BRICS Point 40: No More Double Standards on Terrorism

Point 40 of the 140-point New Delhi Declaration adopted at the 18th BRICS Summit carries particular significance for the security politics of South Asia. It makes clear that terrorism cannot be differentiated on the basis of its purpose, cause, location or perpetrator. The BRICS position that terrorist acts are criminal and unacceptable wherever, whenever and by whomsoever they are committed is more than routine diplomatic language. More importantly, the declaration calls for zero tolerance toward terrorism and rejects double standards in combating it.

The declaration strongly condemns the April 22, 2025 terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir, in which 26 people were killed. Yet the significance of Point 40 goes far beyond the condemnation of a single incident. It identifies cross-border movement of terrorists, terrorist financing and safe havens as interconnected components of the broader security challenge. Equally important is its assertion that terrorism must not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilisation or ethnic group. Achieving such a consensus among BRICS members with diverse geopolitical interests is itself noteworthy.

One of the greatest problems in the global fight against terrorism has not simply been how terrorism is defined, but how the definition is applied. A group designated as terrorist by one country may be treated by another power as a strategic instrument. Violence compatible with one side’s geopolitical interests may be ignored, while similar violence committed by an adversary is immediately labelled terrorism. Such selective approaches have weakened the credibility of the international security architecture. If BRICS is serious about rejecting double standards, its credibility will ultimately be tested not by declarations but by the behaviour of its members. The same principles must apply to friends and competitors alike.

Nepal should not interpret this message merely as an expression of India’s security concerns or as an internal political consensus within BRICS. Situated between India and China, Nepal is directly exposed to changing patterns of cross-border movement, expanding digital financial transactions and an increasingly complex regional security environment. Preventing Nepali territory from being used for violent extremism, terrorist networks, illegal financing or activities directed against third countries is fundamentally in Nepal’s own national interest. Border management, immigration records, financial intelligence, cyber monitoring and coordination among security agencies therefore require continued modernisation.

At the same time, stronger security must not mean mechanically accepting the security narratives of neighbouring countries or major powers. Allegations of terrorism must be based on evidence, law and due judicial process. Political dissent, ethnic identity, religious belief or peaceful political activity must not be deliberately blurred with terrorism. The BRICS declaration itself underlines that terrorism should not be associated with religion, nationality, civilisation or ethnic identity. For a diverse society such as Nepal, this principle is particularly important.

Point 40 also connects the fight against terrorism with the prevention of extremism and youth radicalisation, disruption of terrorist financing and stronger cooperation against illicit financial flows and the misuse of emerging technologies. Modern security threats are no longer limited to armed individuals crossing physical borders. Digital payment systems, virtual assets, social media platforms, organised criminal networks and transnational financial channels are increasingly part of the security equation. Nepal can no longer afford to define national security only through traditional military and border concepts. Financial and digital security must become equally important components of national policy.

BRICS is seeking to establish itself as an important voice for a more representative and multipolar international order. Its common position on terrorism therefore cannot remain simply another slogan presented as an alternative to Western or other centres of power. A new world order must not become merely a new version of old double standards. BRICS will strengthen its political credibility only if the principles of sovereignty, international law, civilian security and equal standards against terrorism are applied consistently.

Nepal is not a member of BRICS, but it cannot remain detached from the political, economic and security environment that BRICS is helping to shape. The message Nepal should draw from Point 40 of the New Delhi Declaration is therefore clear. There can be no compromise with terrorism, but neither should the label of terrorism be politically abused. Security institutions must be strong, laws must be clear and international cooperation must be effective. Above all, the same rules must apply to everyone. BRICS has declared its opposition to double standards. The real test now is whether that commitment can be demonstrated in practice.