and CNSS

On 18 November 2025, while presenting the 2026 budget in Ankara’s parliament, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan once again raised the Kashmir issue, urging international intervention and dialogue under global oversight. The statement sparked little surprise not because it was benign, but because it fits a familiar pattern.

Over the past decade, Turkey has consistently used major global platforms, from the UN General Assembly to the OIC to national parliamentary debates, to position itself as a defender of Muslim causes worldwide, with Kashmir serving as a recurring rhetorical centerpiece.

Fidan’s remark was not an impulsive comment on a routine parliamentary day. It was another installment in Ankara’s long game of narrative diplomacy; a strategic campaign to shape how conflicts are perceived worldwide through emotional, identity-based framing rather than balanced geopolitical reasoning.

Soft Power and Narrative Warfare: A defining feature of Turkey’s foreign policy under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been the deployment of soft power instruments: universities, think-tanks, diaspora groups, cultural bodies, and civil-society platforms, to construct and amplify narratives sympathetic to Ankara’s ideological and geopolitical positions.

These platforms allow Turkey to frame complex conflicts such as through simplified moral binaries: oppressed versus oppressor, victim versus aggressor, without any reference to state-sponsored terrorism.

Indeed, reports by independent fact-checkers such as DFRAC identified media organisations based in Turkey (and in Gulf-region media-ecosystems including Qatar) as active participants in anti-India disinformation efforts: suggesting that this campaign extends well beyond South Asia and aims to shape perceptions among Muslim audiences globally.

Turkey is now being described as ‘the new Dubai’ for anti-India influence operations, indicating that as Gulf states tightened their cooperation with India, Ankara repositioned itself as a hub for media, NGO-sponsored, and diaspora-led narrative outreach targeting Indian Muslims and the broader Muslim world.

This narrative strategy has been particularly visible in Turkey’s activism on Kashmir. Conferences, public lectures, solidarity campaigns, and academic delegations in events hosted by Istanbul university, Institute for Strategic Thinking (SDE) and Ankara-based thinktank ESAM have frequently depicted Kashmir not as a multifaceted political and security challenge but as a humanitarian catastrophe demanding global intervention.

Such narratives often mirror Pakistan’s long-standing line, while omitting crucial realities: cross-border terrorism, Pakistan-sponsored insurgency, and decades of targeted violence against civilians and security forces.

A Narrative Vacuum Waiting to Be Filled: A core factor enabling the spread of these narratives is the limited global understanding of India’s internal security landscape including Kashmir and left-wing extremism. In the absence of nuanced knowledge, simplified and emotive accounts travel faster and take deeper root.

Soft-power messaging thrives on precisely this gap; as American political scientist (late) Joseph Nye observed, “power is the ability to get others to want what you want.” In today’s world, what others believe is often more consequential than what is objectively verifiable.

By mobilizing academic and civil-society voices as independent moral arbiters, Turkey gains plausible deniability, allowing state-aligned narratives to be projected through apparently neutral channels. When repeated across respected international platforms, these positions accumulate what political scientists call normative legitimacy; the power to define what is seen as “just,” “acceptable,” or “morally right.”

Once embedded, such perceptions can influence diplomatic decisions, resolutions in multilateral bodies, and broader public opinion.

Why does It Matter for India and India’s Options?

India cannot afford complacency. External narratives have domestic consequences when they shape expectations, policy environments, and diplomatic costs. Allowing another state to repeatedly frame Kashmir as an international dispute rather than an internal constitutional question risks legitimizing external interference in India’s sovereign domain.

Moreover, narrative asymmetry creates a structural disadvantage when one side dominates the language of morality and human rights, the other risks being cast defensively, forced to justify rather than articulate. Emotional rhetoric consistently outpaces empirical analysis, and global politics increasingly rewards speed, sentiment, and symbolism.

This is not about silencing criticism; democracies must welcome scrutiny. But critique must be grounded in full context, not curated fragments that erase terrorism, glorify violence, or recast insurgents as liberators. A debate divorced from reality becomes political theatre rather than principled engagement.

The answer is not reactionary counter-propaganda. It is strategic narrative engagement: building credible visibility in global academic and diplomatic spaces, fostering research partnerships, investing in international outreach, and supporting evidence-based scholarship. India must tell its story with clarity, not defensively, but assertively, through transparent, well-structured public diplomacy.

India must also insist on transparency regarding funding and affiliations in international think tanks and civil-society organizations participating in discourse on South Asian conflicts. Legitimacy cannot be built upon undisclosed interests.

Conclusion

In an age where perception competes with reality, narrative power has become a strategic asset. Words can move resolutions, shift alliances, and determine how conflicts are judged before facts are even examined. When a budget-session remark in Ankara becomes global talking-point ammunition, it signals that narrative warfare is no longer peripheral: it is geopolitical statecraft.

India cannot allow others to define its story. If we do not articulate our truth with coherence, evidence, and confidence, we risk being defined by those whose agendas are anything but impartial. The choice before India is clear: shape the narrative or be shaped by it.

Centre for National Security Studies (CNSS) is a well-known thinktank in the area of National Security Studies, under Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bangalore (India).

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Erdoğan’s selective “brotherly love” for Kashmir ignores both the flourishing of minorities in India and the suffering of Muslims under his allies. 

When Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan addressed the 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) this week and raised the Kashmir issue, his remarks followed a predictable script. 

For many Islamist circles in Turkey, Kashmir has become a stage on which to project global Muslim solidarity. Yet, as a Turkish national studying political science, I find this rhetoric increasingly disconnected from reality. 

