Two phrases in a BRICS declaration this month have set education circles talking: leaders back the “safe, ethical and human-centred” use of artificial intelligence in education, and they support “continued exploration” of a BRICS University Global Ranking and Evaluation System. Both are real. Neither is a decision to do anything yet. Separating what was agreed from what is only being studied is the difference between a policy and a press release, and this piece tries to do that.
Two meetings, two documents
India holds the BRICS chair in 2026, and education has been discussed at two levels, which are easy to confuse.
The first was the 13th BRICS Education Ministers' Meeting in Bhubaneswar from 5 to 7 August 2026, chaired by Union Education Minister Pralhad Joshi. According to a summary of its declaration by the IMPRI policy institute, ministers agreed five broad areas of cooperation: early childhood care and foundational literacy, skills and technical and vocational education, research and innovation, mutual recognition of qualifications, and academic leadership. They also welcomed India's guiding principles on traditional and indigenous knowledge and proposed adding that field as a thematic group of the BRICS Network University. On mutual recognition of qualifications, the declaration commits only to “continue deliberations” on a memorandum of understanding, meaning the agreement is still being negotiated. The summary I reviewed contains no content on AI in education or on university rankings.
The second was the 18th BRICS summit, where leaders adopted the New Delhi Declaration on 12 September. According to news reports of its education section, leaders encouraged sharing best practices on the safe, ethical and human-centred use of emerging technologies, including AI, in education. They backed continued exploration of a BRICS University Global Ranking and Evaluation System. They supported mutual recognition of qualifications and academic and professional mobility, backed the BRICS Network University, and noted India's initiative on traditional knowledge.
“Continued exploration” is diplomatic language for: not yet, and possibly not ever.
What “human-centred AI in education” means, and does not
The wording is a statement of principle. It encourages countries to share good practice; it does not set common standards, create a shared regulator or bind any government to a particular policy. The emphasis, as reported, is on integrating AI without compromising pedagogical values or worsening inequality. Those are sensible aims, and they also reflect that BRICS members differ widely in resources and in how they regulate technology.
The practical value of such language is indirect. It gives education ministries a shared vocabulary and a basis for joint programmes, such as exchange of teacher training material or joint research, and it signals to institutions that AI in classrooms is a governance question, not only a technology one.
The ranking idea
The more novel proposal is a BRICS-specific university ranking. Global rankings from a handful of organisations carry weight with students, employers and governments, and reports describe the BRICS idea as an alternative to existing global rankings that are seen as favouring Western institutional models. A common BRICS system would be a way to measure universities against criteria member countries consider important.
India already has a domestic precedent: the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), which the education ministry runs for Indian institutions. A BRICS framework would raise different challenges, because it would have to compare universities across very different systems, languages and funding models with data that all members trust.
Why rankings are hard to change
A ranking is only as influential as the number of people who use it. Applicants and employers pay attention to established lists because they are familiar and, crucially, because they compare institutions across the world. A new list that ranks only BRICS institutions gives a student less to compare against. To matter, it would need credible methodology, transparent data, independence from any one government, and adoption by universities themselves.
There is also the risk that any ranking, once created, shapes behaviour: institutions chase the metrics it rewards. That is true of existing rankings too, which is a reason to be careful about what the BRICS system would measure. Whether teaching quality, graduate outcomes, research and social contribution can be measured comparably across such different countries is an open question that the “exploration” phase will need to answer.
A ranking only matters if students, employers and universities decide it does.
How to read diplomatic language
Declarations of this kind use a ladder of verbs, and the rung tells you how far a commitment goes. “Adopt” or “agree” means a decision has been taken. “Support” means leaders are in favour but no one has to act. “Encourage” invites countries to do something voluntarily. “Explore” or “continue deliberations” means the matter is still under study. On the education points reported here, AI in education sits at “encourage”, the ranking at “explore”, mutual recognition at “support” and, at the ministers' level, “continue deliberations”. Nothing reported sits at “adopt” beyond the declaration itself and the broad areas of cooperation.
That is not a criticism. Multilateral groups whose members include very different economies rarely move faster, and the value of a declaration is often in creating the working groups that later produce real agreements. The right expectation is a slow process, with early signals that are easy to check.
What it could mean for students
Realistically, not much yet. The nearest practical benefit is mutual recognition of qualifications, which could make it easier for a degree earned in one member country to be accepted in another for further study or work. But the ministers' declaration only commits to continued deliberations on the agreement, so students should not plan around it. The BRICS Network University, a cooperation platform among member-country universities, may create joint programmes and exchange opportunities over time; its 2025 to 2028 action plan is under review.
What to watch
Three signals will show whether these phrases turn into something. First, whether a technical working group is formally created for the ranking, with named members and a timeline. Second, whether the qualification-recognition MoU is signed, and by whom. Third, whether any AI-in-education guidance appears in a concrete form, such as a shared framework for teacher training or ethical use in assessment.
Until then, the accurate description of the New Delhi Declaration's education section is a set of shared intentions. That is not nothing: intentions written down at leader level often precede real programmes. But nothing here changes how any university is ranked today or how any classroom uses AI, and readers should be wary of headlines that suggest otherwise.
