Turkiye's Erdogan meets Pakistan PM in Istanbul weeks after India conflict
Turkiye's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has held talks with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in Istanbul, weeks after a military conflict between Islamabad and New Delhi.
The two countries would strive to boost cooperation, particularly in defence, energy and transportation, Erdogan's office said on Sunday.
Erdogan told Sharif it was in the interest of Turkey and Pakistan to increase solidarity in education, intelligence sharing and technological support in the fight against 'terrorism', Turkiye president's office said.
The meeting in the Turkish commercial capital comes as Ankara faces a backlash from India over its alleged supply of weapons to Islamabad during the recent conflict between the two South Asian neighbours. Ankara has denied sending weapons to Pakistan.
In recent weeks, Erdogan had expressed solidarity with Pakistan after India conducted military attacks across nine sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. New Delhi said the attacks were in response to an April 22 attack on tourists by armed fighters in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, which left 25 Indians and one Nepalese national dead. India has accused Pakistan of indirectly supporting the attack – which Pakistan denies.
Turkiye had warned of a risk of an 'all-out war' between the nuclear-armed neighbours and called on both sides to 'show good sense' to reduce the tensions, while expressing support for Islamabad's request for an international inquiry into the Pahalgam attack.
The two countries announced a ceasefire on May 10.
Turkiye and Pakistan have long had close economic and military links.
In February, Erdogan visited Islamabad, during which the two countries signed 24 cooperation agreements to bolster bilateral ties.
In a sign of India's displeasure with Ankara, India's External Affairs Ministry spokesperson last week said that 'relations are built on the basis of sensitivities to each other's concerns'.
'We expect Turkey to strongly urge Pakistan to end its support to cross-border terrorism and take credible and verifiable actions against the terror ecosystem it has harbored for decades,' Randhir Jaiswal said during a press briefing on Thursday.
Meanwhile, grocery shops and leading online fashion retailers in India declared a boycott of Turkish products ranging from chocolates, coffee, jams, and cosmetics, as well as clothing.
Indian fashion websites owned by Flipkart retail and billionaire Mukesh Ambani's Reliance removed numerous Turkish apparel brands from their sites.
India's annual $2.7bn in goods imports from Turkiye, however, are dominated by mineral fuels and precious metals. We still do not know how the bilateral trade will be impacted amid the strained ties.
Indian travel companies also suspended bookings of flights, hotels and holiday packages to Turkiye 'in solidarity with India's national interest and sovereignty'.
India has not officially ordered companies to boycott Turkish products. But the country's civil aviation ministry on May 15 revoked the security clearance of the Turkish-based aviation ground handling firm Celebi.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
9 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Ship carrying oil and hazardous cargo sinks off Kerala coast
NewsFeed Ship carrying oil and hazardous cargo sinks off Kerala coast Video shows a cargo ship capsizing off Kerala's coast in India, leaking oil and hazardous materials as authorities scramble to contain the spill.
Al Jazeera
12 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
‘Attack on country's soul': Indian MPs target Pakistan on global trips
Doha, Qatar – Inside India's Parliament, they are sworn rivals, with the opposition raising questions and attacking the government over its policies, and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of Prime Minister Narendra Modi defending itself, while the two sides rarely meet. Over the past few days, however, they have. Their shared concern: national security allegedly threatened by neighbouring Pakistan. A team of Indian Parliament members, including many opposition legislators, visited Qatar over the past four days as part of a broader diplomatic outreach by New Delhi to try to shape global opinion in the aftermath of the most intense military confrontation between the South Asian neighbours since 1999. New Delhi blames Islamabad for the killing of 26 people — most of them tourists — in Indian-administered Kashmir's resort town of Pahalgam on April 22, which led to days of exchange of missiles and drone explosives between the two nuclear powers, before they agreed to a ceasefire. Pakistan has rejected India's allegations. 'India has been hurt by an unprecedented attack on India's soul, the attack that happened in Pahalgam, which has shaken every Indian,' said Supriya Sule, a parliamentarian from the opposition Nationalist Congress Party, who led the team of Indian MPs visiting Doha. Her team is one of seven dispatched by the Modi government to more than 30 countries on an 'outreach programme' to 'sensitive' other governments on Pakistan's alleged support to 'terror groups' accused of carrying out several deadly attacks in Kashmir and other parts of India for decades. The delegations consist of MPs and retired diplomats. Sule's team landed in the Qatari capital on Saturday night and held discussions with the Gulf state's officials for two days before heading to South Africa on Tuesday morning. The MPs will also visit Ethiopia and Egypt. Addressing reporters during a news conference held by the Indian delegation in a seaside hotel in Doha, Sule said their aim is to 'create a global opinion' against Pakistan. She insisted there was 'enough evidence' linking Pakistan to the Pahalgam killings, in which the attackers picked out men and then identified them by religion before shooting them dead. The Pahalgam attack, the deadliest on tourists in the disputed Kashmir region in decades, was claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF), a relatively unknown group that Indian agencies say acts as a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based armed group. India accuses Pakistan of using groups like the LeT to support an armed secessionist movement in Indian-administered Kashmir. Multiple governments, including the United States and India, also accuse the LeT and other Pakistan-based armed groups of carrying out attacks in Indian cities, far from Kashmir. 