Turkey's Double Game: From Earthquake Aid to Backing Terror - An Analysis
Turkey's Rhetoric vs. Reality on Terrorism
On the international stage, Turkey often positions itself as staunchly anti-terrorism. It battles Kurdish militants (PKK) at home and condemns terror attacks worldwide. Turkish diplomats routinely highlight that Turkey has suffered from terrorism and call for global cooperation against groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan frequently decries terrorist violence and touts Turkey's counter-terror operations in Syria and Iraq.
However, when it comes to terrorism emanating from Pakistan - particularly against India - Turkey's stance has been overtly supportive of Pakistan, even at the cost of downplaying or ignoring the terrorism itself:
Diplomatic Support at the UN: Erdoğan has used platforms like the UN General Assembly to bring up Kashmir, echoing Pakistan's narrative of alleged human rights issues while conveniently sidestepping the terrorism issue. In 2019 and 2020, Erdoğan's UNGA speeches criticized India's Kashmir policy, pleasing Islamabad but clashing with the rest of the world's focus on cross-border terror. This one-sided emphasis suggested that for Turkey, political alignment with Pakistan trumped objective concern about terrorism.
Blocking of Terror Listing: Turkey has not directly been on record blocking any UN terror designations (that role was played by China regarding Masood Azhar), but as a prominent member of the OIC, Turkey helped push OIC statements that often condemned "state terrorism" by India in Kashmir (Pakistan's terminology to equate Indian counter-terror actions with terrorism, an unfair comparison) while failing to name groups like JeM or LeT that attack Indians. This diplomatic shielding in multilateral fora undermines global counter-terrorism consistency.
Turkey's Open Backing of Pakistan during Operation Sindoor
During the Operation Sindoor crisis in 2025, Turkey emerged as practically the only country to unequivocally back Pakistan:
President Erdoğan personally called Pakistani PM Shehbaz Sharif right after India's initial strikes to convey "solidarity". In that call, Erdoğan praised Pakistan's "calm and restrained policies" and deemed Pakistan's demand for an investigation into the Pahalgam attack "appropriate" - effectively casting doubt on India's attribution of the attack to Pakistan-backed terrorists. This was a stark contradiction: instead of condemning the killing of 26 civilians in Pahalgam, Turkey was asking for an "investigation" (implying maybe India was wrong) and standing with Pakistan.
Turkey's Foreign Ministry condemned India's strikes, warning of "all-out war" risk and calling for restraint - without acknowledging the terror trigger. This mirrored Pakistan's line almost word for word. Such an official stance was noted widely; other nations tempered their language or focused on de-escalation, but Turkey pointed a finger at India.
All this reveals a blatant double game: Turkey proclaims opposition to terror globally, yet if the terrorism is being wielded by an ally (Pakistan) against an adversary (India), Turkey looks the other way or even facilitates.
India's Helping Hand to Turkey: Earthquake Relief and More
What makes Turkey's stance particularly disappointing to Indians is the backdrop of goodwill India has shown toward Turkey in times of need:
In February 2023, a devastating 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck Turkey (and Syria), killing over 50,000. India was among the first responders with a humanitarian mission codenamed Operation Dost ("Dost" meaning friend). India dispatched multiple C-17 aircraft within days carrying urban search and rescue teams, medical teams, field hospitals, and tons of relief supplies. A 99-member Indian Army medical contingent ran a 30-bed field hospital in Iskenderun, treating thousands of injured Turkish citizens. Over two weeks, Indian teams saved lives from the rubble and provided critical care to nearly 4,000 patients.
This aid was widely appreciated by Turkish people. Turkish social media and officials thanked India (Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu expressed gratitude for India's quick support). The hashtag #OperationDost trended, highlighting India's friendship. Essentially, India put aside any diplomatic differences and acted on humanitarian principle and historic goodwill - after all, Turkey and India have no direct conflict.
Rewind to August 1999, when a massive earthquake hit Izmit, Turkey. India, though itself less prosperous then, sent relief including army medical teams and disaster experts. (India has consistently responded to major disasters globally as part of its ethos of international solidarity.)
Furthermore, India and Turkey have had diplomatic and cultural exchanges; India welcomed Turkish businesses and agreed to work on counter-terror coordination (in context of ISIS) with Turkey. Indians thus expected a basic reciprocity of understanding from Ankara on issues of vital concern like terrorism.
However, Turkey under Erdoğan has aligned closely with Pakistan - perhaps due to a shared Islamic conservative outlook and Turkey's aspirations to lead the Muslim world's causes. Unfortunately, this meant Turkey adopted Pakistan's grievances (like Kashmir) as its own pet issue, even when unrelated to Turkey's core interests.
