Modi or Erdogan: Who is winning on the global stage? | Global Eyes

Episode Overview

The episode of Global Eyes examines whether India or Turkey is “winning” in the evolving geopolitical landscape. It argues that their relationship is increasingly defined by strategic autonomy, identity narratives, and competing regional ambitions—not simple “friendly” or “hostile” relations.

1) Why the India–Turkey relationship is diverging

• The hosts and guests describe a shift from long-running “separate spheres” into a period where both countries are seeking greater global influence, especially across Asia and beyond.
• Despite broader cooperation potential, they argue that a persistent dispute—Kashmir—keeps driving suspicion and limits trust.
• Turkey’s public engagement on Jammu and Kashmir (as referenced by Erdoğan) is portrayed as a major irritant to India. Indian officials/analysts in the segment emphasize that Turkey speaking about Kashmir signals reluctance to improve ties.

2) The Kashmir dispute: symbolism and diplomatic “audacity”

• Indian-side commentary (from former ambassador Talmiz Ahmed) frames India’s reaction as rooted in national security and sovereignty sensitivities.
• It’s suggested that India expected Turkey to show gratitude after India provided relief assistance during the Turkey earthquake, but that Turkey’s leadership raised Kashmir during a visit—seen as both provocative and destabilizing to diplomatic expectations.
• From the Turkish-side argument (analyst Mehmed Uskan), India’s attempt to effectively impose a “don’t speak about Kashmir” expectation is unrealistic in a world where countries comment on each other’s issues (including Turkey’s own disputes raised internationally).

3) Pakistan as the “lens” through which India reads Turkey

• A central theme is that India interprets Turkey’s actions through India–Pakistan dynamics.
• Guests argue India views Turkey–Pakistan relations as implying Turkish support that could affect India’s regional security posture.
• Turkey’s perspective is presented as broader than Pakistan alone:
  • Turkey is described as building an Asia-oriented policy extending to countries such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia, and also looking toward central Europe—not merely a Pakistan-centered approach.
  • The segment highlights the historical/strategic depth of Turkey–Pakistan military cooperation and Turkey’s geopolitical outreach shaped by Afghanistan and Central Asia routes.

4) “Islamist foreign policy” dispute and identity framing

• Another major disagreement is whether Turkey is acting as a leader of political Islam (and whether Erdoğan has an “Islamist” agenda).
• Uskan is portrayed as arguing that Turkey has an Islam-sensitive approach but not an Islamist foreign-policy system that dictates everything Turkey does (citing Turkey’s engagement across regions and even conflicts not aligned with an “Islam-only” framework).
• The segment acknowledges that Indian suspicion about Turkey’s religious-political role remains a persistent “background factor,” even if Turkey denies it.

5) Strategic autonomy: same phrase, different meaning

Both countries claim “strategic autonomy,” but the guests stress they mean different things:

• India: portrayed as describing non-alignment in the sense that it won’t become a formal ally of others (“I can’t join you”).
• Turkey: portrayed as actively repositioning economically and politically across regions, adapting to a fast-changing global order and refusing a narrow identity-based foreign policy.

One concluding framing from the discussion:

• Turkey is portrayed as already “on the field” with long-term, coordinated positioning.
• India is depicted as still forming or refining its next moves as the order shifts.

6) Competing civilization narratives

• The episode argues that beneath policy decisions lies a deeper contest over national identity and historical memory.
• One guest (via the hosts’ setup) describes Turkey’s revival strategy as combining military reach and civilizational ambition. Examples cited include interventions/outreach across Iraq, Syria, Libya, support in the East Mediterranean, and outreach to Turkic states.
• The discussion contrasts this with India’s self-conception, described by the hosts as a revival of Hindu glory—which Uskan challenges, criticizing repeated Indian stereotypes about Turkey.

7) Terror accusations and the outlook for change

• A final major driver of tension is described as India accusing Turkey of promoting terror in the region—claims Turkey denies, offering that evidence should be presented publicly.
• On the future:
  • Ahmed is portrayed as pessimistic/pragmatic, suggesting India should adjust its strategy and take more responsibility for regional security.
  • Uskan is more optimistic about gradual improvement, mentioning track-two diplomatic efforts that could eventually influence higher-level relations—though the segment notes results are not yet visible.

Bottom-line Conclusion of the Episode

• The guests broadly agree that India and Turkey are not adversaries, but neither sees the other as purely neutral anymore.
• The evolving relationship is framed as part of a larger transformation: middle powers navigating uncertainty, where identity narratives, alliance logic, and diplomatic red lines (especially Kashmir and Pakistan-linked perceptions) strongly shape outcomes.

---

Presenters / Contributors

• Shani Rosanes (Presenter/Host)
• WASLAT Hassat Nazimi (Presenter/Host)
• Mehmed Uskan (Guest; Turkish analyst and professor of international relations)
• Talmiz Ahmed (Guest; former Indian ambassador)