BRICS Forum adopts joint declaration; condemns Pahalgam attack, seeks UNSC reforms

The BRICS Parliamentary Forum is a meeting of lawmakers from BRICS countries. It gives parliamentary representatives a place to discuss major international issues and express common positions. Its joint declaration matters because it records those positions in one public statement. It also signals areas where members want cooperation, such as counter-terrorism, climate action and technology governance.

At this conclave, the Forum condemned the 2025 Pahalgam attack and terrorism in every form. It called for action against terrorist movement across borders, financing and safe havens. It also opposed unilateral economic and secondary sanctions, supported UN reform, and reaffirmed non-intervention in countries’ internal affairs. These statements connect security, sovereignty and development.

The declaration does not itself create a new international treaty. Its importance lies in shared political backing. Members said they would deepen counter-terrorism cooperation, support a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, and pursue dialogue on global challenges. Its practical effect will depend on how governments and institutions implement these commitments.

The article identifies 10 BRICS members: India, Brazil, Russia, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates. The original BRICS grouping consisted of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The expanded group therefore doubles the original membership and brings together countries from several regions and political settings.

Its diversity is visible geographically. Brazil represents South America. Russia and China connect the group to Europe and Asia. Egypt, Ethiopia and South Africa bring African representation. Indonesia adds Southeast Asia, while Iran and the United Arab Emirates add West Asian members. The article specifically notes that Iran and the UAE are directly involved in the West Asia conflict.

A larger group can give BRICS a wider international voice and more varied experience. It can also make agreement harder because members have different national positions and regional interests. The declaration shows both possibilities: common language on terrorism and UN reform, alongside a reminder to respect national sovereignty and non-intervention.

The article states that a terrorist attack occurred in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on 22 April 2025. Twenty-six people were killed, and many more were injured. The source does not provide further details about the attackers, their motives or the victims. It presents the incident as a major example of the terrorism the Forum wanted to condemn.

The Forum specifically named the attack in its joint declaration. It said terrorism is criminal and unjustifiable regardless of motivation, location or perpetrator. It also rejected linking terrorism with any religion, nationality, civilisation or ethnic group. The declaration called for everyone involved in terrorist activities or their support to be held accountable under national and international law.

Mentioning Pahalgam gave the Forum’s broader security language a concrete case. It connected condemnation with demands for zero tolerance, action against cross-border movement, terrorist financing and safe havens. The declaration also rejected double standards and urged governments to follow international law while combating terrorism.

Reforming the UN Security Council would change how the body represents countries and responds to international problems. The declaration supports comprehensive UN reform, including the Council. It says reform should make the system more just, equitable, democratic, representative, effective and efficient. The goal is to bring institutions closer to contemporary realities and the international community’s needs.

The article does not specify which countries should receive seats or how voting powers should change. Its key mechanism is broader representation. If more regions and current global powers have an appropriate voice, decisions may be seen as more legitimate. A Council that reflects today’s distribution of countries and concerns could also improve cooperation on crises.

BRICS members’ support adds political weight to the reform demand, but the declaration does not set a timetable or design. Achieving change would require agreement among UN members. Until then, the Forum’s position remains a collective call for a more inclusive and capable multilateral system.

Cooperation against terrorism means countries would work more closely to prevent militants from crossing borders, disrupt financial support and deny them places of safety. These problems often involve more than one country, so isolated national action may leave gaps. The declaration frames terrorism as a shared threat and calls for zero tolerance, accountability and compliance with international law.

Its proposed mechanism is coordinated action. The Forum called for deeper counter-terrorism cooperation, action against UN-designated terrorists and terrorist entities, and accountability for those involved in terrorism or its support. In practice, cooperation could involve sharing information, coordinating investigations and restricting resources, although the article does not detail specific programs.

The declaration also stresses that States have the primary responsibility to combat terrorism. That creates a clear expectation for national governments, while its non-intervention principle sets a boundary around outside action. Progress will depend on trust, consistent standards and implementation. The Forum specifically rejected double standards in counter-terrorism efforts.

Sovereign equality means each country is treated as legally equal, regardless of its size or power. Sovereignty means a state has authority over its own affairs. Non-intervention means other countries should not intrude in those internal matters. The Forum described these principles, alongside mutual respect and peaceful dispute settlement, as foundations for global stability, peace and development.

These principles limit what governments can do to one another. A country should not impose its control over another’s domestic decisions or use interference as a substitute for diplomacy. Disputes should be settled peacefully, and international action should respect the UN Charter. The declaration also stressed that counter-terrorism efforts must comply with international law.

The principles do not remove every international responsibility. The Forum simultaneously called for accountability for terrorism and violations of humanitarian law. This creates a balance: countries retain sovereignty, but governments are expected to meet international obligations. In practice, that balance can make enforcement politically difficult when security concerns conflict with non-intervention.