Deepika Bhan

New Delhi, Jan 4 (IANS) As US troops swooped down on Venezuela in a stealth night operation, flashes of India's own Operation Sindoor inevitably surfaced in the public imagination. 

The Indian Armed Forces, from May 7-10, 2025, carried out a successful precision operation in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, followed by airstrikes across 11 Pakistani airbases.

It is tempting -- almost cathartic -- to ask: What if India had gone further? What if the terror masterminds sheltered by Pakistan -- Hafiz Saeed, Masood Azhar, Dawood Ibrahim -- or even its powerful Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, had been "scooped out" in a similar fashion?

For many Indians, this is not merely a hypothetical question. It reflects a long-simmering frustration with a neighbour that has perfected the art of exporting terror while playing the victim on global platforms.

For most of this period, New Delhi exercised restraint. It was only after 2014 that this posture decisively changed, with punitive yet calibrated responses becoming a declared policy. Even this shift was framed within existing international norms, avoiding actions that could be seen as unilateral overreach. It is precisely this restraint that makes the Venezuela developments impossible to ignore.

Against this backdrop, the US action in Venezuela came as a shock to the global conscience. When the US President announced that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife had been "captured" and "flown out of the country" following a "successful large-scale strike", and the country being taken over disbelief turned into unease.

Several countries, including Russia and China, expressed concern, stressing that Venezuelans must be allowed to determine their destiny without destructive military intervention from outside.

The disturbing question that followed was simple yet profound: how can one country enter another sovereign nation and 'capture' its President and take over a country? It felt like a return to ancient times -- when kings were seized, territories subjugated, and power determined by brute force rather than international norms. This is 2026, barely days into the new year, and such actions lay out an unsettling framework for the future of global politics.

What makes the episode more jarring is the contrast with the rhetoric that preceded it. On New Year's Eve at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, US President Donald Trump proclaimed "peace, peace on Earth" as his resolution for the year, standing beside First Lady Melania Trump.

Four days later, the world witnessed an unprecedented action, which the US is justifying with its own claims. Maduro has been charged with narco-terrorism, cocaine importation conspiracy, firearms offences and related crimes. The illegal conduct is alleged to have begun around 1999 and continued through 2025, according to the US authorities.

The justifications apart, the world cannot forget the Iraq war, and the US claims on Saddam Hussein were finally found to be untrue years later. But, in between, Iraq was destroyed and aided in the birth and growth of terror elements like ISIS. Even in Afghanistan, after decades of a mission, the US finally abandoned the place, with the brutal, radical Taliban taking over.

How the US' Maduro mission proceeds is to be seen, but the dissonance between words and action could not have been starker.

While leaders, institutions, and international organisations routinely speak of peace, the reality unfolding across continents tells a different story. Conflict zones continue to smoulder without resolution.

The wars in Russia–Ukraine and Israel–Gaza show no sign of abating. Tensions in Southeast Asia, including flashpoints like Vietnam–Cambodia, threaten to spiral. Instead of de-escalation, more regions appear to be sliding into cycles of violence, instability, and strategic brinkmanship.

The year 2026, far from offering a fresh start, opens amid rising global anxiety. Power is increasingly being asserted unilaterally, norms are being bent -- or ignored -- and military might is once again becoming the preferred language of influence.

For India, these global tremors are not distant abstractions. Trouble brews dangerously close to home. Bangladesh, once hailed as a development success story, is witnessing a disturbing descent into chaos.

The Hindu minority there is under sustained attack; reports of killings, intimidation, and displacement are mounting. Radical Islamist elements, emboldened by political instability, are pushing an aggressive anti-India narrative. Some have even issued reckless threats about attacking India's northeastern states and severing the strategic Siliguri Corridor -- the chicken's neck.

On India's western flank sits Pakistan, the perpetual antagonist. Economically bankrupt yet ideologically belligerent, Islamabad remains ever eager to manufacture tensions with New Delhi. Its military establishment continues its hostility towards India, using terrorism as a strategic tool and pushing narcotics across the international border.

In such a hostile environment, India's actions are justified and cannot be casually questioned. If the US claims its Venezuela operation was about narco-terrorism, India's charges against Pakistan are far graver: harbouring and sponsoring terrorism, waging proxy wars, causing the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, spreading religious hatred, attempting to destabilise India internally, and aiding narco-terrorism.

The world has already seen compelling proof of Pakistan's role as a terror hub -- most notably when US forces eliminated Osama bin Laden on its soil. Since then, a disturbing number of terror attacks across the globe have traced their origins back to Pakistan.

If the US can do it with Venezuela, then why not India do the same with Pakistan? This question must be uppermost in the minds of the millions of Indians who have been directly or indirectly affected by Pakistan-sponsored terrorism.

The world today stands at a crossroads, drifting steadily towards unilateralism, where nations look inward first and act alone. The new year has begun on a troubling note.

Whether it descends further into chaos or forces a collective rethinking of global conduct will depend on the choices made now -- by those who wield power and by those who live under its shadow.

(Deepika Bhan can be contacted at deepika.b@ians.in)