9

CHAPTER

Kautilya's Realpolitik
Nirmal Jindal

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

To understand the need to revisit Kautilya in the contemporary international

relations (IR)
To understand how Kautilya's realism differs from the Western perspective
on realism
To understand Kautilya's views on security, power and war
understand the relevance of mandala, shadgunya (six methods of
To
foreign policy) and upayas (means of solutions) in conduct of foreign
policy and diplomacy
To understand the relevance of Kautilya's statecraft for the countries of the
Global South

Introduction
the first the origin of real-
to contribute to
ancient Indian scholar and statesman, was

K autilya, an

ISn by making power the central point of theoretical

nernational
framework (see Figure 9.1). As a student of

politics, we tend to perceive international politics through

the Western lenses;
Indianstorical indigenous thinking on international relations (IR) has long been missing from the
of Indian contribu-
reamIR discourse. The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the significance in
tion reference to Kautilya, who wrote Arthashastra
nne theory ofinternational politics with specialMachiavelli, Hobbes, Thucydides and others had
BCE, much beforetthe Western scholars such as
written theories in order to understand how real-
realism. It is important to study the non-Western
im tOut
ism in Eastern theories was different. like Arthashastra, for instance. power
as In Indian strategic writing
Was no militaristic aspects of security. It was
VOId of morality, nor did it focus only on external or
 152 NIRMAL JINDAL

perceived as an end and means for peace, diversity, stability and not as means for oppression and
tation. Therefore, it was holistic, pragmatic and principled. Kautilyas Arthashastra provides theexploi.
Western perspective of power and security, which is more suitable to the countries of the
GlobalSo
non
In this context, it is pertinent to explore that if India had such a rich tradition of
South.
strategic
diplo. and din
matic thinking then why has it been missing from the mainstream theories? Why most of the thet
eories
and concepts in the contemporary world have been evolved and developed by the Western thinke
What steps should be taken to revamp the nature and scope of the discipline of IR? Why is there a eed
to revisit the Indian traditional thinking on IR?

Need to Revisit the Indian Traditional Strategic Thinking

Indian strategic thinking had been marginalized in the discourse of IR for long due to social and his
torical reasons. The discipline of IR in India has been narrowly explored as it focused either on Indias
defence and security studies or India's bilateral relations with other countries or area studies. The stu-
dents of IR have often been taught about the conflicts and wars in Europe, world wars and the Cold War.
The history of Indian conflicts and rivalries has not been constituted as a part of the curriculum, there
fore IR has been almost alien to Indian scholars and has caused a lack of interest and confidence in the
scholars about their competence in the area (Kalyanaraman 2015, 1-3). Moreover, there has been a lack
of interest in theories of IR which has left the discipline 'without a sense of self-reflexiveness, that is
systematic and conscious reflection on the conduct and goals of inquiry' (Bajpai 2005, 25).
In the Western world, the field of IR is quite contextual and very advanced. The scope of studies of lR
in the Western world focuses on the Western conflicts, wars, Western philosophers and strategists w

ings. The students are taught the history of the Europe-Peloponnesian War, the rise and fall of Roman
empire, Machiavelli's Prince, Clausewitz's On War, Bismarck's of German unification, the rise ot
policies
the US as a superpower, geopolitics of imperial, democratic and authoritarian states in the modern era

and the impact ofthe end ofthe Cold War on global politics (Haskar 2015, 3). It not only generates
est among the Western scholars about understanding the security issues of their societies but alsoen
them to evolve policies and strategies in regard to addressing their own security issues. Mosto

prevalent theories of IR have been about empowering the Western states. The issue of security or
countries of the Global South was therefore not the concern of the Western scholars or theorists.
the
As India and China are emerging powers in the post-Cold War period, there is interest amoug
ancient
Western scholars to understand how geography, history, cultural attributes, societal beliefs and a

BOX 9.1: India's Traditional Strategic Thinking is Rooted in History

trategic
The history of India reflects the conflicts and rivalries between
kingdoms indicating som cingon
thinking had been prevalent in different kingdoms. India has a long history of traditional thinkes
strategy and tactics, experience of war, diplomacy and statecraft as practised by various Indian IR cu
kingdoms and dynasties over the last 2,500 years. These experiences never constituted pa
riculum in India (Kalyanaraman 2015, 1-5).
 Kautilya's Realpolitik 153
.Lave impacted the strategic thinking in these countries
texts (Joshi 2019). There is increasing interest in
ing the non-Western sources of IR (Acharya 2011). The traditional historical writings from the non-
ctern/Eastern world like Arthashastra have attracted the attention of various scholars and strategists
in the advanced countries. For instance, in the war colleges of advanced countries like the US, Sun Tzu's
Art of War and Kautilya's Arthashastra are included in the teaching curriculum. In India also, it is felt that
Fautilya's Arthashastra needs to be reinterpreted which can provide valuable insight to address the com-
plex issues of security power, diplomacy, war and peace in the contemporary world. In Kautilya's strate
oic thinking, war is not the only tool to maximize power. He proposed that a state's objective to maximize
power should be achieved by diplomacy, intelligence, knowledge and other means as wars can be
destructive and unpredictable. If all other means mentioned in upayas and shadgunyas fail, then only the
state should resort to war. Kautilyas thinking on restraint in the use of war and attaining legitimacy by
good governance, moral and just practices provides guidelines for states ranging from strong power posi-
tion to middle and weak power position.
derstanding of Kautilyas strategic thinking and views on statecraft would facilitate the devel
opment of insight about successful functioning of a state. Kautilyas Arthashastra provides a broader
framework to establish a stable, peaceful and powerful state system. Kautilya advised the political leader-
ship to consolidate the power of the state through internal regulation of crisis and strategic control of
external relations. Kautilyas strategy prescribes policies to deal with different situations for better peace
and advantageous/favourable future. Therefore
there is a need to revisit Kautilyas writings in
order to address the issues and challenges of
security in the countries of the Global South.
In the age of globalization, as the meaning
and scope of security have undergone transfor-
mation, Kautilya's Arthashastra is quite relevant
to the security of countries of the Global South
who had been focusing primarily on the milita-
ristic aspect of security since their indepen
dence. The deficit of good governance, weak
economic conditions and inability to harness
their physical and natural resources for devel-
opment have given rise to internal instability,
insurgencies and civil war situations which is

challenging the very fabric of the state system in

these
countries. In this context, Kautilyas pre-
nption of good governance, strong treasury
and strong defence provides the balanced and
olistic approach to security. He considered
Prakriti (seven elements of state power) as the FIGURE 9.1 Kautilya: An Ancient Indian
Da51s of state power and set the importance of
Teacher, Philosopher, Economist, Jurist
cach element of prakriti which should be fol- and Also Royal Advisor in the Mauryan
WEd in order; otherwise, change of prioritiza
Empire
On can lead to the decline of state. He
Source: Kalyanaraman (2015).
aintains direct linkage between prakritis and
shakti (power) to npower a state. His theory
 154 NIRMAL JINDAL

of Mandala and Shadgunya explains the dynamics of interstate relations and strategies to evolve the rel,
tion for their own advantage. Kautilya clearly suggests that hovw state can transform from declined t erela
position to stable and then to the advanced power position (Boesche 2002, 99). The wrong policiepower
es can
reverse the situation and can transform an empowered country to a declining power position.

