Digital Public Infrastructure in BRICS: The Indian Model as the Foundation for Interaction

In recent years, digital technologies have increasingly influenced the structure of the global economy. This concerns not only the introduction of new services but also deeper transformations—the redistribution of technological and technological capabilities between states. In this context, core digital systems are beginning to play a key role, enabling public services, financial conditions, and data exchange.

This is where the concept of digital public infrastructure (DPI) emerges. Unlike ad hoc solutions, it envisions the creation of a holistic architecture that functions as a public good: providing access to services, scaling, and maintaining resilience as demand increases.

This approach is difficult to categorize as an established model. On the one hand, solutions built around private platforms—for example, Visa, Mastercard, or Apple Pay—dominate global practice. On the other hand, closed state-owned ecosystems exist, as in the case of China's WeChat Pay and Alipay. Digital public infrastructure effectively offers a third option: systems that remain open, interoperable, and usable by a variety of participants. In a context where universal global standards have yet to emerge, such infrastructure begins to fulfill not only a technical but also a strategic function.

For BRICS, this issue has become particularly pressing in recent years. Increasing geoeconomic fragmentation, sanctions restrictions, and the changing configuration of technology markets are pushing countries to seek their own instruments of cooperation. While the group's expansion has increased its resources, it has also demonstrated that political coordination alone is insufficient. More practical mechanisms are needed, and digital infrastructure is one of the few areas where such solutions can be implemented relatively quickly.

Against this backdrop, India's experience is instructive. Unlike many countries where digitalization remains a collection of individual services, India has succeeded in building a holistic model. It does not replicate either a proprietary platform approach (as with Visa, Mastercard, or Apple Pay) or a closed state-run logic (WeChat Pay, Alipay). It is a combined system in which the state sets the basic framework, but the architecture itself remains open. This ensures both control and widespread adoption of solutions among users and businesses.

The foundation of this model is the India Stack architecture. It comprises several interconnected elements. First and foremost is the Aadhaar digital identification system, which covers over 1.3 billion people and effectively serves as the entry point to government and financial services. Equally important is the UPI payment system, which currently processes over 10 billion transactions per month and enables instant transfers with minimal costs. UPI has already expanded beyond its domestic market: integrations with the PayNow system in Singapore, as well as with payment solutions in the UAE and Nepal, are being implemented and tested; projects with other countries in the Global South are also being discussed. The third important component is the Data Empowerment and Protection Architecture (DEPA), which defines a user-centric approach to data management. Together, these components form not a set of services, but a scalable system that can be adapted to various conditions.

Over time, the Indian approach has moved beyond its domestic digitalization agenda and begun to be applied externally. This is less about promoting individual solutions than about offering other countries the architecture itself—a set of basic principles and technological modules that can be adapted to national needs. This is the key difference from alternative models: while many solutions involve either exporting ready-made platforms or integrating them into existing, highly dependent ecosystems, the Indian approach emphasizes transferring the system's underlying logic. This makes this approach more flexible and potentially acceptable for countries in the Global South.

For BRICS, this logic opens up practical opportunities. This applies primarily to the payments sector. UPI usage demonstrates that this isn't just about cheap and fast transfers, but about systems that can, in principle, be integrated with other national solutions. Against the backdrop of limited access to traditional international financial channels, this compatibility is beginning to play an independent role, allowing for partial bypass of infrastructure limitations and lower transaction costs.

The issue of digital identity and related government services remains no less sensitive. Many BRICS countries remain plagued by structural challenges, ranging from limited access to financial services to a high informal economy and weak institutional cohesion. In this context, digital infrastructure is no longer viewed simply as a technological solution, but as a tool that can influence resource allocation and expand the coverage of basic services.

A separate set of issues relates to data governance. Against the backdrop of the lack of unified global rules and competing digital models, BRICS could potentially become a platform for developing alternative approaches. The Indian model is interesting here precisely because of its intermediate nature – it combines elements of regulation while maintaining flexibility, avoiding either strict government control or complete dependence on private corporations.

However, the potential of digital public infrastructure should not be seen as automatically realized. The BRICS countries differ significantly in their levels of digital development, institutional readiness, and regulatory frameworks. This complicates rapid integration. Additional constraints arise from issues of cybersecurity, personal data protection, and, more broadly, trust in digital systems. External competition also persists, both from Chinese solutions and Western tech companies.

Nevertheless, digital public infrastructure remains one of the few areas where BRICS is capable of moving from declarations to practical results. In this sense, India is acting not so much as a leader as a provider of architectural solutions and an initiator of a different logic of interaction – through technology sharing. The question is whether this approach can be scaled up at the multilateral level and transformed into a sustainable foundation for digital integration within the group.