If Erdoğan’s concern for Muslims were genuine, he would first ask his ally Pakistan to withdraw from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, where people have been denied basic rights for decades, and press China to end its persecution of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. 

Instead, he selectively targets India, where Kashmiris and other minorities are flourishing under a democratic framework that guarantees freedoms and opportunities.

India’s Inclusive Reputation

Far from the caricature often presented in political rhetoric, India has earned global recognition as a leader in pluralism. The Global Minority Report (GMR), published in February 2023 and cited by Australia Today, ranked India first among 110 countries for inclusivity toward religious minorities. 

India was followed by South Korea, Japan, Panama, and the United States, while the UK was ranked 54th and the UAE 61st. The Maldives, Afghanistan, and Somalia were at the bottom. 

The report praised India’s constitutional model, particularly Articles 29 and 30, which protect the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to conserve their culture and establish institutions. Unlike many constitutions, India explicitly embeds pluralism. The GMR even recommended India’s framework as a potential UN model for minority inclusivity.

At the 60th Session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on September 24, 2025, Faiza Rifat, a young speaker from Jaipur, Rajasthan, reinforced this message. She emphasized that India’s celebrated principle of “Unity in Diversity” has enabled multiple cultures, religions, and languages to thrive harmoniously within one nation. 

She reminded delegates that the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of thought, belief, and expression, making India a living example of pluralism in practice. At the same time, Rifat raised the urgent issue of terrorism, citing the 2008 Mumbai attacks and the more recent tragedy in Pahalgam as reminders that violence is not merely an assault on nations but on humanity itself. 

Her call for a unified global response to terrorism, stressing cooperation and collective determination, underscored India’s dual commitment—pluralism at home and peacebuilding abroad.

Muslims Thriving Within Democracy

India is home to more than 200 million Muslims, the second-largest Muslim population in the world. Far from being silent victims, they are active contributors to civic life. As law student Zoha Fatima of Hyderabad observed, the narrative of voiceless and oppressed Indian Muslims is outdated propaganda. 

Across India, Muslims are thriving—organizing evening schools in Seelampur, running startups in Bengaluru, and leading NGOs in Bihar and Hyderabad. Politically, Muslims participate robustly in elections and governance. They support regional parties such as the Indian Union Muslim League in Kerala and the AIUDF in Assam, while youth-led and Pasmanda movements demand inclusive representation. These dynamics illustrate empowerment through democracy, not marginalization.

Economically, Indian Muslims are increasingly visible in entrepreneurship, digital innovation, and crafts. Pasmanda Muslims, historically marginalized, are using microfinance and education to break cycles of poverty. Women-led cooperatives and digital literacy programs are reshaping communities. 

On the cultural and athletic stage, Indian Muslims are national icons. Cricket heroes Mohammed Shami and Mohammed Siraj unite fans across religions, while Sania Mirza has become a symbol of women’s empowerment in global tennis. Their journeys showcase integration, resilience, and national pride. 

Shehla Rashid’s book Role Models: Inspiring Stories of Indian Muslim Achievers highlights individuals such as A. R. Rahman, the Oscar-winning composer whose music bridges cultures worldwide; Nigar Shaji, a scientist contributing to India’s space program; Dr. Ausaf Sayeed, a diplomat who has advanced cultural diplomacy; and Huma Qureshi, an acclaimed actor expanding representation in Indian cinema. 

These stories illustrate how Indian Muslims thrive across disciplines and embody the spirit of inclusivity that the Constitution guarantees.

Global Perceptions of India

Beyond domestic realities, India’s image abroad reflects a similar story of resilience and inclusivity. A Pew Research Center survey conducted between January and April 2025 across 24 countries found that 47 percent of respondents hold a favorable view of India, compared to 38 percent unfavorable and 13 percent with no opinion. 

Favorability is high in Kenya, the UK, Israel, Germany, Japan, Indonesia, and Nigeria. Negative views are concentrated in Turkey and Australia. Views also varied by age, gender, and ideology, reflecting India’s growing but contested profile on the world stage. 

In South Africa, favorability toward India rose to a record 46 percent, partly due to expanding India–Africa economic ties. In Europe, countries like France and Germany saw double-digit increases in positive views. Israel continues to view India favorably despite slight declines since 2023. These findings affirm that India’s story of inclusivity resonates globally, even if not universally.

A Model of Coexistence

Why then does Erdoğan persist in raising Kashmir? The answer lies in politics rather than principle. By focusing selectively on India, he diverts attention from Pakistan’s denial of rights in PoK and China’s persecution of Uyghurs. 

The contrast is glaring: in India, minorities enjoy constitutional protections and democratic participation; in PoK, basic freedoms are absent; in Xinjiang, entire communities face erasure. India’s recognition as the world’s most inclusive nation is an achievement worth celebrating, but also one that demands vigilance. 

Expanding educational and employment opportunities for minorities, strengthening grassroots representation, supporting community-led NGOs, promoting cultural diplomacy, and addressing hate speech are all vital to sustaining this framework.

Erdoğan’s selective “brotherly love” for Kashmir ignores both the flourishing of minorities in India and the suffering of Muslims under his allies. 

India’s message, delivered powerfully by voices like Faiza Rifat at the UNHRC, is one of unity in diversity, peace, and resilience. Its No. 1 ranking in the Global Minority Report, reinforced by Pew’s global survey, affirms India as a living model of coexistence. 

As an outsider, I see clearly that Indian Muslims are not waiting to be included—they are already shaping India’s future as achievers, leaders, and global icons. For the UN and the wider world, the lesson is simple: if inclusivity is the goal, India’s model deserves recognition, not reproach.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.