Arthashastra and Realpolitik

The Arthashastra is perceived as a masterpiece of statecraft, diplomacy and strategy which can provide
guidelines for foreign policy formation in contemporary international politics. This is the philosophy of
hov to empower a state. What causes progress or decline ofa state power? How to attain national stabil.
ity? What is the role of power and diplomacy to achieve security? And what should be the role or duties
of the king to empower a state?
Kautilya wrote Arthashastra for Indian king, Chandragupta Maurya, whose empire was confronting
the environment resembling a Westphalian Europe of many states that encompassed most of present-day
South Asia. Kautilya wrote Arthashastra as a solution to this anarchical situation and played a leading
role in assembling and administering this large empire. In Arthashastra, Kautilya had prescribed the
rules of statecraft for successfully administering a state. Arthashastra laid down certain rules and guide
lines for the successful and stable administration that can provide guidelines in the contemporary world
as well (Zaman 2006, 231).
Kautilyas Arthashastra discussed a variety of military, political and economic subjects. He empha
sized that the top priority be given to the state interest; security and power maximization (Halpern 205),
According to Kautilya, politics deals with the acquisition of what has not been gained, the preservation
of what has been acquired, the increase of what has been preserved and the bestowal of surplus upon the
deserving (Mehta 1992, 100). In this respect, Arthashastra appears to be quite similar to the Western
realism.
Kautilya's Arthashastra written in 300 BCE almost 1,800 years prior to Machiavelli's Prince is consid-
ered a realist version of politics by various Western scholars and strategists. Henry Kissinger, in hisboo
World Order, refers to the Arthashastra, a work that lays out requirements of power, which is the dom
nant reality of politics. Kissinger considered Arthashastra as a combination of Machiaveli and
Clausewitz. Max Weber, a German sociologist, called it truly Machiavellianism (Pillalamarri 2013
However, Arthashastra not only encompasses the features of political realism but also goes well with tn
insights of social constructivism (Shahi 2015, 70). It may be termed as 'constructive realism' as reals
focuses on maximization of power and security dilemma and constructivism focuses on reality generi
the
by an individual (Cupchik 2001). Kautilya accepts that the world is anarchic but dut he differs from
Western realists as he perceived that anarchy was neither based only on material factor nor
cause y the
absence of world government but it was based on the constructed image of the enemy or a it
ad natural

state. According constructivists, the anarchical

to nature of the international system is not abasical
phenomenon but is constructed by the state. The placement of states in different categories
ategories

implies the 'construction of identities of neighbouring states by the vijigishu (conqueror

uropean Chanakya

Kautilya wrote Arthashastra centuries before

Machiavelli, so Machiavelli should be called Europea
and not the other way round.
 Kautilya's Realpolitik 155

BOX 9.2: Wendt's Social Constructivism Perception on Kautilya's

Interstate Relations

Wendt's social constructivism considers anarchy socially constructed and reproduced by states (Wendt
1994, 384-396). The culture of anarchy is characterized by: enmity, rival and friend. Anarchy is consti
tuted by state interaction rather than natural phenomena of international life as viewed by Morgenthau
and Waltz. Realists focus on the materialistic aspect of state interaction, whereas Wendt focuses on the
ideational and cultural element of state interaction. The Western realists focus on states reaction to
anarchical international system, Arthashastra focuses on complex interaction of potential conqueror,
the vijigishu and its neighbouring countries under different categories: ari (enemy), mitra (friend),
parsigraha (neighbour in the rear of king's enemy), madhyama (the middle kingdom) and so on which
is explained in mandala theory. The identity construction is, therefore, based on geographical and not
on material factors. Both Kautilya and Wendt gave primacy to ideational factors in determining the
interstate relations (Arndt 2013).

subject to change with change in interaction with the vijigishu. The policy of the vijigishu towards differ-
ent states is determined by the identity construction based on its geographical location of different states
(Shahi 2015, 70-75).
The state's perception of security is determined by the strength or weakness of its neighbouring state.
Kautilya's views also appear to be similar to neorealists as he believed in economic cooperation with
other states for political stability. Therefore, one finds an element of eclecticism in Kautilya's Arthashastra
which makes it unique and different from the Western concept of realism. His views on democratic
political system and economic cooperation are simila to the liberal approach to international politics.
Arthashastra clearly maintained that the ultimate objective of the king should be the benefits of his sub-
jects (Tisdell 2003). Kautilya's Arthashastra is an eclectic mixture of ambition, shrewdness and aggression
along with democratic and judicious use of strength.

War and Security

Kautilya's Arthashastra provides a conceptual and theoretical framework for understanding national
power, security and strategy of employing power to achieve national objectives. Kautilya agreed that
conflictual relations among states was a reality; therefore, he proposed the strategy and tactics to deal
with those conflicts. He did not consider war essential and rather preferred diplomacy over war. He
believed that war should be used as an essential tool only in extreme situation-a threat to survival. No
doubt proposed some brutal measures to preserve the state and the common good. He focused
on the science of power. In his opinion, 'power is possession of strength' and 'strength changes the mind
Boesche 2003, 15). Kautilya sought power not only to control outward behaviour but also the behav
10ur of onc's own state's subjects and enemies. The ultimate objective of power should be the happiness
of people.
of the king should be to
dec r to empower the king, Kautilya proposed that the primary objective
esiroy his enemies and protect his own people. Kautilya did not see conquests as unjust. In Kautilyas
 156 NIRMAL JINDAL
perception, a king who 'carries out his duties, rules according to law, metes out only just punish
applies the law equally to his sons and his enemies' and protects his subjects can conquer the wholaishments
world
(Boesche 2002, 33).
The objective of Kautilyas Arthashastra was to bring unity and peace in the chaotic conditionspre
lent in India at that time. Kautilya views that if a nation is entrusted with political and economic
its neighbours will act in their own interest. It appears to be similar to the theory of balance of tos
ower
(BOP). In the contemporary IR, the BOP or balance of deterrence was considered significant to preven
wars. Kautilya had also mentioned that if nations are of equal strength, there should be peace; if unequal
in power, there should be war. The state should march if superior in strength or otherwise should star
quiet (Kangle 2010, 406). The BOP theory suggests arms development for peace, whereas Kautilya sug
gests arms development to weaken the enemy and conquer the subcontinent of India. For Kautiya '
world conquest is the real foundation for peace (Kangle 2010). In this context, Kautilya thought empha
sized the significance of strong army/defence capability, he was not a warmonger but a calculative and
cautious statesman.
Kautilya when referring to the vijigishu conquering other territories, meant not only physical territory
but also psychological influence (Kangle 2010, 247). Therefore, Kautilya wanted ruler to be the vijgiskhu
who should expand his domination either psychologically or physically on others' teritories (Kangle
2010).
He viewed that there can be three types of vijigishu: dharmavijaya (war for justice or virtue); lobhavi
jayin (greedy conquest) and asurnvijayin (conquest like a demon). Dharmavijaya makes wars for glory
lobhavijayin makes wars for greed to seize others land, resources and money, and asurvijayin makes war
like a demon to seize others money, women and children and also kills the conquered king. He believed
in dharmavijaya as they fight wars because they are in a superior military position and fight war tor glory
and feel satisfied after winning the war. The states in a weak position are not advised to indulge or init-
ate open warfare. He proposed other methods of wars like concealed and silent warfare for militarily
weak states. Kautilya advised the king that if the king is superior in troops, when his secret instigations
are made (in the enemy camp), when precautions are taken about the season, and when he is on land
suitable to himself, he should engage in an open fight. In the reverse case, he should resort to a concealed
fight (Kangle 1992, 438).
Kautilya demonstrated the significance of diplomacy and war as well as ineffectiveness of moral peas
when confronted by a superior power. In his opinion, if a state is weak and relies on a neighbours kine
ness, it should change rapidly or otherwise it can be doomed to destruction. In the world of foreign
relations, either one conquers or gets conquered. Kautilyas deceit led to a successful unification oru

