the direction of India’s foreign policy, defence budgeting and economic partnerships.

Context of Sachs’s Commentary: BRICS, Quad and the Global South

Sachs framed his advice within the larger narrative of multipolarity that he has long championed. He emphasized that the BRICS grouping – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – should be viewed not as an anti‑Western bloc but as a platform to reinforce the United Nations and the multilateral system. By positioning BRICS as a defender of the UN, Sachs suggested a pathway for India to influence global governance without resorting to the binary of East versus West.

The economist highlighted demographic and economic trajectories that place India in a uniquely advantageous position. He argued that India’s growing population and expanding market are not a source of vulnerability vis‑à‑vis China, but rather a lever for constructive engagement. In his view, the perception of a zero‑sum rivalry with China is misplaced, and both nations would benefit from settling their border dispute.

Against this backdrop, Sachs warned against India’s strategic reliance on Western security alliances, specifically the Quad, which includes the United States, Japan and Australia. He described the Quad as a “Western security alliance” that could tether India to a geopolitical framework increasingly at odds with the emerging economic centre of gravity in Asia and Africa. The economist’s call to “leave the Quad, period” reflects his broader thesis that India should avoid entanglement in great‑power competition and instead focus on multilateral economic cooperation.

Implications for Indian Foreign Policy and Defence Planning

Sachs’s remarks arrive at a time when the Ministry of External Affairs is calibrating its Indo‑Pacific strategy. The ministry has historically balanced a “Act East” outreach with a cautious approach to China. By urging a settlement of the border dispute, Sachs reinforces the diplomatic track that New Delhi has pursued through bilateral talks and confidence‑building measures, albeit with limited progress.

From a defence budgeting perspective, the call to exit the Quad could influence the allocation of resources earmarked for joint naval exercises, intelligence sharing and procurement linked to Quad partners. The Ministry of Defence, which has recently increased its capital outlay for modernising the navy and air force, may need to reassess the strategic value of Quad‑related projects versus broader regional engagements that align with BRICS priorities, such as maritime security initiatives with Russia and China.

Strategically, Sachs’s warning about reliance on Israel and the United States underscores a concern that Indian security policy could become overly dependent on external powers. This could have downstream effects on indigenous defence research and development, an area overseen by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and supported by institutions such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs). A shift toward greater self‑reliance would dovetail with the “Make in India” vision, but would also require sustained fiscal commitment and policy coherence.

Economic Dimensions: Multicurrency Payments and Sanctions Resilience

One of the three key priorities Sachs outlined for BRICS is the transition to a multicurrency payment system. He argued that such a system would help member states resist unilateral sanctions and reduce dependence on the US dollar. For India, whose external trade is heavily dollar‑denominated, this proposal carries significant implications for the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Ministry of Finance.

Adopting a multicurrency framework could facilitate trade settlement with BRICS partners in rupees, yuan, or other agreed currencies, potentially lowering transaction costs and shielding Indian exporters from volatile exchange‑rate swings. However, the practical rollout would demand robust digital infrastructure, regulatory alignment and coordination with the RBI’s foreign exchange management regime.

Furthermore, the push for a sanctions‑resilient payment network aligns with India’s broader objective of diversifying its foreign exchange reserves and reducing exposure to geopolitical risk. The Finance Ministry’s recent emphasis on “strategic autonomy” in external financing could find a natural ally in a BRICS‑led payment architecture, provided that the system is transparent, interoperable with existing SWIFT alternatives and compliant with global AML/CFT standards.

Domestic Policy Considerations: Education, Research and Public Perception

Sachs’s commentary also reverberates within India’s education and research ecosystems. The emphasis on multilateralism and a constructive BRICS role could shape curricula in institutions such as the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), where geopolitical literacy is increasingly integrated with scientific training.

For students in international relations and economics, the debate over Quad versus BRICS membership may become a case study in strategic decision‑making. Universities like Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and the Indian School of Business (ISB) are likely to host seminars dissecting Sachs’s arguments, evaluating the trade‑offs between security alliances and economic diversification.

Public perception, shaped by media narratives and civil‑society discourse, will also be pivotal. While some segments may view the Quad as a safeguard against Chinese assertiveness, others may resonate with Sachs’s call for a more independent foreign policy that avoids “strategic reliance” on any single bloc. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting may need to calibrate its communication strategy to explain the rationale behind any shift in alignment, ensuring that the narrative remains anchored in national interest rather than ideological bias.

Geopolitical Risks and Opportunities: The India‑China Border Issue

Central to Sachs’s argument is the assertion that India is “not threatened by China” and that both nations should resolve their historic border dispute. The border standoff, which has periodically flared since the 1962 war, remains a source of strategic uncertainty for New Delhi. A diplomatic settlement would free up resources currently earmarked for frontier infrastructure and troop deployments.

From a risk perspective, an unresolved border issue continues to influence India’s defence posture and procurement decisions, including the acquisition of high‑altitude warfare equipment and surveillance assets. A resolution could enable a reallocation of those funds toward broader modernisation goals, such as indigenous fighter jet development under the HAL Tejas programme or naval expansion under the Project 75I.

On the opportunity side, a settled border would open avenues for deeper economic cooperation with China, particularly in sectors where Chinese investment and technology could complement Indian capabilities – for example, in renewable energy, high‑speed rail and digital infrastructure. Such cooperation would dovetail with the BRICS agenda of fostering South‑South trade and could be facilitated through joint ventures overseen by ministries like Commerce and Industry.

Strategic Outlook: Balancing Multilateralism with National Interests

In sum, Jeffrey Sachs’s interview presents a nuanced challenge to India’s current strategic calculus. By urging an exit from the Quad, advocating for a stronger BRICS role, and calling for a diplomatic settlement with China, Sachs sketches a vision of India as a proactive, multilateral actor that leverages its demographic dividend and economic growth without being subsumed by any single great‑power bloc.

For policymakers, the key task will be to translate these high‑level observations into concrete actions. This may involve revisiting the Indo‑Pacific roadmap, recalibrating defence procurement to emphasise indigenous development, and negotiating the technical details of a multicurrency payment system with BRICS partners. Simultaneously, ministries must manage domestic expectations, ensuring that any shift does not appear as a retreat from security commitments but rather as an evolution toward a more balanced, autonomous foreign policy.

As the year 2026 unfolds, the discourse sparked by Sachs’s remarks will likely shape parliamentary debates, think‑tank analyses and public opinion. Whether India chooses to heed the economist’s counsel and re‑orient its strategic alignment will depend on a complex interplay of geopolitical realities, economic imperatives and the nation’s enduring commitment to a multilateral world order anchored by the United Nations.

By Dr. Raj Patel, Staff Writer

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Reporting is based on the source material cited below. Sources: India Today video report (10 September 2026); India Today; Global1.News