Rebuilding ties: On India engaging with Turkiye and Azerbaijan

New Delhi’s recent moves to re-engage diplomatically and hold Foreign Office Consultations with diplomats in Turkiye and Azerbaijan is a considerable shift in the government’s policy, especially over the past year. Since the India-Pakistan conflict and Operation Sindoor in May 2025, the government had expressed its anger not just at Pakistan, but at countries that were seen as supportive of Pakistan, diplomatically or militarily during the conflict. In particular, the Ministry of External Affairs had expressed its disappointment with statements made by Turkiye, Azerbaijan and Malaysia, that questioned the government’s decision to launch strikes on terror sites in Pakistan after the Pahalgam terror attacks. During briefings about Operation Sindoor, as the 96-hour military conflict from May 7-10 was named, the government left out envoys from countries that it felt had not expressed solidarity with India. In a military briefing in July, the deputy chief of army staff said India had had to contend with at least three adversaries on its border with Pakistan, including Türkiye. Azerbaijan too was believed to have helped Pakistan with technological support. Trade and tourism to Turkiye and Azerbaijan dropped significantly for several months, as calls to boycott them went out from influential accounts. During its evacuation of Indians from Iran after US-Israel airstrikes on nuclear installations in June 2025, the MEA pointedly told those heading out by land routes to use Armenia and Turkmenistan, not either Turkiye or Azerbaijan. In addition, foreign policy commentary suggested that India was building an alliance of India, Armenia, Greece as a counter to their age-old rivals Pakistan, Azerbaijan and Turkiye, who had already formed a strong trilateral grouping. Given the heated rhetoric, and the freeze in diplomatic ties, the decision to send Secretary West in the MEA, Sibi George, to Baku to revive Foreign office consultations with Azerbaijani counterparts last week, and to invite the Turkish Deputy Foreign Minister to Delhi this week, are significant diplomatic moves that indicate that the governments in Baku and Ankara too feel that better bilateral relations are in their interests.

In a world more fraught with conflicts that fast spiral out of control, it is necessary for New Delhi to pick its diplomatic battles more carefully. The quick escalation from government demarches to online outrage and calls for boycotts, have in the past few years had a detrimental impact on bilateral ties with close friends and neighbours as well. With countries that are adversaries, as both Turkiye and Azerbaijan have been, given their closeness to Pakistan, and positions on the Kashmir dispute, New Delhi must consider its options with less emotion and more pragmatism. India has traditionally managed relations between sparring rivals without allowing itself to be hyphenated with Pakistan, or by falling into multilateral “camps”.

Overall Analysis

The editorial analyses India’s recent diplomatic outreach to Turkey and Azerbaijan, presenting it as a pragmatic shift from confrontation to engagement. It begins by highlighting how relations had deteriorated following the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict and Operation Sindoor. The language here reflects tension and estrangement, with references to diplomatic exclusion, military concerns, and public calls for boycotts. This background sets up a clear contrast with the present effort to rebuild ties.

The editorial then details how diplomatic relations had reached a low point — through reduced trade, limited engagement, and strategic signalling such as avoiding these countries during evacuation operations. The use of phrases like “heated rhetoric” and “freeze in diplomatic ties” underscores the intensity of the breakdown. At the same time, the article points out that both sides now appear willing to restore communication, suggesting mutual recognition of shared interests. This shift is framed as deliberate and necessary rather than sudden.

In the second paragraph, the tone becomes more reflective and advisory. The editorial broadens its argument beyond specific countries to discuss India’s overall diplomatic approach in an increasingly unstable global environment. It cautions against impulsive reactions — such as escalating from official protests to public outrage and boycott campaigns — arguing that such responses can damage long-term relationships. The language emphasizes restraint and strategic thinking, with a clear preference for “less emotion and more pragmatism.”

The final lines reinforce a key principle of Indian foreign policy: maintaining strategic autonomy. The editorial stresses that India should avoid being drawn into rigid alliances or “camps,” particularly in relation to Pakistan. Instead, it advocates for a flexible, balanced diplomacy that allows India to engage even with countries that may have conflicting positions.

Overall, the editorial uses contrast (past conflict vs present engagement), cautionary language, and strategic reasoning to argue that diplomacy must be guided by long-term interests rather than short-term reactions.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Demarches – formal diplomatic protests or official representations.
2. Fraught – filled with tension or anxiety.
3. Pragmatism – a practical approach focused on realistic outcomes rather than ideology.
4. Hyphenated – linked or associated closely (often in a limiting way).
5. Rhetoric – language used to persuade or influence, often emotionally charged.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial concludes that India’s decision to re-engage with Turkey and Azerbaijan reflects mature and pragmatic diplomacy, necessary in a complex global environment. It urges policymakers to avoid emotional reactions and instead focus on long-term strategic interests and balanced engagement.

Tone: Analytical, reflective, and advisory — promoting pragmatism and restraint in foreign policy.