Turkey, not so hot?
Social media is abuzz with #BoycottTurkey and #BoycottAzerbaijan
'Don't go to Turkey'
Social media is abuzz with #BoycottTurkey and #BoycottAzerbaijan, after both the countries publicly supported Pakistan during India's military retaliation following the Pahalgam terror attack.
While Turkey has long been a favourite among Indian travellers, many are reconsidering their trips or actively choosing alternative destinations like Greece and Armenia.
'Go to Greece instead'
What's the alternative? Many are suggesting Greece — and even Greek journalists are encouraging Indian travellers to reconsider their plans. 'Why travel to Turkey when you can come to Greece? We are friendly to India (and ranked the friendliest country in the world by Forbes), have idyllic islands, a plethora of Bronze Age to medieval history, sleepy villages & A LOT of veg food — why even consider Turkey (sic)?' wrote Paul Antonopoulos, a Greek journalist, on X.
'Greece and Armenia are viable alternatives due to their historical ties with India, cultural richness, and affordability'
'Bookings for Turkey and Azerbaijan down by 60%, while cancellations have surged by 250%'
Indian travellers have expressed strong sentiments over the past one week, with bookings for Azerbaijan and Turkey decreasing by 60%, while cancellations have surged by 250% during the same period.
In solidarity with our nation and out of deep respect for our armed forces, we strongly support this sentiment and advise all against all non-essential travel to Azerbaijan and Turkey.
We have already discontinued all promotions and offers on our platform to discourage tourism to these two destinations.
–
MakeMyTrip
spokesperson
'Noticeable trend among Indians shifting from Turkey, Azerbaijan to Greece & Armenia'
There's a noticeable trend among Indian travellers shifting from Turkey and Azerbaijan to destinations like Greece and Armenia. This is largely due to geopolitical tensions and calls for boycotts against Turkey and Azerbaijan, leading OTAs are actively recommending alternative destinations that are perceived as more welcoming and politically neutral.
In addition to Greece and Armenia, Indian travellers are exploring destinations like Georgia, Serbia, Greece, Thailand, and Vietnam.
These countries offer rich cultural experiences, historical sites, and are generally considered safe and affordable, making them attractive alternatives for those reconsidering travel to Turkey and Azerbaijan.
– Rikant Pittie, CEO and Co-Founder,
EaseMyTrip
Over the past week, Indian travellers have made their sentiments clear, with cancellations rising by 260%. In solidarity with the nation and in the interest of standing together during this time, we urge everyone to defer all non-essential travel to Turkey & Azerbaijan - Cleartrip
Greece, please!
'Greece and Armenia are viable alternatives due to their historical ties with India, cultural richness, and affordability.
Greece offers a blend of ancient history and scenic beauty, while Armenia provides a unique cultural experience with its monasteries and landscapes. Both countries have simplified visa processes for Indian travellers, enhancing their appeal,' shares Rikant Pittie.
VISAS & TRAVEL ACCESSIBILITY
Turkey
E-visa available for Indian passport holders with valid US/ UK/Schengen visas. Otherwise, regular visa processing is straightforward and takes 10–15 days.
Direct flights and affordability make it appealing — until now.
Greece
Part of the Schengen zone. Visa processing can be long, with delays and high rejection rates, especially during peak seasons. No direct flights from India, and trips tend to be more expensive. 'These alternative options are not always viable. It's not easy to
boycott Turkey
and immediately switch plans to another European country, including Greece. The Schengen visa process is time-consuming, with long wait times and complex paperwork,' points out Akash Rastogi, Director at Argosy Travels, Gurgaon.
'A seven-day trip to Greece from India typically ranges between ₹1.5 to ₹2 lakh per person, depending on the season and accommodation choices. Armenia is relatively more affordable, with lower costs for accommodation, food, and local transportation, making it an economical choice for budget-conscious travellers,' says Rikant Pittie.
'Not many are canceling trips to Turkey or Turkish Airlines bookings'
'The trend we're witnessing is that while travellers are avoiding Azerbaijan, Turkey remains popular.
