After Bishkek, the author wants India’s Sept. 12–13 BRICS chairmanship in New Delhi to turn Modi’s “not an era of war / end of the wars” line into a BRICS Peace Initiative—space for talks and humanitarian steps, not a UN rival or anti-Western bloc.

India’s asset is dual access (Russia plus the U.S., Europe, Ukraine, Iran, and the Global South); even limited India–China agreement that endless war is intolerable could widen that table. Start with POWs, civilians, nuclear safety, grain and shipping, then politics.

Pair BRICS with Swiss mediation and the UN; keep Hormuz/energy on the agenda as a development issue for the South. A small contact group and a “bridge, not another divide” declaration are the proposed deliverables.

The world is entering one of the most dangerous phases of the post-Cold War era. Wars are becoming longer, military confrontation is increasingly accompanied by economic sanctions and trade wars, energy and food security are being weaponised, and strategic rivalry among major powers is deepening. At the same time, institutions created to prevent conflict and facilitate dialogue appear increasingly unable to bridge the widening divides. The result is a world in which confrontation is becoming normalised, while peace appears increasingly difficult to achieve.

It is against this disturbing backdrop that India finds itself at a unique diplomatic moment. The recently concluded SCO Summit in Bishkek has been followed almost immediately by preparations for the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi on 12–13 September 2026. India, as the current BRICS Chair, will bring together countries representing enormous economic, demographic, energy and geopolitical weight. This convergence of the SCO and BRICS platforms presents New Delhi with an opportunity that extends well beyond the routine business of international summits. India can use this moment to give institutional expression to an idea whose time may have come: “A BRICS Peace Initiative, with India as its Catalyst.”

The objective need not be to negotiate a grand peace treaty or attempt to solve every international conflict at one stroke. The immediate purpose should be much more practical—to create a credible political space in which adversaries can communicate, humanitarian measures can be agreed upon, confidence can gradually be rebuilt and, eventually, negotiations can become possible.In other words, the world needs to move from managing “Endless Wars” towards creating the conditions for the “End of the Wars.”

This would represent an important evolution in India’s own diplomatic message. Four years ago, Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Russian President Vladimir Putin that “This is Not an Era of War.” Since then, however, the world has witnessed prolonged conflict in Ukraine, repeated cycles of violence in West Asia and an increasingly intense strategic confrontation among major powers.

The message therefore needs to evolve. It is no longer enough to say that this is not an era for war. The greater challenge now is to ask: “How do we end the wars that have already begun?”

The significance of India’s approach lies precisely here. India has consistently maintained that lasting solutions cannot emerge from bombs, guns and bullets alone and that dialogue and diplomacy must ultimately provide the way forward. At Bishkek, Modi’s appeal to move from “Endless Wars” towards the “End of the Wars” gave this philosophy renewed urgency. It was a continuation of India’s long-standing position, but it also pointed towards........

© Eurasia Review