In a rare and pointed diplomatic intervention, the Government of India has labeled the recent US strikes on Venezuela as a “matter of deep concern,” urging all parties to exercise restraint and resolve differences through peaceful dialogue. The statement, issued by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on Sunday, January 4, 2026, marks one of New Delhi’s clearest rebukes of unilateral military action by a major power in recent years—and signals India’s growing assertiveness on global sovereignty issues .
While the United States claims the strikes targeted drug trafficking networks operating near the Colombia-Venezuela border, the Maduro government alleges civilian infrastructure was hit, sparking nationwide outrage. Against this volatile backdrop, India’s stance—rooted in decades of non-aligned foreign policy—has drawn international attention as a voice for the Global South in an increasingly polarized world order.
Table of Contents
- India’s Official Response to US Strikes
- What Are the US Strikes on Venezuela?
- Why India’s Statement Matters on the Global Stage
- Historical Context: India’s Stance on Sovereignty
- Global Reactions to the Venezuela Crisis
- Economic and Strategic Implications for India
- Conclusion: A Principled Stand in a Divided World
- Sources
India’s Official Response to US Strikes
At a press briefing in New Delhi, MEA spokesperson Arindam Bagchi delivered India’s formal position with unusual gravity:
“India views the recent military action by the United States in Venezuelan territory as a matter of deep concern. We emphasize the importance of respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations. We urge all parties to exercise maximum restraint and to return to the path of dialogue and peaceful means to address differences.”
The phrasing—particularly “matter of deep concern”—is a deliberate diplomatic signal. In India’s foreign policy lexicon, this phrase is reserved for actions deemed destabilizing, illegal under international law, or threatening to global peace . It falls just short of outright condemnation but carries significant weight, especially coming from a strategic partner of the US like India.
What Are the US Strikes on Venezuela?
On January 2, 2026, US Southern Command launched a series of precision airstrikes in Venezuela’s western Táchira state, near the Colombian border. Officially dubbed “Operation Iron Horizon,” the mission targeted alleged command centers used by Colombian drug cartels with alleged backing from Venezuelan military units .
The Pentagon claims the operation was based on “credible, actionable intelligence” linking these sites to fentanyl trafficking into the US. However, Venezuelan state media reported damage to a rural health clinic and a school, with no casualties confirmed. Independent verification remains difficult due to restricted access. President Nicolás Maduro has called the strikes “an act of war” and vowed to file a complaint at the United Nations.
Why India’s Statement Matters on the Global Stage
India’s reaction is significant for three key reasons:
- Strategic Autonomy: Despite being a key partner in the Quad and deepening defense ties with the US, India refuses to toe Washington’s line on interventions it deems illegitimate.
- Voice for the Global South: As a leader of the Global South and former G20 president, India uses such moments to champion multilateralism over unilateral force.
- Non-Alignment 2.0: India’s position echoes its Cold War-era non-aligned stance but updated for the 21st century—prioritizing dialogue over coercion, even when it complicates relations with major powers.
Historical Context: India’s Stance on Sovereignty
India’s opposition to external military intervention isn’t new. From opposing the 2003 Iraq War to abstaining on UN resolutions against Syria and Iran, New Delhi has consistently prioritized national sovereignty—a principle enshrined in the Panchsheel Agreement of 1954 with China.
This philosophy extends to Latin America. India has maintained cordial relations with Venezuela since the 1970s, particularly in energy and pharmaceuticals. In 2024, bilateral trade stood at $1.2 billion, with Venezuela exporting crude oil and importing Indian generic medicines . India has also historically opposed US sanctions on Venezuela at international forums, making this latest statement consistent with long-term policy. For more on India’s Latin America engagement, see [INTERNAL_LINK:india-venezuela-diplomatic-ties].
Global Reactions to the Venezuela Crisis
The international community remains deeply divided:
- Supportive: Colombia, the UK, and Canada backed the US, citing the “narcoterrorism” threat.
- Critical: Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba condemned the strikes as “imperial aggression.”
- Neutral/Mediating: The European Union called for an “independent investigation,” while Brazil urged “calm and restraint.”
- Global South Bloc: India, South Africa, and Indonesia emphasized the UN Charter’s Article 2(4) on non-intervention.
Economic and Strategic Implications for India
While geographically distant, the Venezuela crisis could indirectly affect India:
- Energy Security: Any prolonged instability in Venezuela—a major oil producer—could impact global crude prices, affecting India’s $120 billion annual import bill.
- Pharma Exports: Venezuela relies heavily on Indian generic drugs; supply chain disruptions could hurt Indian pharmaceutical firms.
- US-India Relations: Though unlikely to derail strategic ties, this incident may prompt quiet diplomatic discussions on the limits of military intervention.
Conclusion: A Principled Stand in a Divided World
India’s response to the US strikes on Venezuela is more than a diplomatic footnote—it’s a reaffirmation of its identity as a civilizational state that values dialogue over domination. By calling the action a “matter of deep concern” and insisting on peaceful resolution, India positions itself not just as a regional power, but as a moral voice in a fractured international system. In an era where great powers increasingly act unilaterally, such principled stands may become India’s most enduring diplomatic legacy.