How India's #BoycottTurkey sparked trade renaissance

Hindustan Times

03-06-2025

In early 2025, India witnessed a remarkable transformation in the power of consumer-led economic action. The catalyst was Turkey's public alignment with Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, which ignited a wave of nationalist sentiment across Indian social media. What began as trending hashtags and viral calls for boycott quickly materialised into real economic consequences. Orders for Turkish marble worth ₹3,000-crore were abruptly frozen in Rajasthan, 160,000 tonnes of Turkish apples were cleared out of cold storages in Pune and Delhi, Turkish jewellery vanished from boutique shelves, and nine major airports reassigned their ground-handling contracts from Turkish firm Çelebi to domestic operators.
Although Turkey's share in India's trade was relatively small, about 2%, the impact of its exclusion was outsized in significance. Between April 2024 and February 2025, imports from Turkey fell from $ 3.78 billion to $ 2.84 billion, while exports dropped from $ 6.65 billion to $ 5.21 billion. In the context of India's $ 1.4 trillion economy, these figures may appear modest, but they underscore a deeper shift: Decentralised, consumer-driven movements, without any official government directive, can swiftly alter global supply chains and reshape trade relationships.
Turkish marble, which accounted for roughly 70% of India's marble imports at 1.5 million tonnes annually, was suddenly unwelcome. Rajasthan's trade associations halted incoming shipments, prompting a rapid search for alternatives. Italy and Greece, previously niche suppliers, scaled up their exports, while Vietnam's quarries secured new contracts. This episode demonstrated that even entrenched monopolies can be disrupted when geopolitical events and market urgency align.
The boycott left cold storage facilities in major Indian cities with 160,000 tonnes of Turkish apples that retailers refused to sell, causing retail prices to spike by ₹20 to ₹30 per kilo. American growers from Washington state increased their shipments to India, while Polish and Iranian exporters redirected surplus produce to Indian ports. Meanwhile, domestic apple growers in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand seized the opportunity, expanding their orchards with policy support and strong price incentives. This response highlighted the adaptability of India's agricultural sector.
Turkish jewellery, renowned for its intricate craftsmanship and popular in select urban markets, disappeared from display cases almost overnight. However, this disruption had little effect on the broader bullion trade. Switzerland, the UAE, and South Africa continued to dominate gold imports, ensuring that Indian consumers still had access to hallmark designs. The loss of Turkish artisanal pieces was offset by established suppliers seamlessly filling the gap.
Turkish firm Çelebi, which managed ground-handling at some of India's busiest airports, saw its teams lose security clearances. Domestic companies like Air India SATS and Bird Aviation quickly took over operations, demonstrating the readiness and depth of India's service sector. The transition was smooth, underscoring the capacity of local firms to step in when international partners falter.
Despite the realignment in India's trade, neighbouring South Asian countries largely remained on the sidelines. Bangladesh continued its usual trade patterns, importing sugar and garments from India and plastics from China. Nepal relied on Indian cement and local agriculture, while Sri Lanka sourced essentials from Australia and the UAE. These countries missed an opportunity to capitalise on the shifting trade flows, revealing the inertia of established supply networks and the challenges of regional economic integration.
The boycott acted as a catalyst for domestic resurgence. Apple growers in Himachal Pradesh expanded their orchards, marble processors in Rajasthan invested in advanced machinery, and local logistics firms absorbed new contracts and scaled up. Even in defence shipbuilding, contracts previously eyed by Turkish firms were reassigned to Indian companies. The ripple effects were clear: Job creation, infrastructure investment, and the revitalization of industrial clusters, all echoing the ambitions of the Make in India initiative.
India's actions reduced dependence on a politically sensitive partner while maintaining its trade surplus. Strategic sectors adapted rapidly, with Italy and Greece filling the marble gap, the US and Polish suppliers covering fruit shortages, and East Asian firms providing chemicals and inputs. This episode highlighted the importance of a diversified import portfolio and demonstrated that supply-chain resilience is not just a bureaucratic goal but a market necessity in a volatile world.
The main beneficiaries were countries like Italy, Greece, the US, Iran, and Poland, each gaining new market share. Indian firms in logistics, agriculture, and stone processing turned adversity into opportunity. Turkey, meanwhile, suffered immediate and visible losses. Azerbaijan, despite supporting Turkey, saw little change due to minimal trade. India's neighbours missed a chance to adjust their export portfolios and deepen bilateral ties.
India's swift, unscripted trade realignment offers a template for future crises. Policymakers should prioritise supply diversification, incentivise import substitution, and build strategic reserves. A national dashboard could monitor dependencies, while regional cooperation through BIMSTEC and active G20 participation would further enhance resilience. Ultimately, it was ordinary Indian consumers who drove this transformation, proving that in today's interconnected world, public conviction can shape economic policy through collective action.
This article is authored by Soumyatanu Mukherjee, associate professor, economics, Xavier School of Management, Delhi-NCR Campus.