In the complex landscape of international diplomacy, public sentiment often seeks swift and symbolic responses to geopolitical events. The current demand in certain Indian quarters to boycott Turkey and Azerbaijan—triggered by their perceived tilt towards Pakistan on matters of core national interest—must be weighed with strategic maturity rather than impetuous emotion. The recent flashpoints—Turkey’s repeated commentary on Jammu & Kashmir at multilateral forums, and Azerbaijan’s vocal alignment with Islamabad—have understandably ruffled feathers in India. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s stance on Kashmir, particularly his statements at the UN General Assembly, has been viewed in India as an intrusion into its internal affairs. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan, a close ally of both Turkey and Pakistan through the trilateral cooperation format, has also echoed positions that do not sit well with Indian sovereignty and territorial sensitivities.
Yet, while the temptation to respond through economic or cultural boycotts is strong, especially in an era where global diplomacy often plays out on social media timelines and consumer choices, India must act with strategic prudence. Foreign policy is not governed by hashtags or spontaneous consumer decisions—it is calibrated over decades, and must balance short-term public pressure with long-term national interest. Turkey, for instance, remains an important member of NATO and wields significant influence in West Asia, a region critical to India’s energy security and the well-being of over 8 million Indian expatriates. Turkey’s ports and air routes serve as important gateways for global logistics and travel. Moreover, Turkish construction and infrastructure firms have a significant presence in several regions of Asia and Africa, where India is also expanding its footprint. Similarly, Azerbaijan, though a smaller economy, is rich in energy resources and has emerged as a vital transit node under the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC)—a project India views as critical in its quest for deeper Eurasian connectivity and access to Central Asia. India has already invested diplomatic capital in enhancing relations with the Caucasus region, and abrupt policy shifts may risk undermining these gains. This is not to say that Turkey and Azerbaijan’s positions should be ignored or go unchallenged. India must continue to assert its sovereign rights on international platforms and strongly rebut any narrative that undermines its territorial integrity. It should also use multilateral and bilateral mechanisms to diplomatically convey that interference in its internal matters will have consequences.
However, calls for boycotts—whether of Turkish television dramas, cultural exchanges, or bilateral trade—should be examined carefully. As of now, India’s trade with Turkey stood at approximately $12 billion in 2023-24, with a relatively balanced import-export equation. A sudden clampdown would not only affect Indian exporters of cotton, chemicals, and machinery but also risk retaliatory measures. In Azerbaijan’s case, India has been eyeing increased cooperation in oil and gas. Disrupting these early engagements may prove counterproductive.
Instead of sweeping boycotts, India must use its growing global stature to isolate rhetoric through diplomatic channels. The External Affairs Ministry has already issued strong demarches in the past and must continue to engage with both Ankara and Baku constructively but firmly. Simultaneously, India should deepen engagement with their regional competitors and allies—such as Greece, Armenia, and the UAE—to recalibrate its balancing act. It is also essential to differentiate between governments and people. Turkish citizens or Azerbaijani students studying in India, for instance, should not become collateral in this broader geopolitical disagreement. Responsible statecraft requires distinguishing between punitive diplomacy and people-to-people hostility. India is no longer a tentative voice on the world stage. With that stature comes the responsibility to act not just firmly, but wisely. A boycott may serve as a popular slogan, but strategy must guide state action. Diplomacy, after all, is not about echoing anger—it is about securing interests with foresight.