Indian subcontinent that lasted for 85 years.?

Categorization of Wars
Kautilya divided wars in three categories: open warfare, concealed warfare and silentwarfare

largest
Chandragupta Maurya created the Mauryan Empire in the Indian subcontinent, which was one
ation
empires in the world at that time. It had 50-60 million people which constituted 30-40 per cent or tne PA today
ofthe world. It had an army of 630,000 people which was equivalent to the eighth largest army in tne
(Goodson 2017).
 Kautilya's Realpolitik 157
Aon warfare: Any state, powertul and prosperous, can resort to open warfare. It is carried out by
harmavijaya who makes conquest for glory and is satistied by the submission of another
king. The most vulnerable state can be attacked and exterminated.
Cocret/Concealed warfare: Any country with declining power position can resort to concealed
warfare. In this wartare, the ministers and public act publicly as if they are at peace with the
other kingdom but carry out secret activities through agents and spies, and create divisions
among key ministers and classes by spreading propaganda and misinformation, and also
assassinate the important leaders. Kautilya argued that the king could use evil methods for
good of all. He justified the use of evil methods such as use of spies, deceit, treachery, sex,
violence and murder to extirpate the thrones of the state. Kautilya proposed that the king
should follow different methods such as extended gifts, direct secret agents to destroy enemy's
forts by the use of weapons and fire, instructing secret agents to create family feud to disfavour
the king, instigating coup in public against the enemy king, killing leaders and transferring the
blame on the regents of the king, instigating public in the countryside to protest against
the oppressive policies of the king and finally setting fire on palaces and stores of food
grains
and blaming this on the regent of the enemy king (Law 1931, 253-258).
Silent warfare: In order to prevent dominical king/states authority, silent warfare can be carried
out. The silent warfare involved secret practices and institutions
through secret agents.
Kautilya was the first to talk about silent warfare where secrecy is the key to carry out mission
in the inimical country.

Kautilya proposed thatifthe vijigishu has a choice between attackinga strong-unjust king and weak-just
king. he should attack the strong king because the strong king's subject, weary of injustice, will not help
the strong king and might even join the war against him (Kangle 1992, 354). In Kautilya's opiníon, the
vijigishu should always attack the unjust kingdom because the subjects help the king who behaves justly
nd oppose the king who behaves unjustly. Therefore, the vijigishu should march only against the king
doms with disaffected subjects (Kangle 1992, 419). Kautilya believed, 'whenever an enemy king is in
trouble and his subjects are exploited, oppressed, impoverished and disunited, he should be immediately
attacked after one proclamation of war (Prasad 1989, 58-60). Kautilya believed that the war should be
waged against an unjust king who lacks popular support of his people and can be easily defeated and
exterminated.

BOX 9.3: Significance of Role of Spies and Agents in Secret Warfare

His ideas
is id have been practised in the diplomatic policies of various countries. For instance, Kautilya
ecommended orphans who were nurtured by the state and could act as the best spies and security
gents. The similar idea was found to be practised by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)
and Romania during the Cold War era. In Romania, the most feared agents were those taken out of
omanian orphanages as children by regime and raised in special hostels, ensuring their single-minded
aty and implacable ruthlessness (Rich 2010, 67).
158 NIRMAL JINDAL

In Kautilya's perspective, social justice is the best tool to legitimize ones rule and the best da.
against the outside enemy (Shahi 2015, 74). Kautilya emphasized the significance of treating one'. lefence
jects well. If subjects are impoverished, they become greedy; when they become greedy, they b
disaffected: when they become disaffected, they either go over to tne enemy or kill their master
become
Therefore, the king should not allow the causes of greed and disaffection to arise among its subjects that
aster.
s that
can cause the decline of the state (Deb 1938, 366-379).
Kautilya advised the vijigishu to win over the people in vanquished territories and not to exploit or
terrorize them for self-aggrandizement. The vijigishu should do what is agreeable and beneficial to his
new subjects in captured territories (Shahi 2015, 74). The power should be used for the welfare and
happiness, prosperity and peace of people. The vijigishu should show tolerance towards religion,
customs, way of life, fairs, festivals and even gods of conquered territories. He should act as one of them
and not for them (Shahi 2015). It will build confidence in the people and they will not feel alienated or
marginalized.
Kautilya's concern of justice and moral considerations is reflected in his argument that the people of
the captured state be treated well. On the contrary, international history shows that Europeans fought
imperialist wars for the purpose of plunder, loot and exploitation of human and natural resources of their
colonies. The exploitative policies of imperialist powers gave rise to anti-imperialist struggle in Afro-
Asian countries. During the Cold War period, the most powerful countries in the world, the US and
USSR lost wars with weaker countries such as Vietnam and Afghanistan, respectively, due to the lack of
public support to their policies and the violence they committed against the population in these coun-
tries. It is the reason that the US while fighting war against terrorism in Afghanistan was also dropping
food and other assistance to the public in order to ensure that the war was not against Afghani people,
but against terrorism.
The history is full of instances when states focused only on military security, sidelining the welfare of
people, they experienced a decline in the sovereignty and national integrity of the state. The securi
of the state does not mean military security but security from within by establishing a stable political and
strong economic system. The ruler has to play a significant role in this vijigishu should aim
context. The
at dharma, arth (economic power) and karma of people. Kautilya gave primacy to arth becauseit facili
tates dharma' (righteous and dutiful life) as well as karma (enjoyment and pleasure) in lífe (Sl 1985
21-22). Kautilya's concept of dharma, therefore, does not have normative meaning but a realistdescr
be the
tion of statecraft. Arthashastra clearly maintained that the ultimate objective of the king should
benefits of his subjects (Tisdell 2003).