The Contrast in Turkey's Approach
Turkey's contrasting approach becomes stark:
When Turkey faces terrorism (be it PKK or ISIS), it demands unequivocal support and justifies robust military actions (even cross-border operations into Syria/Iraq). Turkey expects NATO allies and others to understand its security concerns.
Turkey also condemns terror attacks in Europe or elsewhere and positions as a partner in the fight against ISIS/Al-Qaeda.
Yet, when a fellow democracy (India) is targeted by UN-designated terrorists sheltered by Turkey's ally (Pakistan), Turkey not only fails to condemn it, but actually provides cover diplomatically and materially for the aggressor.
This hypocrisy undermines Turkey's credibility. It suggests Turkey's stance on terrorism is not principled but guided by narrow geopolitical calculus (supporting Pakistan to gain influence, to counterbalance India's relations with rivals like Greece, or to posture in the Muslim world).
It's also worth noting Turkey's domestic political narrative: Erdoğan often invokes Muslim solidarity. By siding with Pakistan on Kashmir, he appeals to a segment of his base and to broader Muslim audiences. This may fetch applause in certain quarters, but it comes at the cost of relations with a major emerging power, India.
Fallout and Looking Ahead
Turkey's overt support for Pakistan during the Sindoor episode drew ire in India. Indian public opinion, which had been warmed by Turkey's gratitude during the earthquake relief, swung to disappointment or anger. Many Indians asked: "We extended our hand in your hour of need, and you repay by bolstering those who shed our blood?"
The Indian government has signaled displeasure. While not seeking a feud with Turkey, New Delhi has options:
Diplomatically, India can cold-shoulder Turkey in various ways - e.g., not supporting Turkey on issues important to it in multilateral fora, or increasing ties with Greece, Cyprus, Armenia (Turkey's rivals).
Economically, relations are limited but Turkey's defense ties with India (Turkey was vying for Indian drone contracts at one point) could suffer; India might avoid Turkish defense goods and opt elsewhere.
People-to-people: Indian tourism to Turkey had been growing (over 200,000 Indians visit Turkey annually). Negative sentiment could reduce that, affecting Turkey's tourism revenue marginally.
Turkey stands somewhat isolated in its position. Most Arab states, for instance, did not echo Turkey's stance on Kashmir or Operation Sindoor. Countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt have improved ties with India and took neutral or pro-India views on terrorism issues. Turkey's alignment with Pakistan (and by extension sometimes Malaysia under Mahathir previously) was a minority bloc in the Islamic world on this matter. After 2020, even the OIC as a body toned down Kashmir rhetoric due to Saudi-UAE influence, leaving Turkey's vocal stance looking out of step.
To repair this, Turkey would need to realign its stance to be more even-handed. A good start would be acknowledging the reality of terrorism in Kashmir and urging Pakistan to act against groups like JeM or LeT. Even behind closed doors, if Turkey used its friendship to nudge Pakistan to rein in extremism, it would do more for regional peace than blindly siding with Islamabad's denialism.
India, despite current anger, has kept communication open. After the earthquake aid, perhaps there was hope Ankara might moderate its tone on India-Pak issues seeing India's friendship. That did not immediately happen in 2025's crisis - if anything, Turkey doubled down, even sending a warship to Karachi in a show of solidarity. That warship visit, TCG Büyükada, was labeled a "routine port call" by Turkey, but coming on the heels of Operation Sindoor, it was clearly symbolic support for Pakistan.
In conclusion, Turkey's stance has been one of "choose brotherhood over principle" - backing Pakistan as a "brother nation" despite that meaning supporting proxy terror indirectly. This approach has cost Turkey goodwill in India. It also seemingly contradicts Turkey's own fight against terror; by that logic, others could question Turkey's operations against groups it labels terrorists.
India's humanitarian outreach like Operation Dost showcased the best of India-Turkey relations potential. Turkey's backing of Pakistan's aggression showcases the worst. For Turkey to be taken seriously as a global anti-terror voice, it must reconcile this contradiction. Friends shouldn't abet friends in doing wrong - and Pakistan's use of terror is a wrong that Turkey should not be defending.
Perhaps, over time, as Turkey recalibrates its foreign policy under economic and diplomatic pressures, it may soften its pro-Pakistan tilt. India, with its rising clout, is not a country Turkey can ignore or antagonize without consequence. It's in Turkey's interest to have positive ties with India, as India had shown with disaster aid and trade potential.
Until then, Turkey's duality will continue to be called out: India and its partners will remind the world of Turkey's provision of drones to Pakistan and its one-sided rhetoric. As a Turkish proverb goes, "Dost acı söyler" - a true friend will tell you bitter truths. Turkey needs to hear the bitter truth that supporting Pakistan's proxy war is wrong - for India, for the region, and for Turkey's own moral standing.