The recent military action by the United States in Venezuela, culminating in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, has triggered widespread reactions from political leaders across India, drawing attention to questions of international law, national sovereignty, and global norms. The US operation, carried out under the Donald Trump administration, involved airstrikes and the extraction of Maduro and his wife from Caracas to New York over allegations of “narco-terrorism.” Indian leaders from multiple parties have expressed deep concern over the move, describing it as a violation of international law and a dangerous precedent in global politics.

Senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor was among the first to articulate a strong response, highlighting that the action reflects a disregard for long-established rules governing international relations. Speaking via social media, Tharoor noted that the principles enshrined in international law and the United Nations Charter “have for some years now been honoured in the breach.” In his assessment, the US operation represents the triumph of what he described as the “law of the jungle,” where might is equated with right. He argued that such actions erode the foundations of a rules-based international order and set a worrying standard for the global community. According to Tharoor, the US’s unilateral decision to conduct military operations in Venezuela and seize its leader without consent undermines the credibility of international institutions designed to safeguard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.

Congress colleague Abhishek Manu Singhvi offered a similar critique, framing the US intervention as a return to imperial-style governance. In his remarks, Singhvi condemned what he described as the imposition of foreign will through military might, stating, “Regime change by cruise missile, democracy delivered by warship, and sovereignty rewritten under self-styled Doctrine? Not leadership, this is 19th-century imperialism dressed up in 21st-century jargon.” He emphasized that such unilateral interventions demonstrate a disregard for international norms, particularly when powerful nations operate under the assumption that they can act with impunity while weaker nations must comply with the law. Singhvi further suggested that if international law is applied selectively, it loses all meaning, questioning the role of the United Nations in ensuring accountability and protection of sovereign nations.

Shiv Sena leader Shaina NC also weighed in, underscoring the gravity of the situation from a broader global perspective. She highlighted India’s longstanding diplomatic relations with Venezuela and stressed that such actions have far-reaching consequences for international stability. Shaina described the US operation as “bullying the world” and called for a holistic approach in evaluating such events. She noted that India has historically prioritized strong diplomatic engagement with Latin American nations, carefully nurturing relationships that span decades. In her view, the safety of Indian citizens living in Venezuela must remain a priority amid the crisis, reflecting the broader responsibility of nations to protect their nationals abroad. She expressed concern that unilateral military interventions could provoke global instability, potentially undermining norms of sovereignty and peaceful resolution of disputes.

Not all reactions focused solely on the legality of the US action. AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi seized the moment to make a domestic political point, suggesting that India could draw lessons from the US approach in addressing cross-border terrorism. Owaisi argued that if the US could send military forces to extract a foreign leader, India should similarly be capable of taking decisive action against Pakistan to apprehend those responsible for the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, including Lashkar-e-Taiba commander Masood Azhar. Speaking at a public event, Owaisi stated, “If Trump can send his forces and capture the Venezuelan leader, then why can’t PM Modi send our army to Pakistan and bring back the attackers of 26/11 Mumbai terror attack? If Trump can do it, so can you.” His comments drew responses from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, with Bihar minister Dilip Jaiswal dismissing Owaisi’s remarks as sensationalist. Jaiswal quipped that Owaisi appeared to be advising President Trump directly and sarcastically suggested that the US President might consider his guidance.

Congress MP Manish Tewari added another layer to the discussion, pointing to what he described as the US’s persistent fascination with regime change. He questioned whether past interventions have genuinely served American interests or whether they have had adverse consequences. Tewari warned that the operation could undermine global confidence in international law, emphasizing that such extrajudicial actions challenge the principles of sovereignty, non-intervention, and peaceful dispute resolution. He called upon the global community to recognize the risks posed by a world where powerful nations unilaterally impose their will on others, suggesting that the ongoing situation should be a matter of concern for policymakers, international legal experts, and diplomats alike.

The backdrop to these reactions is the unfolding humanitarian and political crisis in Venezuela, where the US operation has sparked strong condemnation from Latin American nations, China, Russia, and European countries. Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva called the military intervention an “unacceptable line” crossed, warning that such attacks violate international law and threaten regional stability. China issued a statement expressing deep shock and condemning the use of force against a sovereign nation, calling it a violation of both Venezuela’s sovereignty and global peace and security. Russia similarly decried the seizure of President Maduro as “an unacceptable violation of the sovereignty of an independent state,” urging all parties to avoid escalation and seek dialogue as a solution. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot also criticised the intervention, reiterating that only the people of a sovereign nation have the right to decide their political future and that no external actor can impose a regime change.

Within India, reactions illustrate a spectrum of perspectives. Senior Congress leaders focused on the breach of international norms and the precedent set for global governance, while regional leaders like Shaina NC highlighted the importance of safeguarding national and diplomatic interests. Meanwhile, political figures like Owaisi connected the event to domestic security concerns, advocating for assertive measures against cross-border terrorism. The BJP, in response to Owaisi, maintained that India follows a responsible approach to counterterrorism, targeting individuals rather than countries, and emphasized the nation’s commitment to maintaining cordial relations with neighbors.

The incident has raised broader questions about the state of international law in an era where powerful countries may act unilaterally, often citing national security, counterterrorism, or anti-narcotics operations as justification. Scholars, diplomats, and policymakers have noted that such interventions risk destabilizing regions, eroding trust in multilateral institutions, and weakening the authority of international treaties. Critics argue that when nations bypass established legal frameworks and conventions, they undermine mechanisms like the United Nations, which exist to prevent conflicts and protect human rights.

From India’s perspective, the crisis underscores the need for careful navigation of foreign policy, balancing solidarity with global legal norms while protecting the safety and interests of Indian nationals abroad. The Ministry of External Affairs has advised Indian citizens in Venezuela to exercise caution, restrict movements, and remain in close contact with the Indian embassy. The advisory reflects India’s commitment to ensuring the safety of its diaspora in the region while engaging diplomatically to address the emerging crisis.

In conclusion, the US military intervention in Venezuela and the capture of President Maduro have provoked a strong reaction from Indian leaders across the political spectrum. The responses range from condemnation of violations of international law, warnings about the erosion of global norms, and appeals for dialogue, to domestic political commentary regarding India’s approach to cross-border terrorism. Leaders such as Shashi Tharoor and Abhishek Manu Singhvi have highlighted the threat to the rules-based international order, while Shaina NC emphasized global security and citizen safety. Meanwhile, Asaduddin Owaisi has attempted to leverage the event to advocate for a more assertive Indian response to terrorism from Pakistan, provoking counter-comments from the BJP.

The unfolding situation remains closely monitored by the international community, and Indian political leaders continue to express concern over the broader implications for sovereignty, diplomacy, and the maintenance of international norms. As the United Nations Security Council prepares to discuss the matter, the debate over unilateral military interventions, regime change, and adherence to international law is likely to intensify, not only in India but across the world. The events in Venezuela have thus become a focal point for discussions on global governance, the responsibility of powerful nations, and the protection of the rights of citizens in the international system.

---