Good Governance and State Security

he
Kautilya considered political and economic power as an essential tool of state security, In thisreg his
proposed good governance. Kautilya's prescription of good governance was often overshadowednd
and
emphasis on state power and maximization of power. In fact, his theory focused on good governa
ically
state stability to enhance security. He viewed that good governance and political stability areintrin

from

Dharma refers to the duty of the king. He should give equal treatment to his subjects to quell retligious
within. Dharma is based on the concept of duty and social justice. Kautilya gives priority to legal laws ovnctfo
laws. D h a r m a m e a n t right conduct, duty, law, social justice a n d responsibility. It i n v o l v e s tolerance and e

others as well as kindness towards slaves and prisoners.

 Kautilya's Realpolitik 159
ed. Kautilya was the first to shift the
nle essential for the survival of the kings attention from God to
state. He laid people. He considered the welfare
the
about the welfare of people, shifting attention foundation of
democracy and was the first to
from monarch,
Boe: he declared Kautilya founder of 'socialist
a
representative of God to people.
Kautilya considered good governance as the monarchy' (Boesche 2003, 11).
ichu should aim at primary
yogakshema (welfare of people) and duty of the king. Kautilya advised that the viji-
si 1999). For this purpose, he
emphasized the
lokasamgraha (to do what is beneficial to
people;
dharma. The kings duty is to provide protection necessity of
strong king to perform his duties 'raj
a

kingdom and follow rules of law (yogakshema; (rakshana) and welfare (palana) of the
Rangarajan 2000,
people of his
then only his power or control on the state can be 15). If the king performs raj dharma,
having only mighty military power but his legitimized. Therefore, strong king does not mean a

protection, welfare and following rules of law. strength depends on the performance of raj dharma-
The state stability for
Kautilya depends on a
human and natural resources
strong treasury. He wanted the ruler to harness the
to
empower a state. It is the duty of the
atmosphere to his subjects to achieve progress. The rulers king to provide the right kind of
should ensure individual's
security, and also protect justice. Kautilya strongly emphasized the
happiness and
for internal stability. He believed that external blows cannot destroy significance economic prosperity
of
a state but the internal
lead to the decline of a state. The internal weakness can
sidered a prerequisite for military
strength and stability developed by good governance was con-
strength and power.
different from mercantilists' economy. He viewed that Kautilyas conception of economics was therefore
economic development should not aim at
In this context, he profit.
proposed that moral values be imparted to the subjects of the state. He considered
treasury as the basis of political stability and strong defence capability. Besides
treasury and forces,
Kautilya focused on the importance of fort. He argued that without fort, the treasury would fall in the
hands of the enemy. However,
people popular army) considered more important than treasury
(or are
army and forts. Kautilya wanted the king to rely on people of the countryside who are brave, firm, clever
and large in numbers. The
king's power is rooted in the energy and support of his people, without which
the king can be
conquered. In this regard, Kautilya proposed that the king should treat the defeated
people well. The king should carry out policies beneficial to the defeated people such as granting favours,
Bving exemptions and showing honour, and he should render help to distressed, helpless and diseased.
is not only moral but a practical and sound military policy to establish a righteous course of conduct.
Kautilya view, the righteous conqueror sought victory and submission of the enemy but not greedy
pulaging or lawless killing. The king should not try to take away the belongings of the defeated people
Aking becomes most hated if he takes away the property of people belonging to their family than for
killing the head of the family (Boesche 2003, 32).
The king's power is based not only on expansion of territory but on loyalty of his subjects. The king
snould try to settle down the people in the countryside in order to use them for agrarian purposes so that
new kingdom prospers. Agriculture was considered the largest sector of the economy, and the king's
agriculture
Othe crop made up the largest part of his revenue. Therefore, policy of extending
the

wasa matter of enlightened self-interest of the state. public. The

nernal stability in the conquered territory was also based on the
contentment
of the
state conditions. In this context, Kautilya established a link
a n be empowered only in the internal stable states. In his words, an internal rebellion
e n underdevelopment, instability and insurgencies in the in one's bosom' (Pillalamarri
is mor a
it is like nurturing viper
201dangerous than an external threat because of state security. Internal
1). Therefore, he advised for good governance to attain the objective
160 NIRMAL JINDAL

instability, conflicts and insurgencies are manifestations of societal discontent and, therefore, the .
should work to make people contented and supportive.
ruler
Kautilya argued that a ruler cannot defend his state and its population without a strong armv.and
treasury. The economic development was considered essential for maximization of military
power, Itis
essential for the countries of the Global South to follow this line of direction because lack of
omic
development and good governance on the one hand and focus on militaristic aspects of security on tha
the
other are the causes of insecurity of most of the countries.

Diplomacy and System of Alliance

Arthashastra considered diplomacy an essential aspect of statecraft (Kumar 2014). In the Western theo
ries, failure of diplomacy leads to war. Clausewitz considered war as an extension of domestic politics
(Keegan 1993, 3-24). Kautilya considered diplomacy as a subtle act of war. He proposed a series of
actions of secrecy to weaken the enemy and gain advantages for oneself. The state can station envoys and
secret agents can become friends of rivals and maintain secrecy to strike the enemy again and build pres
sure for negotiating peace.
In order to deal with the situation of opposition to alliances of nations, the king should secre
dissention within the alliances. The king should try to win over the people in the enemy kingdom by its
and means of conciliation and those antagonistic can be controlled by dissension and force. Kautilya
considered all the ambassadors as potential spies who can be used as diplomatic tools to fight warfare
In order to assess the loyalties of ones own soldiers, the king was advised to use secret agents, prostitutes
artisans, actors as well as elders of the army (Kangle 1992, 305). In Kautilyasviews, if akingdomis weak
then it can be exterminated; if a kingdom is strong, then the state should try to harass and hope to