Not many are canceling trips to Turkey or Turkish Airlines bookings, especially since Istanbul is a major hub for connecting flights into Europe. Alternative destinations like Georgia, Uzbekistan, and Armenia offer similar pricing, but language barriers and scams are common. Travellers should book through trusted, government-approved operators, carry insurance, and use apps like Bolt or Uber within cities,' confirms Akash Rastogi.
'While some travellers are reconsidering plans, we've only seen minimal cancellations'
According to Hari Ganapathy, co-founder of Pickyourtrail, 'While some travellers are reconsidering plans, we've only seen minimal cancellations. With clear, real-time updates, we've been able to help travellers make well-informed adjustments rather than hasty changes.'
Future-Proof Your Child with AI Skills | Limited Early Bird Seats – 33% OFF!
| WhatsApp: 9560500838
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
24 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC rejects plea on deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to move HC
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea which alleged that the Assam government has reportedly launched a "sweeping" drive to detain and deport persons suspected to be foreigners without nationality verification or exhaustion of legal remedies. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter. "Why are you not going to the Gauhati High Court?" the bench asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union. Hegde said the plea was based on an order passed by the apex court earlier. "Please go to the Gauhati High Court," the bench observed. Hegde said the petitioner would withdraw the plea to take appropriate recourse before the high court. The bench allowed him to withdraw the plea. The plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, referred to a February 4 order of the top court which, while dealing with a separate petition, had directed Assam to initiate the process of deportation of 63 declared foreign nationals, whose nationality was known, within two weeks. "Pursuant to the said order (of February 4)... the state of Assam has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners, even in the absence of foreigners tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies," the plea claimed. It referred to news reports, including one about a retired school teacher who was allegedly "pushed back" into Bangladesh. "These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court," it claimed. "The 'push back' policy, as implemented, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by deporting individuals without due process, thereby denying them the opportunity to contest their deportation and infringing upon their right to life and personal liberty," the plea claimed. It alleged that the indiscriminate application of deportation directives, coupled with absence of proper identification, verification and notice mechanisms, has resulted in a situation where Indian citizens were being wrongfully incarcerated and threatened with removal to foreign territories without lawful basis. The plea sought a direction that no person shall be deported pursuant to the February 4 order without a prior reasoned declaration by the foreigners tribunal, without adequate opportunity of appeal or review and verification of nationality by the Ministry of External Affairs. It also sought a declaration that the "push back" policy adopted by Assam was violative of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and contrary to binding judicial precedents. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Framing the narrative war against Pakistan
Nobody ever really wins the war of narratives. Each side tells its own story — shaped by perceived triumphs, real or imagined — and believes in the glory of its version. No one cares what the other side claims, unless one side was materially and visibly vanquished in a physical fight. That rarely happens. Sample this: As India began striking terror infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7, Pakistan claimed it had shot down six Indian aircraft. India denied it. In fact, New Delhi refused to confirm any losses until last week, when the Chief of Defence Staff tacitly acknowledged that a jet (maybe more, unspecified) had been downed, but that 'the tactical mistake was remedied, and the plan reimplemented' — an implicit way of saying: 'It matters not what we lost, as long as we ultimately won.' The standoff ended in a ceasefire, with each side walking away convinced it had the better of the exchange. India believes it called out Pakistan's nuclear bluff; Pakistan insists it gave as good as it got — claims that remain unverifiable in the fog of war. Meanwhile, Pakistan says little about the pounding its airbases received in the Indian response. So steeped in denial is the country's military establishment that its Army Chief has assumed the rank of Field Marshal — an honorific that reveals more about narrative vanity than battlefield reality. For its part, Delhi is convinced it humbled Pakistan. Islamabad, however, couldn't disagree more. 'We have shattered India's illusion of superiority,' says Pakistan's PM. 'New Delhi has been taught a lesson in respecting the sovereignty of its neighbours.' Even Washington had its version of events. President Trump triumphantly claimed that he convinced both countries to back off. 