How Erdogan's Islamist agenda undermines India-Turkey ties

First Post

3 days ago

While India and Turkey have the potential to develop economic and commercial relations, Ankara's political orientations and President Recep Erdogan's Islamic bent of mind and his larger-than-life image of himself prevent the growth of ties read more
Turkey, or, to be diplomatically correct, Türkiye (but the country is still popularly known as Turkey), has had close ties with Pakistan since the early 1950s. Their inspiration was Turkey and Pakistan's pro-West orientation during the Cold War. Turkey became a member of NATO in 1952, and both countries joined the US-created Central Treaty Organisation (Cento) in 1955. That led their armed forces, which controlled the destinies of their respective countries, to be drawn to each other. This process was encouraged by the US because it considered them to be bulwarks against the Soviets.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Thus, the Cold War cast a shadow on India-Turkey relations because India was a non-aligned country. Thus, also, Turkey's sympathies, through the decades, were with Pakistan on contentious India-Pakistan matters. These included the Jammu and Kashmir issue. Its disposition for Pakistan was not limited to expressions of diplomatic support but covered the defence dimension as well.
It was this approach that was decisively demonstrated during Operation Sindoor. Turkish diplomatic statements were biased against India. During the aerial operation, Pakistan extensively used Turkish drones between the nights of May 6-7 and the cessation of hostilities on May 10. It is also believed that Turkey continued its military supplies during the crucial period when Operation Sindoor was actively underway.
India was indignant at Turkey openly siding with Pakistan during Operation Sindoor. It signalled its unhappiness by withdrawing the security clearance of the Turkish company Celebi Aviation, which, through its Indian entity, handled cargo at nine Indian airports. This action was appropriate. India reinforced its disapproval of Turkish policies during Operation Sindoor when Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Turkey's arch-rival Cyprus on June 15-16.
During his trip Modi reiterated India's traditional support for Cyprus in its disputes with Turkey. The India-Cyprus Joint Statement issued after Modi's discussions with Cyprus President Nikos Christodoulides noted, inter alia, 'India reiterated its unwavering and consistent support for the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and unity of the Republic of Cyprus. In this regard, both sides emphasised the need to avoid unilateral actions as essential for creating a conducive environment for the resumption of meaningful negotiations.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
This is contrary to the Turkish position on the Cyprus issue. Indeed, Turkey's all-out support for Turkish Cypriots manifested itself fully after its invasion of the island in 1974. Turkish troops since then are present in the entity, which now calls itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TNRC). Turkey actually wants TNRC to become a sovereign state with full international recognition. A United Nations Peacekeeping Force ensures the maintenance of peace in Cyprus.
Before proceeding further to attempt a prognosis of how the India-Turkey-Pakistan ties will evolve, it would be appropriate to consider Turkey's diplomatic responses to the Pahalgam terrorist attack and the beginning and pause of Operation Sindoor.
Turkey's Foreign Ministry condemned the Pahalgam attack, calling it 'heinous'. It also stated, 'We are deeply saddened to learn that many people lost their lives and many others were injured in a terrorist attack that targeted civilians in the Pahalgam region of Jammu and Kashmir today (April 22).' Turkey did call the Pahalgam attack a terrorist one, but what is clearly seen in its carefully crafted statement is that it left the question of where the terrorists came from completely open.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Turkey has a long tradition of refined diplomacy. Hence, its decision not to enter into the question of where the terrorists came from was deliberate. Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir has been going on for thirty-five years, and Turkey is not oblivious of this fact. On the day of the Pahalgam attack, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif was in Ankara on apparently a pre-scheduled visit. However, this was all the more reason for Turkey to signal, even obliquely, that the sponsorship of terrorism was not acceptable.
On Operation Sindoor, Turkey's Foreign Ministry stated the 'attack carried out by India last night (night of May 6-7) raises the risk of an all-out war. We condemn such provocative steps as well as attacks targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. We call on the parties to exercise common sense and refrain from unilateral actions. We expect that measures will be taken to reduce tensions in the region as soon as possible and that the necessary mechanisms, including in the field of counter-terrorism, will be put in place to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents. We also support Pakistan's call for an investigation into the April 22 terrorist attack'.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
