Why India’s Cautious Statement On Venezuela Is Raising Eyebrows | World News
New Delhi: The US bombing of Venezuela and the capture of its president sent shock waves around the world. Many countries described the move as a “unilateral action” that violated the United Nations Charter and international law. During this global outcry, India issued a carefully worded statement that sparked criticism from some quarters.
About 24 hours after the US operation in Caracas, India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) issued a statement on Sunday, January 4. The statement said, “India reiterates its support for the security and welfare of the Venezuelan people. We call on all relevant parties to resolve the issues through dialogue and peaceful means to maintain peace and stability in the region.”
Prior to this, on Saturday night, January 3, New Delhi had issued a travel advisory warning its citizens against non-essential trips to Venezuela.
Add Zee News as Preferred Source
The statement triggered unease among Opposition parties in India, which criticized the government for not publicly condemning US actions. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh wrote on X (formerly Twitter): “The Congress party is deeply concerned by America’s actions in Venezuela in the last 24 hours. Unilateral violation of established principles of international law is unacceptable.”
The Telegraph noted that New Delhi’s response came a full day after the US covert operation and compared it to India’s cautious stance following Russia’s attack on Ukraine in February 2022, where India refrained from openly supporting any side.
Criticism of India’s Response
Many people criticized India’s cautious approach. Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha from Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) said, “No excuse can justify action against Venezuelan oil. History will not forgive this cautious language. Earlier, in 1952-54, India used to issue a clear statement in such cases.”
India’s left-wing parties also condemned the US action in Venezuela and the detention of Maduro and his wife.
The statement jointly issued by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPI(M), CPI, CPI (ML)-Liberation, Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) and All India Forward Bloc (AIFB) stated: “We strongly condemn the US aggression against Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. This is an attack on a sovereign nation and a clear violation of the UN Charter.”
“The Indian government should support countries that condemn US aggression and stand firmly with Venezuela,” they said.
Journalist Shashank Mattu pointed out that India expressed its concerns but backed off from condemnation.
Professor Derek J. Grossman of USC Dornsife College wrote about X: “India will not condemn Trump’s military attack on Venezuela.”
“India has always been an important partner of the United States in Asia and globally. However, this operation was carried out within the framework of the ‘National Superiority Theory’ that guides the White House’s national security strategy,” said John Sitilides, a geopolitical strategist at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Washington.
He also said India and the US are expected to continue working together on common interests.
Call for Recalibration of Foreign Policy
Policy expert Zorawar Dault Singh emphasized that India’s statement was worrying and suggested that it reflected the need for a broader change in foreign policy.
“The real concern is that this could become a standard response to shifts in power in India’s periphery. India’s foreign policy needs to be seriously rethought because such statements neither provide tangible benefits nor deter future aggressive moves by the United States,” he wrote.
Strategic affairs analyst Brahma Chellaney also wrote on
Defending the Statement
Some leaders defended India’s cautious response. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor stated that this was appropriate considering the sensitive circumstances.
“Given the sensitivity of the situation, it would be right to leave it to the government to decide how to respond. Continued violations of the UN Charter and international law point to the collapse of the global order, making ‘might makes right’ a dangerous precedent. India, which is neither a small country nor an empire, must handle this period with diplomacy.”
Suhasini Haider, diplomatic editor of The Hindu, attributed India’s cautious approach to ongoing trade negotiations with the US.
“The Modi government has taken a measured approach towards the US attack on Venezuela. Experts say this is in line with India’s recent positions towards Ukraine, Gaza and Iran. India-US trade talks are at a crucial stage and this is likely affecting this stance,” he said.