'I talked trade with them,' he said. India denies it. Pakistan agrees. Who's telling the truth? Hard to say. Perhaps none of them care. Each sticks to its own version. Last week, seven multi-party Indian delegations visited global capitals to explain Delhi's position. Many in the West are sympathetic to India's position — its long-standing concerns about cross-border terrorism and Pakistan's duplicity in dealing with extremist groups. They recognise the provocations India faces and the public pressure on Delhi to respond. Even so, some take India's account with a pinch of salt. Yes, Pakistan was complicit in the Pahalgam terror attack — but why didn't India go after the real perpetrators? Why not share intelligence? Why the secrecy, the social media bans, the coyness in accepting losses, and the reluctance to engage with the international media? Back home, a few seem interested. Most people are content with the version of events presented to them. Perhaps that's the point of a good narrative — to remove the burden of inquiry, so the prevailing storyline is accepted, repeated, and quietly folded into national pride. And therein lies the rub. Narratives are, by their very nature, misleading. They mix fact, half-truth, and convenient fiction to produce a favourable picture. In the end, they mostly convince only the teller. You can believe deterrence has been restored — but it means little if your adversary doesn't agree. The deeper challenge lies in coming to terms with Pakistan's strategic culture. As Christine Fair, Professor at Georgetown University and a keen Pakistan watcher, has long argued, the Pakistan Army operates with an insurgent mindset. It wins simply by not losing. It thrives on confrontation and political relevance. That makes it almost immune to traditional deterrence logic. This is what India must keep in mind. The next time there's a provocation from Pakistan — and there might well be another — New Delhi would do well to resist the urge for political signalling. It's this compulsive need to cater to public opinion and control the narrative that often gets us into trouble. Showing resolve is tricky because it casts restraint as weakness and risks turning action into theatre. The smarter course is to hold fire, stay alert, and choose response over optics. For that, it's important to retain the element of surprise. In the days following the start of the operation, Pakistan's military claimed it had anticipated an Indian strike and was lying in wait. While the details remain unclear, Islamabad suggested it had adopted a restrained posture until Indian aircraft reportedly struck what it described as civilian targets, after which Pakistani forces retaliated by targeting Indian jets. Whether this sequence played out exactly as claimed is open to question. It's also unclear if not targeting the Pakistan military in the opening salvo was a strategic misstep. Yet the broader point stands: Military action, meant more as political messaging, is a risky undertaking. Combat aimed mainly at signalling, not effect, is almost always a mistake. It's worth bearing in mind that in conflicts like the four-day engagement in May, narrative dominance is an illusion. The real contest is not about who speaks loudest, but who adapts, who endures, and who denies the adversary what it wants most: Relevance. The writer is a retired naval officer and strategic affairs commentator based in New Delhi
Mint
31 minutes ago
- Mint
Aluminium industry body says Trumps move to double tariff will hurt sector
New Delhi, Aluminium industry body AAI has expressed concerns that US President Donald Trump's announcement to double tariffs on aluminium imports in that country will hurt the Indian manufacturers who are already under pressure from surging low-cost imports. On May 30, Trump announced that he would double the existing 25 per cent tariffs on aluminium imports from June 4. "The 50 per cent tariff announced by Trump will damage the Indian aluminium industry, which is already under pressure from surging low-cost imports," Aluminium Association of India said. The metal has strategic importance to the country and critical to industries such as defence, aerospace, energy transition, telecommunications, power and construction, it said, adding that both primary aluminium and poor quality scrap are entering the country in large volumes, threatening to create a surplus, suppress domestic prices, and undercut the viability of domestic producers. Though the government just announced a 12 per cent provisional safeguard duty on certain steel imports, AAI said there should be duty guardrails for the aluminium industry as well, which has so far invested more than Rs. 1.5 lakh crore to set up the current domestic primary aluminium capacity of 4.2 million tonnes per annum . FIMI Director General B K Bhatia stated that the major share of Indian exports of aluminium is accounted by US valuing about USD 946 million. A further increase in tariff is bound to have adverse impact on Indian aluminium exports market. "We are hopeful that this issue will get resolved during ongoing trade negotiations between India and USA," he said. In 2024-25, India exported iron, steel, and aluminium products worth USD 4.56 billion to the US, with key categories including USD 587.5 million in iron and steel, USD 3.1 billion in articles of iron or steel and USD 860 million in aluminium and related articles. This proposed hike is tariff comes under Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president to impose tariffs or other trade restrictions if imports are deemed a threat to national security. Trump originally invoked this provision in 2018 to set the 25 per cent tariff on steel and 10 per cent on aluminium. He raised tariffs on aluminium to 25 per cent in February 2025. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