'We do not differentiate between a terrorist state and a terrorist,' Rajiv Pratap Rudy, BJP MP and former federal minister, said during the news conference, stressing that the delegation is 'preventive diplomacy' that seeks to unite the world against 'terror'. Pakistan says it provides only diplomatic and moral support to the Kashmiri separatist movement. And though it accepts that the 2008 Mumbai attacks, in which more than 160 people were killed, might have been planned from Pakistan, it insists that the country's government and military had no role. India and Pakistan both control parts of Kashmir, while China also administers two slivers of the region. India claims all of Kashmir, while Pakistan claims the part controlled by India, but not the territory held by China, its ally. Manish Tewari, a parliamentarian from the opposition Congress party and former federal minister, told Al Jazeera the objective of the Indian delegations is to tell the world that Pakistan 'continues to be the epicentre of global terrorism'. 'India does not make a distinction between the semi-state actors and the state which spawns that. Over the past four and a half decades, there is documented evidence provided to the international community – and to Pakistan – that terror emanates from their soil,' he said. In the days after the ceasefire, some critics of the Modi government — including a senior Congress leader whose comments were carried in an Indian news outlet last week — have questioned New Delhi's diplomacy over the crisis. Though India insists that the truce was reached bilaterally, US President Donald Trump has repeatedly insisted that he and his administration brokered the ceasefire. India, as a matter of policy, has long argued that its disputes with Pakistan are purely bilateral and that there is no space for third-party intervention. India has also long tried to build its relations with the world, independent of India-Pakistan tensions. Critics have argued that Trump's comments and the recent crisis have undermined both of those Indian positions. But asked about criticism from the Congress leader that all-party delegations were being flown across the world as a 'damage-control exercise' after India got 'hyphenated' with Pakistan, risking the internationalisation of the Kashmir issue, Tewari replied: 'Absolutely not.' 'Each party has its own ideology, perspective and views. At the same time, there has been no two voices on the condemnation [of what happened in Pahalgam and subsequent Indian action],' Anand Sharma, another Congress MP and former federal minister, told Al Jazeera. 'We are in complete solidarity with the decisions the government has made,' he added. Asked about the visit to Doha, Sule said the Qatari government stands with India in its 'zero tolerance to terrorism'. 'The response of Qatari officials to our submissions has been very encouraging,' added Rudy. Syed Akbaruddin, a former diplomat who was once India's permanent representative to the United Nations, is also a member of the Indian delegation. When Al Jazeera asked him whether their plan to attack Pakistan on global platforms risks making Kashmir a multilateral issue, he said, 'Disputes are normal between countries.' 'What we object to is this use of subterranean methods of terror to try and push an agenda which you're not able to do through conventional methods, and that is a problem,' he added. 'What we see terrorism doing is not merely killing people, killing people is one part of it, but it is aimed at undermining our social harmony, it aims to stop our economic momentum, and it is focused on undermining our democratic ethos.' Anurag Thakur, a BJP parliamentarian and former federal minister, also said Kashmir remains a bilateral issue between the two South Asian neighbours. 'Kashmir is between India and Pakistan. We are very clear on that,' he told Al Jazeera.
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
The most dangerous weapon in South Asia is not nuclear
When India launched Operation Sindoor and Pakistan replied with Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos, the world braced for escalation. Analysts held their breath. Twitter exploded. The Line of Control – that jagged scar between two unfinished imaginations of nationhood – lit up again. But if you think what happened earlier this month was merely a military exchange, you've missed the real story. This was a war, yes, but not just of missiles. It was a war of narratives, orchestrated in headlines, hashtags, and nightly newsrooms. The battlefield was the media. The ammunition was discourse. And the casualties were nuance, complexity, and truth. What we witnessed was the culmination of what scholars call discursive warfare — the deliberate construction of identity, legitimacy, and power through language. In the hands of Indian and Pakistani media, every act of violence was scripted, every image curated, every casualty politicised. This wasn't coverage. It was choreography. On May 6, India struck first. Or, as Indian media framed it, India defended first. Operation Sindoor was announced with theatrical pomp. Twenty-four strikes in twenty-five minutes. Nine 'terror hubs' destroyed. Zero civilian casualties. The villains — Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba, 'terror factories' across Bahawalpur and Muzaffarabad in Pakistan – were said to be reduced to dust. The headlines were triumphalist: 'Surgical Strikes 2.0', 'The Roar of Indian Forces Reaches Rawalpindi', 'Justice Delivered'. Government spokespeople called it a 'proportionate response' to the Pahalgam massacre that had left 26 Indian tourists dead. