Will Venezuela Be A Patiala, Mewar Or A Punjab After The Invasion?

President Trump’s daring intervention in extricating President Nicolás Maduro from his palatial, well-guarded home has attracted much criticism and concern about the post War World order. In a previous article, I had suggested that it is on the way out and a new world is emerging. Whether this is the beginning of a new wave of colonialism or imperialism or genuine multipolar spheres of influence will probably be shaped by what US now does with Venezuela and Chinese-Russia reaction to it.

Generally, the US has attempted bottom up regime changes. It has encouraged insurrections, rebel movements etc with the aim of circling the leadership and forcing it out. Or in some cases, as in Iraq, a direct attack. They have generally been messy affairs, with collapse of the administration, counter rebellions and unrest. In many cases the US failed.

This time, Trump’s policy has gone for a top down regime change approach. The President of Venezuela has been physically removed and in his place, his deputy Delcy Rodriguez has taken over. The regime and administration remains intact. No grand plans for nation building, elections or complete replacement of the governing system appear to be on the horizon. However President Trump is going to meet the Nobel prize winner Maria Corina Nachado, who has often been called the real leader in waiting. It remains to be seen.

Politics is never an easy road especially when going through regime transitions. There is China, a parallel, perhaps untested power. China has nearly a trillion dollar invested in Venezuela with a major stake in its oil which it needs for its own development. If Venezuela slides away completely from it, respect for China will be considerable undermined around the world. China has interests almost everywhere now and heavily invested both politically and financially in South America.

Russia too has close relationship with Venezuela. Maduro has been Russia’s constant supporter in international platforms such as United Nations. Russia vetoed any attempts at UN by leading western countries to delegitimise Maduro’s election victories. There has been close military and intelligence cooperation between the two countries.

Clearly the intelligence failed Maduro. Neither China nor Russia was able to protect him from a surprise attack by Elite US forces. Maduro either didn’t have the same level of sophisticated support that Pakistan had during operation Sindoor or Chinese equipment didn’t work. In the post Maduro era both China and Russia seem inadequate.

Trump has played like a business man that he is. The attack and its aftermath are similar to hostile corporate takeovers that turn pragmatic. The target company remains intact with all its staff and management in place except at the very top; ownership changes. Reforms are brought in later, through voluntary and some times forced redundancies. The targeted company’s policies, marketing, relationships and priorities are changed. The only thing that changes is the ownership or rather the ultimate ‘Boss’. Although not all takeovers are as smooth; sometimes the entire management is changed.

Changes in political leadership sometimes follow this pattern. There are examples in British colonialism in India. After defeating or threatening the Maharajah with attack, detention or exile, many Maharajahs chose to make their Kingdom part of the Empire as a client or subsidiary state while the Maharajah still had pretensions of being ‘sovereign’.

The Maharajah enjoyed all the trappings of the throne, such as wealth, salutes, the head gear, the servants, the ministers etc. But sitting next to the Maharajah was the British political agent who was the real master and decision maker on behalf of the British crown. Essentially the Maharajah managed the Kingdom for the British and paid a tribute. In return the British provided protection. There were no palace coups or attacks by neighbours. The big Maharajahs also got to attend balls etc in London.

The Kingdom of Patiala and many of the Kingdoms of Rajasthan, such as Mewar, Banswara etc, entered into these arrangements with the British. In fact there were nearly 565 such princely states around India by 1947.

But some Kingdoms were too proud to become vassal states. They were finally annexed and their entire ruling regime deposed, exiled or imprisoned. Punjab was one such state. While initially the state became a protectorate under the British, there was general feeling among the British that the Sikhs will rise to take back the Kingdom. A small insurrection was treated as evidence of this. Maharajah Duleep Singh was removed from his subsidiary throne and his entire family exiled, imprisoned or controlled. Duleep himself was converted to Christianity, brought to Britain and given a pension. His mother, accused of the rebellion, had a less fortunate experience.

Similarly, the fate of Venezuela now hangs between being a client state (Kingdom) with real sovereignty resting with US. A regime in place will run the state. There may even be elections to please the people, but most decisions will be taken in Washington. Venezuela’s resources will be at the disposal of the Trump regime. He is already making way for American Oil companies to start investing in Venezuela and has told China to take its investments out. Maduro’s Vice President, Delcy Rodriguez, has become President and seems compliant to the ‘client state’ arrangement at the moment.

Will it succeed? It would appear that it will. Venezuela’s leadership has been known to be corrupt. It enjoyed power and wealth. If wealth is guaranteed and power within the domestic field is ensured, Venezuela will be another Patiala or Mewar. The Venezuelan leadership know how to suppress dissent. This well established regime can bring the army, the enforcers and the civil service to ensure compliance among the population. It will crush anti-US dissenters to ensure US lordship or paramountcy as they called in colonial period. Previously it used the apparatus to crush pro US dissenters against Maduro regime. They are strengthened by the fact that Trump is not into ideology. He simply wants a country aligned to US regional and international interests.

Trump is following the McKinley-Roosevelt doctrine of securing regional power through territorial acquisition, protectorates and creating sphere of influence that even went wider. Monroe also believed in interventionist foreign policy but stop other western countries competing with the US in western sphere. The attack on Venezuela and now threats to Greenland are not new policy but follow an old one. However it could get into trouble.

Venezuela could be gripped by nationalism of the type that started in Iraq and during colonialism in the Punjab. The US may then ‘annex’ Venezuela as a ‘colonised state’. Its excuse will be to ensure peace and stability. That will be a fate close to that of colonised Punjab. If the uprising is as powerful as in Afghanistan, it could spell disaster for USA as Venezuela is on its door step.

But the chances of such a resistance are not high. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are different civilisations whose people could not tolerate non-Islamic power over them.

There is a third scenario. Russia or China, or both, may well incite an insurgency and instate a regime friendly to them. This will be a dangerous moment. Moreover Russia is too preoccupied and China hasn’t really been involved in regime changes since the Mao period and therefore does not have the skills or experience.

So far it seems that Venezuela will become a client state of the US like the princely states of India during colonialism.