Answer

Introduction

The recent US intervention in Venezuela, marked by Operation Absolute Resolve on January 3, 2026, signifies a potential return of the ‘Monroe Doctrine’. By capturing Venezuela’s President and asserting a “right to run” Venezuela, Washington is re-establishing the Western Hemisphere as an exclusive sphere of influence, challenging the post-war norms of sovereignty and non-interference.

Body

Strategic Rationale behind India’s Silence vs. BRICS Opposition

• Prioritizing Bilateral Ties: India’s restraint is rooted in the “unfinished business” of a critical trade deal with the US and the need to negotiate relief from 50% penalty tariffs.
• Low Regional Stakes: Unlike its neighbors or Africa, Latin America remains a low-priority theater for India’s core security interests, allowing for a “transactional” silence.
  Eg: India’s trade with the region ($45 billion) is less than 10% of China’s trade with Latin American countries, making the political cost of silence manageable.
• Divergent BRICS Interests: While Russia and China view Maduro as a strategic ally against US hegemony, India views the crisis through the lens of maritime stability and energy security.
• Focus on Immediate Neighborhood: Strategic silence ensures that India does not provide hostile neighbors like Pakistan or China any diplomatic leverage during active border tensions.

Issues Arising from India’s Strategic Silence

• Erosion of Moral Authority: Silence on the “abduction” of a sovereign head of state weakens India’s long-standing credentials as a champion of international law and the UN Charter.
• Credibility Gap in Global South: As India seeks to lead the “Voice of the Global South“, its failure to condemn a blatant intervention in a fellow developing nation creates a perception of selective ethics.
• BRICS Cohesion Risks: India’s outlier position within BRICS on issues of sovereignty could lead to its marginalization within the group as it expands.
  Eg: Continued neutrality in cases involving blatant violations of territorial integrity may weaken India’s hand when it seeks BRICS support for its own territorial issues.
• Precedent for Salami-Slicing: Silence may embolden other powers to emulate “kinetic actions” in their own backyards, potentially threatening India’s own interests in the Indian Ocean or the LAC.
• Economic Diversification: India must move beyond its “energy-only” focus to tap into Latin America’s $5.5 trillion GDP, especially as the US pushes for “de-risking” from China.
  Eg: There is a vast opportunity to expand into clean energy, pharmaceuticals, and digital public infrastructure and a huge market of around 650 million population.

ExRecalibrating Policy towards Latin America

• Expanding Diplomatic Footprint: To be a proactive player, India needs to establish more embassies and regional desks to move away from “reactive” transactional diplomacy.
• Critical Mineral Security: Latin America holds the world’s largest lithium and copper reserves, essential for India’s EV and green energy transition.
  Eg: Recalibrating ties is essential for securing “Lithium Triangle” partnerships (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile) amid intense US-China competition.
• Countering Spheres of Influence: Engaging deeply with the region allows India to advocate for a multipolar world where Latin America is not just a “backyard” but a strategic partner.
  Eg: Shifting from “Non-Alignment” to “Multilateralism” helps India build coalitions across ideologies, resisting the imposition of great-power umbrellas.

Conclusion

India’s “strategic patience” regarding Venezuela reflects a cold-blooded assessment of its current economic and security dependencies. However, as 2026 unfolds, a purely transactional approach risks ceding the “Last Frontier” to other powers. To truly lead the Global South, India must transition from being a silent observer to a proactive partner that champions both economic resilience and the fundamental sanctity of international law in the Western Hemisphere.

DOWNLOAD PDF