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh declared: 'They attacked India's forehead, we wounded their chest'. Cinematic? Absolutely. Deliberate? Even more so. Indian media constructed a national identity of moral power: a state forced into action, responding not with rage but with restraint, armed not just with BrahMos missiles but with dharma – righteous duty and moral order. The enemy wasn't Pakistan, the narrative insisted — it was terror. And who could object to that? This is the genius of framing. Constructivist theory tells us that states act based on identities, not just interests. And identity is forged through language. In India's case, the media crafted a story where military might was tethered to moral clarity. The strikes weren't aggression — they were catharsis. They weren't war — they were therapy. But here's the thing: therapy for whom? Three days later, Pakistan struck back. Operation Bunyan Marsoos — Arabic for 'iron wall' — was declared. The name alone tells you everything. This wasn't just a retaliatory strike; it was a theological assertion, a national sermon. The enemy had dared to trespass. The response would be divine. Pakistani missiles reportedly rained down on Indian military sites: brigade headquarters, an S-400 system, and military installations in Punjab and Jammu. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif proclaimed that Pakistan had 'avenged the 1971 war', in which it had capitulated and allowed Bangladesh to secede. That's not battlefield strategy. That's myth-making. The media in Pakistan amplified this narrative with patriotic zeal. Indian strikes were framed as war crimes, mosques hit, civilians killed. Photographs of rubble and blood were paired with captions about martyrdom. The response, by contrast, was precise, moral, and inevitable. Pakistan's national identity, as constructed in this moment, was one of righteous victimhood: we are peaceful, but provoked; restrained, but resolute. We do not seek war, but we do not fear it either. The symmetry is uncanny. Both states saw themselves as defenders, never aggressors. Both claimed moral superiority. Both insisted the enemy fired first. Both said they had no choice. The symmetry was also apparent in the constructed image of the enemy and the delcared victims. India portrayed Pakistan as a terror factory: duplicitous, rogue, a nuclear-armed spoiler addicted to jihad. Pakistani identity was reduced to its worst stereotype, deceptive and dangerous. Peace, in this worldview, is impossible because the Other is irrational. Pakistan, in turn, cast India as a fascist state: led by a majoritarian regime, obsessed with humiliation, eager to erase Muslims from history. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was the aggressor. India was the occupier. Their strikes were framed not as counterterrorism but as religious war. In each case, the enemy wasn't just a threat. The enemy was an idea — and an idea cannot be reasoned with. This is the danger of media-driven identity construction. Once the Other becomes a caricature, dialogue dies. Diplomacy becomes weakness. Compromise becomes betrayal. And war becomes not just possible, but desirable. The image of the Other also determined who was considered a victim and who was not. While missiles flew, people died. Civilians in Kashmir, on both sides, were killed. Border villages were shelled. Religious sites damaged. Innocent people displaced. But these stories, the human stories, were buried beneath the rubble of rhetoric. In both countries, the media didn't mourn equally. Victims were grieved if they were ours. Theirs? Collateral. Or fabricated. Or forgotten. This selective mourning is a moral indictment. Because when we only care about our dead, we become numb to justice. And in that numbness, violence becomes easier the next time. What was at stake during the India-Pakistan confrontation wasn't just territory or tactical advantage. It was legitimacy. Both states needed to convince their own citizens, and the world, that they were on the right side of history. Indian media leaned on the global 'war on terror' frame. By targeting Pakistan-based militants, India positioned itself as a partner in global security. Sound familiar? It should. It's the same playbook used by the United States in Iraq and Israel in Gaza. Language like 'surgical', 'precision', and 'pre-emptive' doesn't just describe, it absolves. Meanwhile, Pakistan's media leaned on the moral weight of sovereignty. India's strikes were framed as an assault not just on land, but on izzat, honour. By invoking sacred spaces, by publicising civilian casualties, Pakistan constructed India not as a counterterrorist actor but as a bully and a blasphemer. This discursive tug-of-war extended even to facts. When India claimed to have killed 80 militants, Pakistan called it fiction. When Pakistan claimed to have shot down Indian jets, India called it propaganda. Each accused the other of misinformation. Each media ecosystem became a hall of mirrors, reflecting only what it wanted to see. The guns fell silent on May 13, thanks to a US-brokered ceasefire. Both governments claimed victory. Media outlets moved on. Cricket resumed. Hashtags faded. But what lingers is the story each side now tells about itself: We were right. They were wrong. We showed strength. They backed down. This is the story that will shape textbooks, elections, military budgets. It will inform the next standoff, the next skirmish, the next war. And until the story changes, nothing will. And it can change. Narratives constructed on competing truths, forged in newsrooms and battlefields, performed in rallies and funerals, are not eternal. Just as they were constructed, they can be deconstructed. And that can happen only if we start listening not to the loudest voice, but to the one we've learned to ignore. So the next time war drums beat, ask not just who fired first, but who spoke last. And ask what story that speech was trying to tell. Because in South Asia, the most dangerous weapon isn't nuclear. It's narrative. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