weaken it.
in
He proposed the formation of alliances and cultivating of friends which can be instrumental
own advantage
achieving the national objective. In this context, the basis of alliances should be the state's one is
and self-interest. One keeps an ally not because of goodwill or moral obligations but because
strong and can advance one's own self-interest by having an ally.
but for the pur
Kautilya recognized the significance of a strong army not for the purpose of fighting a
of a country could be used to bring
pose of using it as a diplomatic means. The strong military power
nation on the negotiating table and use its own power as a bargaining chip. If a state
has a strong arm,
other countries become friendly allies, and sometimes enemies also turn into an ally. As nations always
act in their own political, economic or military interest, sometimes peace can be turned into contlict and
war, allies can be turned into enemies and enemies into allies. Therefore, there are no permanent n
or allies; it is the national interest that determines the relationship among nations. This principleot
eign policy that nations act according to their own national interest was a timeless truth of sciene

politics or Arthashastra (Boesche 2003, 18). van-

Kautilya prescribed that if an ally becomes weak and a treaty with him/her becomes no more au
tageous, the vijigishu can violate the treaty. In case another state intends to violate the treaty, the vysgishu
should demand a gain. Therefore, the vijigishu can be morally considerate, spatially and temp
15
unconfined, and acquire the position ofchakravartin (hegemonic power) whose authority
applied (Shahi 2015, 75).
basis of alliance
Kautilya emphasized the significance of alliance to create a strong power base. The alliance allianc

should be mutual interest. The alliance should be mutually beneficial for countries entering,c eand peace

The purpose of the alliance should be to secure national interest and maintenance o
 Kautilya's Realpolitik 161

BOX 9.4: Significance of Alliances and

Strong Defence
for Balance of Power

The equations of relations among nations keep changing ith time and circumstances. China had
fiendly relations with the US during the Cold War period which changed after the end of the Cold War
eriod. The main objective of Chinas foreign policy and military strategy has been to build strong
efence capability to develop allies and eliminate enemies and expand its sphere of influence without
fighting a war.

China, in the 1950s, did not want India to be perceived at par with China and wanted to emerge as
a DOwerful country in the Third-World region by curbing India's power. In this regard, it always tried to
encircle India by cultivating friendly relations with Indias neighbours, particularly Pakistan. China
tended to use its strength primarily to deter its neighbouring countries. China attacked India in 1962 in
order to grab Aksai Chin on the north-west of Kashmir in Ladakh region to expand its territory on the
one hand and to bargain with India from the position of strength on the other. India's response to
China's war in 1962 was also a rational choice. India's Prime Minister Mrs Gandhi tried to normalize
India's relations with China by saying that we cannot march on Peking' to impress that maturity in rela-
tions mast be given way against the futility of alienation (Gupta 2016, 24). Since the Sino-Indian War
in 1962, India has modified its policy. Earlier, India tried to develop friendly relations with all the neigh-
bouring countries to prevent the possibility of war so that it could focus on development rather than
arms build-up. However, despite Hindi-Chini bhai posture, India was attacked which proved that
Kautilya's mandala theory was true. India since the Sino-Indian War has been trying to maintain syn-
ergy between defence and development. In 1971, China entered into an alliance with the US in order to
build its strong economic and defence capabilities. Indiás acquisition of nuclear capability and declara-
tory nuclear posture is also a step in this direction-deter China and Pakistan. Chinas aggressive moves
on India's northern borders are also tackled diplomatically, though India is also strengthening its
defense capabilities to deal with its aggressive neighbours. India aims to deter its enemies by acquiring
strong defence capability. India is also trying to develop relations with all major powers of the world
regardless of their ideological differences or diferent groupings. India is developing friendly relations
with the Southeast Asian countries, the US, Japan, Australia on the one hand, and Russia on the other
in order to counterbalance the Chinese hegemonic designs in the Indo-Pacific region as well as the
Asian region. Therefore, India's power equations in the post-Cold War world have changed and it has
adopted the policy of multi-alliances. China's power equations have also changed as it has moved closer
to Russia and emerged as a challenge to the US supremacy

prOsperity. Alliances help in nation building and stability. The systeminstance, Bismarck'svery popular
of alliances was in

countries. For policy of alli-

Ope and alliances had been practised by European the interwar and Cold War period clearly show
esalliances before the First World War and during
to increase their power base. The foun-
even the strong powers sought alliance with smaller powers The objec-
in theanarchic world.
O f interstate relations is alliance that has competitive advantage
the state's security.
O the alliance was to eliminate enemies and strengthen in democra-
the
ne changed world scenario, India is against concept of the vijigishu as it believes international
as an independent
actor in the
nternational system and wants each country to act and also the hegemonizing
.t is for this reason that India was against the Cold War politics
Cndencies of many nations such as the US, the USSR and China.
162 NIRMAL JINDAL

The national security realization by eliminating enemies, preventing war and maintaining
the crux of Kautilya's system of alliance. He also considered free flow of ideas and tradePeace
he ba
cordial relations among states. This idea appears to be quite close to neoliberalism. It is ale
Kenneth Waltz's system-level theory that is based on the assumption that states are self.inta a
who rationally pursue their goals. The neorealists accept the anarchic nature
terested a
of the inter
system, BOP and security dilemma but maintain that the state tries to maintain internal h
increasing its economic capabilities and externally the state tries to check the growing pow
by entering into an alliance. This policy of neorealism was evolved when the US had lost its ahe
absolute
supremacy.
India's policy of non-alignment also aimed at developing friendly relations with all countries r
less of their ideological positions. It aimed at securing national interest by eliminating enemies and
regard
preventing indulgence in war as it was operating in the international system from the position of weat
ness. In the changed global scenario, India is cultivating friendly relations with the US and Asia-Pac
in order to counterbalance Chinas growing power in Indo-Pacific region. As India cannot have open
warfare with China, it can contain or counterbalance its growing power by creating allies and eliminating
enemies on the regional and world scale.

Dimensions of Statecraft

Kautilyas Arthashastra is about the statecraft for a king to be the vijigishu. Kautilya statecraft has thre
dimensions (Gupta 2014), which are as follows:

1. Saptanga (Seven elements/organs of state) theory that attributes seven prakritis

2. Rajamandala (Circle of ruling powers) theory
3. Shadgunya (Six methods of foreign Policy) theory

Saptanga Theory
Kautilya considers seven prakritis as seven pillars of state which provide base for state's capabilities anu
of the pillars can adversely implicate the power of the state. The idea ma
power. The weakness in any
bound the Mauryan Empire was the balanced state which maintained balance in the triad or
dharma and karma, and was ruled by the capable king. The seven prakritis determine the efficacyo
1neinsti
essence of state was manifested (population) and
by janapada (fort). durg
state. The physical
tutions which formed the government were presented as amatya (group of ministers). He stau
that

One wheel doesn't move a charioe (Pillalamarri 2015, 15). Kautilya considered all the elemt
(ter
saptanga theory (prakritis), swamin (ruler/emperor), amatya (the council of ministers), janaps
nilitary
ritory and population of the state), durg (fortified towns and cities), kosha (treasury), bald
force), mitra (allies) as an essential constituent of state power ((Roy 1998) (see Figure 9.2 i
element of prak
maintained that the order of prakritis should be followed; the deviation from any eler makeit

(seven elements of the state) will lead to imbalance and instability of state which intuahil
fragile. In the globalizing world, Kautilya's prakritis need to be adhered in order tos
strengthen the state security. In this context, Kautilya's saptanga theory has universal va
 Kautilya's Realpolitik 163

Swamin

Amatyas
Janapadas

Durgs Kosha

Bala
Prakritis Mitra

FIGURE 9.2 Seven Elements of Saptanga Theory

Source: Arndt (2013).