This was clearly a pro-Pakistani statement. It virtually called Operation Sindoor 'provocative' and 'condemned' it. Going further, it supported Pakistan's demand for an 'international' investigation into the Pahalgam attack. Turkey also showed its partisanship by not demanding that a similar international investigation should be carried out on the Jaffar Express attack, which the Pakistani military stated was undertaken by India through the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA). By issuing this statement, Turkey indicated that it fully stood behind Pakistan. This could only cause outrage in the government and people of India, as indeed it did.
On the day of the ceasefire—May 10—Turkey again issued a completely pro-Pakistani statement. Its Foreign Ministry noted, 'We welcome the declaration of a ceasefire between Pakistan and India. We call on the parties to make maximum use of the opportunity provided by the ceasefire to establish a direct and healthy dialogue. It is evident that dialogue mechanisms to prevent similar escalations, including in the field of counter-terrorism, need to be established to ensure sustainable stability in South Asia. We extend our appreciation to all countries, in particular the USA, which have contributed to the ceasefire.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In this statement Turkey contradicted or ignored two basic Indian positions. The first was that the cessation of hostilities was because of direct Indian and Pakistani contacts and not caused by the intervention of any third party, including the United States. The second position that Turkey ignored was India's valid stand on talks with Pakistan. These are best summarised in the words 'talks and terrorism cannot go together'.
Taken together, Turkey's three statements were so completely against India that they could have no reaction but to bring India-Turkish ties to a new low. They also naturally angered the Indian public, and calls went out that Indian tourists should not visit Turkey; its popularity as a tourist destination for Indians has grown in recent years. Besides, Indian filmmakers have also considered Turkish locales for shooting their films.
If India was disappointed by Turkey's partisanship, Pakistan was delighted. Shehbaz Sharif, who was in Turkey on April 22, again went to the country on May 25 to thank President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for his support of Pakistan before and during Operation Sindoor.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
A media release from Shehbaz Sharif's office gushed, 'Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who was accompanied by Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, Chief of Army Staff, expressed heartfelt gratitude to the government and people of Türkiye [Turkey] for their unwavering support to Pakistan during the recent developments in South Asia, underscoring the strength of the fraternal bonds between the two nations." He lauded Turkey's principled stance and the outpouring of support of goodwill of the Turkish people for Pakistan and termed it as a source of great comfort and strength for Pakistan. Significantly, the media release also noted, 'Both leaders reaffirmed their principled support for each other's core concerns, including the Jammu and Kashmir dispute.' What the Pakistani media release omitted to mention is Turkey's core concern, which is the Cyprus dispute. Certainly, this omission would not have pleased the Turks, but they would have taken it in their stride.
Turkey and Pakistan's evolution has greatly differed over the past two decades in one major respect. President Erdogan, who has been the effective 'ruler' of Turkey in this period, has succeeded in eliminating the Turkish armed forces' role in its political life. The armed forces considered themselves as the guardians of the secular legacy of Kemal Ataturk, the father of modern Turkey. They ensured that Turkey's Islamic forces were kept out of the country's public life.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
However, Erdogan, who is an Islamic revivalist, cut the armed forces to size with the help of the Turkish hinterland, which was never in full sympathy with Kemalist ideals. This is unlike Pakistan, where the armed forces are still in control of the country despite the veneer of democracy.
What now joins the two countries is that they are both coming more and more in the grip of conservative Islam. At the same time, the professional Turkish army continues its technical linkages with its Pakistani counterpart. In view of these factors, it seems unlikely that Turkey is capable of taking an objective view of developments in the Indian subcontinent or pressing Pakistan to abandon the use of terrorism as a military security doctrine.
This can only mean that while India and Turkey have the potential to develop economic and commercial ties, Turkey's political orientations and also Erdogan's Islamic bent of mind and his larger-than-life image of himself will prevent their growth. The possibility of positive growth in India-Turkish ties is therefore bleak.
The writer is a former Indian diplomat who served as India's Ambassador to Afghanistan and Myanmar, and as secretary, the Ministry of External Affairs. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.