Why India Stayed Silent As The World Erupted: The Real Reason New Delhi Refused To Condemn The US Over Venezuela | World News

New Delhi: When the United States detained Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores in Caracas last Saturday (January 3), the global response was widely divided. Some countries strongly condemned the US action, while others supported it. However, India has not joined either camp, maintaining a neutral position consistent with its long-standing tradition of non-aligned foreign policy.

Unlike Malaysia and South Africa, which publicly criticized the US intervention and expressed solidarity with Venezuela, New Delhi’s statement avoided taking sides. So why didn’t India, which positions itself as the leader of the Global South, react so strongly?

Experts say India’s cautious stance is consistent with its historical approach of avoiding openly siding with or against any power during foreign interventions.

South Asian politics analyst Michael Kugelman wrote of

He further added: “It could also be argued that in some cases it is a matter of following precedent. There have been various military invasions/interventions that India has privately opposed but has not publicly condemned (Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the most prominent current example).”

South Asian government public reaction to US actions in Venezuela has been gauged. This is not an implied endorsement from them. In a region with many fragile economies, this is a reflection of pragmatism and the need to exercise caution given US tariffs and sensitive trade talks. — Michael Kugelman (@MichaelKugelman) January 5, 2026

India’s Official Response

The day after the US action, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MEA) issued a statement expressing “deep concern” about recent events in Venezuela and emphasizing that the situation was being closely monitored.

“Recent developments in Venezuela are a source of deep concern. We are closely monitoring the developing situation there,” MEA said in a statement.

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar also reiterated the same in Luxembourg on Tuesday. He called on all parties involved to prioritize the welfare and security of the Venezuelan people. “We are concerned about the latest developments and call on all parties to reach a situation that will serve the welfare and security of the Venezuelan people,” he said.

He emphasized that the focus is on ensuring the safety of Venezuelan civilians and securing conditions for a stable outcome, rather than criticizing or supporting any party.

Why Didn’t India Condemn America?

Hapymon Jacob, founder of the Strategic and Defense Research Council, explained India’s position in a series of posts on X. He outlined five reasons behind New Delhi’s measured response and also noted that it had not publicly condemned Russia’s military action in Ukraine.

“There is a lot of noise about India’s silence on the Caracas issue. India has not condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, so it is unlikely to condemn the US in Venezuela. I think there is a belief in India that the Great Powers are operating within their sphere of influence. What New Delhi hates is when one side is pressured to condemn while the other side does the same,” he wrote on the microblogging website.

“Is this a double standard?” he asked and replied: “That’s what it would look like if India condemned only one side and not the other. Despite the ‘Trump antics’, both Washington and Moscow remain vital partners for India’s national security and defense. When key partners make a move, even if it is a major legal error, you may not want to shout from the rooftops. You remain silent to keep your own channels open,” he said.

He continued, “India has a long history of avoiding foreign interference in its politics and internal affairs. We value our partners who engage with us privately. We do not rely on ‘megaphone diplomacy’.”

Jacob also added that although Venezuela and Ukraine are important internationally, they are not as strategically critical to India as their immediate neighbours. Public condemnation of US actions may carry heavier costs than any diplomatic gains.

“During Operation Sindoor, after receiving little practical support from the US, India understood Washington’s transactional approach. If we condemn the US now, it is likely to side with our rivals in the next crisis. Be it Ukraine or Venezuela, they are not as strategically vital to India as its immediate neighbours. So condemning US illegal actions could be far more costly than the potential benefit.”

Why doesn’t India join the chorus of condemnation against the US attack on Venezuela?

There is a lot of noise about India’s silence on the Caracas attacks.

Here are 5 reasons why I THINK official India will not condemn this.

Note: As an Indian, I condemn this… — Happymon Jacob (@HappymonJacob) January 4, 2026

Regional Responses and Comparisons

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim publicly criticized the US intervention in X, calling it a “blatant violation of international law” and demanding the immediate release of President Maduro and his wife. He emphasized that Venezuelans must determine their political future without foreign intervention.

“Such action is a clear violation of international law and akin to the unjust use of force against a sovereign nation. President Maduro and his wife must be released immediately. Whatever the reason, forcibly removing a head of government by a foreign power sets a dangerous precedent.” he said.

“The Venezuelan people must decide their own political future. History shows that sudden shifts of power through external powers bring more harm than good,” he added.

I follow the developments in Venezuela with concern. The Venezuelan leader and his wife were captured in a US military operation of unusual scope and nature. Such actions are a clear violation of international law and constitute an unlawful use of force… pic.twitter.com/9C1Fz1bppx— Enver Ibrahim (@anwaribrahim) January 4, 2026

Former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s media advisor, Sanjay Baru, quoted Ibrahim’s post and said, “Why did India not respond like Malaysia? Hats off to the Malaysian Prime Minister.”

Meanwhile, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa also condemned the US action in a video statement.

Sharing the video description, a user said, “South Africa is once again demonstrating the Global South leadership that India once claimed.” he commented.

South Africa is once again demonstrating the kind of leadership that India once claimed in the Global South. https://t.co/tZ5f3KClFh— Sarayu Pani (@sarayupani) January 6, 2026

Many observers in India highlighted these reactions, adding that they demonstrated the leadership role in the Global South that India has historically claimed.

Former Indian Foreign Minister Kanwal Sibal also weighed in on the issue, suggesting that as a rising power that aspires to lead the Global South, India could be expected to make a stronger statement.

“As an emerging power seeking leadership, claiming to speak on behalf of the Global South, and advocating dialogue and diplomacy to resolve conflicts, a statement from India on US intervention in Venezuela was expected,” he wrote, arguing: “We did not condemn Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine; instead, we called for dialogue and diplomacy and emphasized that this is not the age of war.”

“Considering this approach and to ensure continuity, we do not need to use condemnatory language, but we can remind all parties to exercise restraint. We can emphasize the importance of respecting sovereignty, equality, independence. We can emphasize avoiding unilateral actions and complying with the UN Charter and international law.”

“We can advise against actions that undermine the foundations of the international system, call for dialogue and diplomacy to resolve differences, and warn against double standards. We can also express concern about the particular vulnerabilities of developing countries in a world increasingly uncertain on security and economic issues.”

India’s Non-Aligned Tradition

When Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2022, India also maintained its neutral position.

While New Delhi has not publicly condemned the attack so far, it has repeatedly called for peace and a diplomatic solution. India’s policy of not joining a single bloc is not new.

This non-aligned approach was introduced by India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and was followed by subsequent governments.

In 1957, a year after the Soviet intervention in Hungary, Nehru explained in Parliament why India had not condemned the USSR. “Every year and every day, many things happen that we generally do not approve of. But we did not condemn them because there is no use in condemning when someone is looking for a solution,” he said.

Historian Stanley Johny, international relations editor of The Hindu, said: says India’s approach appears to have been consistent over the decades. Be it the Soviet interventions in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968), the Soviet interventions in Afghanistan (1979), or the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, India has avoided public condemnation.

He explains that New Delhi’s historical neutrality guides its current policy, especially when it comes to tensions involving partners or major powers.

India’s measured response to the US invasion of Venezuela shows a combination of pragmatism, historical precedent and strategic calculations. By maintaining its neutrality, India aims to preserve channels of dialogue, safeguard its national interests, and continue to advocate peaceful and diplomatic solutions consistent with decades of non-alignment policy.