India’s Tightrope in Caracas

The dramatic U.S. intervention in Venezuela has forced New Delhi to reconcile principle with pragmatism.

The United States’s dramatic military operation in early January, ordered by President Donald Trump and culminating in the capture of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, sent ripples far beyond Caracas.

In one stroke, Washington signalled a return to an assertive interpretation of its centuries-old Monroe Doctrine by asserting dominance in the Western Hemisphere and plunging Latin America back into the crucible of great-power competition. For India, a country that has cultivated cordial ties with Venezuela over decades, the unfolding crisis presents a test of strategic autonomy and diplomatic finesse.

Venezuela’s importance to the global geopolitical economy has long rested on two pillars: its geography and its oil. Straddling the Caribbean and the Atlantic, and bordered by Colombia, Brazil and Guyana, Caracas occupies a strategic location on the northern edge of South America. Beneath the dense jungles and karst highlands lies the world’s largest proven crude-oil reserves - roughly 17 per cent of the global total - dwarfing even the stocks held by Saudi Arabia or Russia.

For much of the 20th century, oil underpinned Venezuela’s economic and geopolitical relevance. In the era of Hugo Chávez, petro-diplomacy became the currency of regional influence. For India, this translated into a steady uptick in crude imports in the early 2000s, with New Delhi briefly becoming one of the largest buyers of heavy Venezuelan oil as it sought to diversify sources amid shifting global energy markets.

But politics intruded. U.S. sanctions, imposed with increasing severity from the late 2010s to punish human rights abuses and alleged corruption, greatly diminished Venezuela’s export capacity and forced Indian refiners to retreat. By 2025, India’s crude imports from Caracas had dwindled by more than 80 per cent, and bilateral trade was modest in the context of New Delhi’s $1.2 trillion global commerce.

It was against this backdrop that the Trump administration escalated pressure on Caracas, framing Venezuelan leadership as complicit in narcotics trafficking, and deploying strikes and naval operations in the Caribbean. The raid, dubbed ‘Operation Absolute Resolve’ by Washington, saw U.S. special forces seize Maduro and transport him to New York to face charges including narco-terrorism. Trump declared that the United States would “run the country” until a transition to democracy could be secured, openly canvassing the involvement of U.S. oil companies in rebuilding the decrepit industry.

Latin American reactions were swift and critical. Governments from Mexico to Brazil labelled the intervention a flagrant violation of sovereignty and international law. Beijing, already a strategic partner of Caracas with deep investments and political backing, condemned the U.S. move as hegemonic and underlined the risk of a new Monroe Doctrine driving great-power rivalry in the hemisphere.

India’s response has been notably cautious. New Delhi expressed “deep concern” over the violence and urged peaceful dialogue while reaffirming support for the well-being of the Venezuelan people. But it has stopped short of condemning the U.S. action outright or invoking principles of territorial integrity in a bid to reduce diplomatic fallout with Washington, even as it underscored India’s preference for peaceful resolution.

This measured posture reflects a broader dilemma at the heart of India’s foreign policy. New Delhi aspires to be the voice of the Global South, championing sovereignty and multilateralism. Yet it is also deeply enmeshed in a strategic partnership with the United States, driven by shared concerns over China’s rise and cooperation across defence, technology and trade. India’s muted reaction on Venezuela reveals the tightrope it now walks.

Moreover, the economic calculus is complex. Venezuelan oil, once a tempting diversification away from Middle Eastern crude, has lost much of its allure amid sanctions and production collapse. Think-tanks in New Delhi argue that the current crisis is unlikely to materially affect India’s energy security or trade due to low volumes of engagement and existing alternative supplies. Yet long-term investors worry that ongoing instability and deteriorating infrastructure will deter capital inflows, even if sanctions are eventually eased.

India must grapple with how to project its interests without becoming collateral in a new scramble for spheres of influence. Whether it chooses to lean into multilateral frameworks that constrain unilateral interventions, or to hedge by deepening pragmatic ties across competing blocs, will speak volumes about the shape of global order in the decades ahead.

For New Delhi, the Venezuela episode is a cautionary tale about the hazards of betting too heavily on any single commodity or alliance. It also highlights the limits of moral diplomacy in an era where might and control of strategic resources often trumps norms.

(The author is a researcher and expert in foreign affairs. Views personal.)