In order to pressurise, damage economies or demonstrate disapproval, countries frequently impose boycotts, sanctions and trade restrictions on enemy countries or their allies during times of conflict. This may involve prohibition on imports or exports as well as withholding financial aid to the countries who supported and sided with the enemy. The United States embargo on Cuba, the Allied sanctions on Germany during World War II and the most recent sanctions on Russia following the invasion of Ukraine are a few examples. Although they vary in effectiveness, these policies seek to change the political outcomes, weaken its economic power and send a strong message to that nation – not to indulge in any adversarial activity.
The Trigger
After the devastating terror attack in Pahalgam, J&K on April 22, 2025, India firmly condemned countries that had supported Pakistan during the conflict. Turkish and Azerbaijani support of Pakistan stoked severe resentment and backlash by the public as well as the government. Türkiye’s Foreign Ministry denounced India’s military strikes as “provocative”, which warned of escalation. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan urged diplomacy and showed solidarity with Pakistan.
Anger was heightened by reports that Pakistan was using Turkish Songar drones with active support from their armed forces. As part of Operation Dost, India had provided Türkiye with substantial aid and assistance during the 2023 earthquake. Hence, this support for Pakistan was regarded as an act of betrayal by Türkiye. Azerbaijan’s actions as a close ally of Türkiye intensified the perception of a coordinated anti-Indian movement.
Boycotts and Diplomatic Downgrades
India has resorted to boycotting and sanctioning Türkiye and Azerbaijan in several ways. The Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) led by BJP MP Praveen Khandelwal declared a boycott of trade with Türkiye and Azerbaijan. Imports and exports, including Turkish marble and apples were stopped.
In May 2025, travel websites such as EaseMyTrip and Ixigo issued advisories causing bookings to drop by 60% and cancellations to increase. Operations at nine airports in India were impacted when the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) revoked the security clearance of the Turkish company Celebi Aviation. Universities stopped working together and the Indian film industry forbade filming in both nations.
Economic Context
Between April 2024 and February 2025, India imported $2.84 billion and exported $5.2 billion worth of goods and services to Türkiye with a $2.36 billion surplus for India. The amount of trade with Azerbaijan is still minimal. In 2024, 3.3 lakh Indians travelled to Türkiye and 2.4 lakh travelled to Azerbaijan accounting for 9% of Azerbaijan’s foreign arrivals. Because of this trade imbalance in favour of India, a boycott can hurt Türkiye and Azerbaijan. It also demonstrates India’s strategic selectivity by focusing on weaker nations and refraining from retaliating against powerful countries like the US or China.
Although boycotts can fuel the narrative of “retaliation and punishment to those who support the enemy,” fulfilling their long-term effects is limited. India’s trade surplus with Türkiye helps to fund foreign reserves growth and jobs. China or Southeast Asia could gain that market share if trade with Türkiye is disrupted. Although the tourism boycott might hurt Türkiye economically, it is unlikely to change its policy vis-à-visPakistan. However, India should re-look at its cost-benefit analysis as Türkiye is a gateway to Europe and West Asia. So, reducing trade could have negative economic effects.
Ideology vs Strategy
If you believe that trade should be a strategic process and not an indication of ideological alignment then India profits from a positive trade balance with Türkiye and can help India build precious foreign reserves through a trade surplus. Cutting ties with countries like the US, China, UK and Gulf nations – all of whom have occasionally opposed India – would result in boycotting over disagreements.
Boycotting is not the same as patriotism. It damages supply chains, incites retaliation, and harms Indian exporters. Supporting India’s growing economic power, full employment, and export surplus are the hallmarks of true nationalism. India gains from trade with Türkiye. The sensible course is engagement, not indignation.
The Silence on China and the US
The recent conflict with Pakistan showed India’s selective approach to the issue of boycotts and sanctions. India adopted a totally different approach to China and the US compared to Türkiye and Azerbaijan. The all-weather friend of Pakistan – China provides almost 80% of Pakistan’s military hardware including Wing Loong drones, VT-4 tanks and J-10C jets. Many of these are said to have been utilised in the 2025 conflict.
China supported Pakistan’s bailout from the IMF and offered diplomatic support at the UN. In addition, it strengthened claims by renaming 27 locations in Arunachal Pradesh which heightened tensions with India. However, India has not started any boycott in response. Instead, trade with China has increased manifold, reaching $118. 4 billion in 2024–2025 with a $99.2 billion trade surplus in favour of China. Indian markets are swamped by Chinese goods demonstrating their domination of Indian markets.
Similarly, the US has on numerous occasions adopted positions that can be perceived as hostile. In various statements, the US brought up the Kashmir issue and supported international mediation. Insensitive comments were made by President Trump on May 15, 2025 when he praised Secretary Marco Rubio for a ceasefire and suggested that leaders from India and Pakistan meet at a neutral location.
Concerns were raised when Trump urged Tim Cook – the CEO of Apple to refrain from manufacturing in India. However, India still did not target America with any boycotts or restrictions. The US is India’s second-largest trading partner and relations between the two countries still remain solid.
Selective Outrage
Geopolitical and economic realities are the main reasons for the dichotomy in India’s response to “those who side with the enemy”. Azerbaijan and Türkiye have little or no broad influence on India, so boycotting them is not very risky. However given India’s dependence on Chinese goods and its place in global supply chains, a boycott would be unfeasible. Customers and industries including tech and businesses could suffer from supply chain disruption, and loss of production which may lead to industry losses. Punitive measures against the US are also politically challenging because of America’s influence through defence, armaments, financial investments and cutting-edge technology.
Mohamed ElBaradei (former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and a diplomat) was spot on when he said, “People talk about smart sanctions and crippling sanctions. I’ve never seen smart sanctions, and crippling sanctions cripple everyone, including innocent civilians, and make the government more popular.”