When María Corina Machado’s name was announced as the Nobel Peace Prize winner for 2025 in Oslo, the applause that followed was marked by a sense of recognition rather than surprise. For many, especially across the postcolonial world, the moment felt eerily familiar—a recurring spectacle in which the Nobel Peace Prize seemed less about rewarding genuine peace efforts and more about affirming a particular geopolitical script. According to Times Now and other sources, Machado’s selection was cast as a triumph for democracy, but it also reignited debates about the true motivations behind the Nobel Committee’s choices.
The Nobel Peace Prize, once regarded as a beacon of moral clarity, has long been subject to scrutiny for its political undertones. As The Hindu pointed out, the committee’s history is littered with contentious decisions: Mahatma Gandhi was famously overlooked, while figures like Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama were honored amid ongoing conflicts. The 2025 award to Machado, a prominent Venezuelan opposition leader, is seen by critics as another instance of the prize rewarding not the peacemakers, but those who best fit the prevailing Western narrative of dissent and democracy.
Machado’s position as a symbol of resistance against President Nicolás Maduro’s regime is well established. Yet, as The Hindu noted, her recognition is also deeply entwined with the interests of Washington and Brussels. She has become a cipher for the ideals of ‘freedom’ and ‘market discipline’—values championed by the very powers whose sanctions have contributed to Venezuela’s ongoing humanitarian crisis. For ordinary Venezuelans grappling with shortages of food and medicine, the irony is palpable: the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to a figure whose alignment with Western policies is seen as both a blessing and a curse.
In an exclusive interview with Times Now, Machado herself addressed the global significance of her award and the ongoing struggle in Venezuela. Speaking from an undisclosed location after more than 15 months in hiding, she offered a candid and emotional account of her experiences. “I’ve been in absolute isolation for almost 15 months. Thousands have disappeared. Children and women have been abused, tortured, even killed. But Venezuela’s spirit is unbroken—Maduro’s time is over,” Machado revealed. Her words underscored the harrowing conditions faced by those resisting the Maduro government, and the high personal cost of political dissent.
Machado’s interview also highlighted her admiration for India’s democratic values and its growing role on the world stage. Calling India a “great democracy” and “an example for the world,” she praised the nation’s leadership and institutions. “India has been an example for many generations. You have a responsibility because many countries look up to you,” Machado said, adding, “I hope I can host Prime Minister Modi in a free Venezuela very soon.” These remarks, featured prominently in Times Now’s coverage, have resonated in India, where debates about the health of the country’s democracy have been fierce and ongoing.
Indeed, Machado’s words have been seized upon by Indian media as a counter to critics who claim that India’s democracy is in decline. On the Newshour Special Edition, anchor Heena Gambhir emphasized that Machado’s praise “crushed” the narrative that “India’s democracy is dead,” arguing that her endorsement discredits anti-India claims on the global stage. The segment underscored how international recognition, especially from figures like Machado, can shape domestic and international perceptions of a country’s political system.
Machado’s interview did not shy away from geopolitics. She referred to former U.S. President Donald Trump as “our main ally” in Venezuela’s struggle for democracy, crediting his administration’s policies and “firm stance against Maduro’s rule” for strengthening the resistance movement. “We’re seeing results of a strategy to achieve peace through strength,” she asserted, describing American actions against narco-terror networks in Venezuelan waters as a necessary response to what she called “the criminal socialist structures that have devastated our nation.”
Machado also made a pointed claim about the 2024 Venezuelan presidential elections, which she described as stolen. “Eighty-five percent of original tally sheets prove our win,” she stated, reiterating her belief that the opposition’s victory was denied through electoral fraud. Her insistence on the legitimacy of her movement and the scale of popular support reflects the ongoing contestation over Venezuela’s political future.
Throughout the interview, Machado drew inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi, emphasizing the moral strength required for peaceful resistance. “Being peaceful is not weakness. Mahatma Gandhi showed humanity that to have peace, you need freedom, and freedom demands strength,” she said. This invocation of Gandhi was not merely rhetorical; it was a deliberate alignment with a global tradition of nonviolent resistance, intended to bolster her credibility and moral standing.
Yet, as The Hindu observed, the Nobel Peace Prize’s moral currency is increasingly seen as transactional—a way for the committee to reward ideological compliance and reinforce the dominant narratives of the international order. In Machado’s case, her selection is viewed as a confirmation rather than a betrayal: confirmation that ‘peace’ is now defined by its compatibility with Western diplomacy and markets, rather than by any absolute moral or humanitarian standard.
The Nobel Committee, for its part, might argue that peace has always been political, and that neutrality is a myth. But the distinction between politics and orchestration is not lost on observers. When the language of “freedom” and “human rights” is used to justify policies—such as sanctions—that can exacerbate civilian suffering, the line between conscience and control becomes blurred.
Despite these complexities, the Nobel Peace Prize retains its allure. Even those who criticize its choices, such as Donald Trump—who once claimed, “no one has done more for peace”—recognize the prize’s enduring symbolic power. The spectacle of the award, its ceremonies and speeches, continues to captivate, even as its moral authority is questioned.
For Machado and her supporters, the Nobel represents a rare moment of international validation amid a long and difficult struggle. For her critics, it is another example of how global institutions can become instruments of power rather than agents of justice. As the world watches the aftermath of this year’s prize, the debate over the meaning of “peace” and the purpose of the Nobel will surely continue.
Ultimately, the story of María Corina Machado’s Nobel Peace Prize is less about one individual and more about the ongoing contest for the soul of global politics. It is a reminder that, while institutions may age and lose their moral clarity, the pursuit of justice and freedom endures—in the actions of those who risk everything, often without expectation of reward.