Kautilya viewed that the state's strength is power and its objective is the happiness of people. The state
power can be derived from various sources such as intelligent rulers, strong economy and military power.
Kautilya had divided power in three categories which are as follows.

Utsaha shakti: Personal energy and drive of both the rulers and the population of the state
Prabhu shakti: The power of economy, infrastructure and military
Mantra shakti: Knowledge and intellect of ruler, bureaucracy and the public

Kautilya considered the element of knowledge power most significant to empower a country. The
national leader should continue to make endeavours for new sources of power and continue to increase
its power in order to overpower any other competing state or power. The power of knowledge is given
priority over economic and military power because it enables a state to maximize economic and military
power and secure its interest by eliminating enemies. Therefore, prakriti and shakti both combine to
to attain
happiness of population. Kautilya empha-
aDIe a state to attain comprehensive national power
attainment and establishment of some intricate set of
S1Zed the significance of power in terms of goal The main objective of the king is
in order to prevent any conqueror from expanding his domain.
ruies
O Dring the country from a track of anarchy to an orderly situation. The king has to be knowledgeable
d visionary; a strong and powerful king can provide a solution to an anarchical situation. The rulers
been considered as important elements to
00d command, power of analysis and judgement have
minister and mantris (ministers) should have
wer a state. Kautilya perceived that the king, prime of leadership, intellect,
Pecial lead the country. A strong king should
qualities to
qualities
have strong
of concentration, good character, think
and personal attributes. The mantri should have quality
Y Kautilya wanted the king to be
communication skills and observation/vigilance.
pability, strong or conspire to rob the country of its
do not become corrupt
a n d alert so that his administrators ministers be awarded.
n and of his state. He also suggested that the deserving
king
164 NIRMAL JINDAL

Kautilya believed that an enlightened and disciplined ruler can ensure the prosperity
erity and powes of
state. States should follow the natural order of
priority for progress. If the order of priority ispower
diee
it leads to the decline of state power. The strong leadership and correct
prioritization are essential
state stability and progress.
Wrong prioritization such
tocusing as on for
harness national physical and natural resources can lead to depletion of military security and inabilitvs
treasury and cohesive ine
tions that in turn would pose a serious threat to the fabric of statehood. institu
According to Kautilya, kingdom passes through three stages: decline, stability and advancement t
a

his opinion, power is not constant over time. He considers

good command, analysis and judgement
elements to strengthen state's advancement but some as

unpredictable factors like acts of god fall bevond

state/king control which implicates the position of state for good or bad. In his opinion, natural calami.
ties can cause decline or
degradation of the advanced state. He attributes divine intervention for good
fortune or misfortunes.
Kautilya considered power both an end and a means as power was essential both to survive, to protect
and advance interest. Therefore,
Kautilya was a unique thinker who was quite pragmatic
and utilitarian
in his approach (Adityakiran 2015, 26).

Rajamandala Theory
The doctrine of mandala provides the
categorization of states and their interrelationships. Given
the absence of international bodies of law that ensures
every king's right to exist, irrespective of size, the
vijigishu was truly living in the system of anarchy governed by the principle of matsya nyaya-the law of
fish where the big one swallows the little one. For the vijigishu, to survive in the
matsya nyaya system,
Kautilya introduced the theory of the mandala system of states. The theory of rajamandala enables a
vijigishu to address the challenge of disorder, anarchy and chaos. The theory of rajamandala is treated as
the basis of a country's foreign policy.
The mandala literally means circle with a
centre nucleus-the vijigishu. The mandala is based
or
the political assumptions that the vijigishu is the centre of mandala and his immediate neighbour is his
on

ari enemy and

or next to the immediate
neighbour is the vijigishu's friend or mitra. In mandala theory
the immediate
neighbours are enemies, next to the enemy are friends and after friendly states, unfriendy
states exist. Usually, friendly states wait till the
vijijgishu attacks an unfriendly state and then atadk from
the rear. In the mandala system, two states play important role, madhyama and udasina (the neut
kingdom). The madhyama is situated on the border of the vijigishu and unfriendly state and is capable
is
of
helping either Udasina is located beyond the border of the vijigishu and is friendly
state and
a
capable of helping the vijigishu, unfriendly state, madhyama states, together or individualy, or Oresist
ing any of them individually. Therefore, the vijigishu, ari,
madhyama and udasina form a
ma ari,
capabilities. In this system, the vijigishu should
attempt to increase his power as
madhyama and udasina in order to overpower these nations and secure its own comparcu and is ad its
state's territoryand
system
population. This principle is similar to the theory of BOP in the contemporary internauoatby
Kautilya's objecti but by
of the vijigishu as chakravartin was not proposed to be based on open wartare
acquiring comprehensive national power.
This prin-
Rajamandala theory is Arthashastra's most timeless observations on foreign policy
policy and IR.
and
i our
ciple is applicable in all states. It means that the immediate neighbour is an enemy and neigh of the
immediate neighbour (enemy) is our natural ally.
Rajamandala theory treats each state
 Kautilya's Realpolitik 165
and operates on
systen
the principle: friend's friend is a
friend; enemy's enemy is a friend and enemy's
nd is an enemy too. Element of this logic is found in India's
foreign policy.
the present context, Indias foreign relations can be understood in terms of
ar India's relations with countries such as Afghanistan and Russia can be Kautilyas mandala
ainst Pakistan and China which are categorized as enemies. India's Look East categorized as natural allies
pICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and Shanghai Policy, membership of
security circle reflect India's interest
to develop partnershipwith different countries; these
alliances are mutually beneficial unlike alliances
Arine the Cold War in which each superpower aimed to use its allies
against the other superpower.
Therefore, Indias multi-alliances with various countries aim to strengthen its
power to counterbalance
its enemies like China. The common national interest of
countries of the Indo-Pacific and India to coun-
terbalance Chinas hegemonic designs in the Indian Ocean, South China Sea and Pacific Ocean build the
foundation for their alliance. The theory of rajamandala could also be applied to other regions like
Europe, where France and Germany had inimical relations till the end of the Second World War.

Shadgunya Principles
Kautilya viewed that the king can attain success in the mandala system operating under the system of
matsya yaya only by following six methods of foreign policy (Set 2015, 712). Kautilya consideredsix
elements as essential tools of a country's foreign policy.
1. Sandhi (peace): Any inferior nation can make peace with its stronger counterpart. Sandhi
signifies treaty or agreement based on the perception that advantage can be derived from
peace or war equally. In this situation, one should prefer peace than war as war is a gamble and
can cause unbearable losses. Peace is considered as temporary and a part of broader policy of
lulling the enemy into complacency.
Samshraya (seeking alliance or shelter): If a country is devoid of necessary strength to defend
itself, it shall seek the protection of another through alliance.
3. Davidhibhava (double policy): Whenever a country thinks that help is necessary to work out an
end, it shall make peace with the strong king and wage war with the weak king. It can be inter-
towards the third
preted as a policy to have peace with neighbour in order to pursue hostility
In this scheme, peace with neighbour is temporary
and conflict with it is inevitable. It is
Party. in enemies and behaving aggressively in secret.
apolicy of diplomatically inducing confidence about its superiority and feels that situa-
Vigraha (war): Whenever a country feels confident
identified three types of wars:
On is conducive to launch war, it can resort to war. Kautilya

open warfare, secret warfare and silent warfare.

state that possesses strong power shall
a n a (march): Acting from position of strength, any
into submission without actually fighting
a war.

6.4 a against
narch its enemy.
(neutrality): It can
It means compel anquiet
remaining
enemy
in case of weak position. The policy of neutrality

circumstances. There are three aspects of neutrality: stanza

Pragmatic and changes with and upeksha (taking no strategic steps).
ACping quiet), asana (withdrawal from hostility)
and then choosing an appropriate policy
The assessment of countries
based of the s
ent the strength of one's neighbouring interests. If the vijigishu
is weaker than the
baser selection
on e c u o n of to secure its
state
shadgu: enables a
shadgunya
 166 NIRMAL JINDAL

enemy, sandhi policy should be followed; if the vijigishu is stronger than vigraha and if both.
oothare
power, asana is an appropriate policy; if one is very weak, then samshraya is necessary: davi equal in
the double policy of sandhi with one king and vigraha with another at the same time. The fava
guidelines for strong nations, fifth principle-samshraya-is for the weak and the last an ur ate
policy-is recommended for the middle-status nation. The shadgunyas policy can be practiced plcy
various means or upayas. practised by using
Utility of Upayas
Kautilya argues that six principles can be applied through four upayas: sama (conciliation), danaleit
danda (punishment) and bheda (dissension). Kautilya considers them as tools of
diplomacy to achie
foreign policy objectives. According to Kautilya, these methods can be used by the king dependia
the situation he is facing at a particular time. These are also called the techniques to be
used by the
ruler to achieve national objectives. George Modelski refers to the four instruments as the
niques to pursue his foreign policy successfully. These are sama, dana, danda and bheda (Models
ruler'stek
1964, 553). Zimmer added three additional tools: maya (deceit), upeksha (indifference),
indraiala
(magic or trickery in war) in proposing the policy of diplomacy (Zimmer 1967, 118-123). Imtiz
(1993, 220-221) listed five methods for effective foreign policy which are sama, dana, danda, bheda
and maya indrajala.

Sama (conciliation): This is used when a ruler's success in a dangerous situation is unlikely
The USSR used this policy when Gorbachev found it impossible to compete with the US and
entered into conciliation by withdrawing from the Cold War.
Dana (gift): This is used against inferior kings and discontented people in order to win them
without bloodshed. The policy of foreign aid used by major powers towards weaker nations
throughout the Cold War was one of the most effective tools of their foreign policy
Bheda (dissension): If dana fails, then the policy of sowing seeds of dissension among its adver
saries' states is to be followed. The purpose of this tool is to create confusion and chaos in their
enemies and neutralize their threat. In 1971, the US entered in Detente with both the USR
and China in order to create dissention between the two.
Maya indrajala (deceit or pretence): The ruler could take several measures to outsmart his
enemy. This could range from the use of non-aggression pact or treaties to lull their enemies
to the policies of wearing a mask of moral probity, religious righteousness or citing moral
righteousness to camouflage one's real intentions.
Danda (punishment by open warfare): If all the aforementioned methods fail to help the
country to achieve its objectives and contain the enemy, then the policy of coercion or open
warfare is to be undertaken. This action has to be taken with careful and serious consider
ations depending on the enemy's economic conditions as well as the popular public support.
Danda was a diplomatic war and not an armed contest, rather it was the last ve
alternau
before the commencement of
fighting. Kautilya referred to three types of danda-sanctothis
blockade and boycott. In the
contemporary international system, the US often usce
policy of sanctions and boycott against its adversaries to weaken their power and ity
to confront the US or its u n d its
policies. China is also engagedin expansionist designs ai
 Kautilya's Realpolitik 167

horders by using policy ot coercion and aggression but without indulging in direct war
a0ainst India or any other country in the Indo-Pacific region. It is also using the policy of
cama and dana for Pakistan and other neighbouring countries sharing borders with India.
It is called Chinas policy of encircling India just like the US used China and Asian-Pacific
Ountries to isolate and encircle the USSR during the Cold War period. The US also used
he policy of bheda towards China and Russia, and India and Pakistan in order to detach
China from the USSR and also to widen the gap between India and Pakistan as both the
USSR and India had been perceived as unfriendly countries. Therefore, their power was
checked by creating enemies on their border by the policy of bheda. China is also trying to
develop friendly relations with India's neighbours to create a wedge between India and its
neighbours to weaken India to realize its foreign policy objectives. India is also trying
develop alliances with Pacific countries such as Japan, Australia, Taiwan and Vietnam in
order to check China's challenge.

Foreign Policy and Security in the Contemporary World

Kautilya talked about foreign policy objective as enlargement of territory by conquest because he was
writing at the time when Indian subcontinent had experienced the invasion of Alexander the Great in
north-west India. Invasion, violent competition and conquests among small polities
causing anarchy
were the contexts in which Kautilya had written his ideas to make Chandragupta a great king. Therefore,
Kautilya's Arthashastra is not only about effectively governing a great empire but also creating one in a
chaotic period. He was against the occurrence of war without purpose or indulging in war without
acessing the consequences of the war. He was aware of the impact of war on people; therefore, he was
not recommending state indulging in unwanted warlike situations. His main objective was to make ruler
nakravartin or universal monarch who can put an end to perpetual struggle of contending states and
Can lead his army to the farthest horizon unchallenged. This idea is similar to stability and order by
hegemony.
t was
only on the basis of Kautilya's political advice that India was unified by Chandragupta Maurya
panding the Mauryan Empire from modern-day Iran to the West, conquering Afghanistan and all
Pats of Central Asia up to Bangladesh in the East. Kautilya had deliberate interest in political unification
d consolidation of different races and regions. However, his focus was only within the boundaries of
Asia and not beyond. In this context, he differed from the Western realists as two world wars were
t tor territorial and capitalist expansionism all over the world. The Western powers aimed at creat-
mpires primarily to exploit these countries economically and committed serious atrocities on the
DocsPcople. These exploitative policies gave rise to the freedom struggle in these countries. In the
Colonial world, the newly independent countries became victims of neocolonialism and the Cold
nanCS. Kautilya's views in this regard are quite different as he always emphasized on good gover
tes and welfare of people and never supported the idea of exploitation of the people of even captured
territories.
of human nature regards the possession of power and happiness of a king makes him
Desis viewother
superior to any human. Therefore, the king should always endeavour to augment his power and
expand rritoriallyy tot the greatest extent possible. The ultimate strategy
of state is not to maintain a BOP
 168 NIRMAL JINDAL

between states but to overcome the equilibrium in order to establish

stability throuoh
Moreover, Arthashastra was not about making conquests but about strategies and
tactics to
quests. The objective of a strong army was not to fight wars but to prevent wars.
egemony.
In contemporary international politics, it is not
possible to expand territories as it is againes
tional law. In
contemporary international politics, each country has the right of self-determina int
a sense of nationalism among people in each country is so strong that it is impossible to creato d
in the traditional sense. International politics has become democratic and law
is
abiding, and each e es
anautonomous unit in the international system. Nonetheless, the world has faced
territorial disputes still remain unresolved which
several y
suggests that though each country gives nri
national interest and power maximization, however the traditional tool of war to
achieve these. to
tives has become obsolete. China, for instance, is objec.
trying to expand teritorially on the basis of historil
claims but short of war. War, which was considered rical
by Clausewitz and other realists an essential elemen
and a political tool to achieve national interest in international nent
politics, is no longer valid. At the same
time, the internal instability in these countries is
posing a threat to the national integrity and the state
fabric.
Therefore, Kautilya's view that states have only permanent interests has universal value. However, his
view that states will do whatever
necessary to pursue these interests has certain limitations. In the con-
temporary international politics, even major powers cannot behave absolutely the way
nations have motivate
want. they These
to or mobilize the international opinion to execute their actions. In the contem
porary international system, as the world has become interdependent, nations are pursuing the policy of
cooperation and competition. Most of the major powers have realized that they can gain more by coop-
eration with other major powers than
competing with them. The emergence of regimes and structures
for global governance reflect that war
among major powers for power maximization is fading or losing
its relevance in the present context.
Kautilya's theory of statecraft, defence, diplomacy and foreign policy provides a holistic view of state
security and power. In the changing world scenario, Kautilya's ideas can help in maintaining unity, ineg
rity and prosperity which is lacking in most of the countries of the Global South. The USSR's focus on
the militaristic aspect of security during the Cold War period not only drained its treasury but also id
to the disintegration of the
country.
Most of the countries of the Global South are
encountering the problems of socio-economic an
political instability, internal insurgencies and civil war situations because these countries
military power as the ultimate guarantee ot security. Therefore, it was the wrong prioritization perce
op

BOX 9.5: War and Weapons Not Essential Tools to Achieve Security

Gorbachev considered the economic development and internal he

end of the Cold War. In his words, we need stability essential for security a
normal international conditions for our
But we want a world free of war, without arms races,
internal p
nuclear weapons and violence, not oy
this is an optimal condition for our internal
developmene (Gorbachev 1987, 10-12).
 Kautilya's Realpolitik 169
hich declining power ot all these countries. These countries need
led to the
to deal with their
b following the correct prioritization ot prakriti and use of problems
Kautilya's
af orakriti and shakti is the crux of security of the counties in the conception of shakti. The combina-
ear-cut example of following the wrong prioritization of matsya nyaya system. Pakistan is
ith the US, China and Saudi Arabia to settle the Kashmir prakriti withit focused on building alliances
as

state of disempowerment and dependency. Pakistan is

agenda India. It landed Pakistan in a
policies of major powers in the world.
facing both internal instability
as well as coercive

In the present context, IR can be understood in terms

of Kautilya's
saptanga theory (seven
mandala theory and shadgunya theory (six methods of foreign policy). These theories still hold prakritis),
in the international system in the conduct of relevance
In the post-Cold War scenario, Indias
foreign policies.
rising economic and military power is becoming obvious.
India's relations with the US are getting strengthened due to the mutual
interests of both the countries.
India can negotiate for both strategic and international
trade issues. These policies are a
India's perception of itself in a matsya nyaya product of
system. Indias acquisition of declaratory nuclear posture
was also a
response to address global and regional challenges to its
security. The aim of Indias nuclear
power position is only deterrence and not to pose threat to
any country. Indias position is in congruence
with Kautilya who mentioned that unilateral desire
for peace cannot ensure
if it prepares for war (Pillalamarri 2015, peace; a society lives in peace
21). He also wanted the army to be well paid and honoured in
order to boost their morale to defend the
state.
Indias defence capability aims at deterrence as it faced four wars in
the span of 25 years after
Independence. No doubt India had been using its armed forces on several occasions after 1947 but it
attaining
primarily aimed at securing its interest and territorial integrity but not expansionism. For instance, it had
to use force in case of
in the nuclear
Hyderabad (1949), Junagadh (1948), Goa (1961) and East Pakistan (1971). Even
scenario, India had used its force in case of Kargil (1999) and also launched
on terrorist surgical strikes
camps in Pakistan in response to Uri and Pulwama attacks (2016 and 2019,
shows that India still follows respectively). It
Kautilya in its strategic culture as it considers the use of force as relevant for
the
purpose of security and defence, and territorial integrity. One of the most serious threats to the con-
cmporary security environment is transnational/global terrorism. It is argued that the reason for mush-
TOoming of these terrorist outfits in the countries of the Global South is the political instability and
ontlict. The unstable
political conditions provide opportunities for destabilizing forces to develop (like
acubation of terrorist forces) which challenge the political governance and political organizations. Due
nability of the state to address ungoverned spaces within their territory, they become liable to
Datntion by strong states which in turn pose threat to their sovereignty and statehood. For instance,
foPakist (though a close ally of the US) had to face coercion from the US in regard to its support to ter
Lrorism nce the US is determined to eliminate terrorism which has deep support system in Pakistan,
a akistan1is facing
fac coercive policies of major powers and is on the verge of dependency and disempower-
ment.
In this
s context, it is significant to emphasize that the countries of the Global South can attain long
TecCurity by following Kautilya's doctrine of prakriti and shakti. The wrong prioritization of prakriti's
Tesult can be to attain parity with India. It's one-
understod
pointD gramme understood an example of Pakistan. Pakistan tried
by with India has led to disempowerment and declining power position. India.
of conflict
on
other hand, follows the holisticapproach to security.
170 NIRMAL JINDAL

Concluding Observations
Kautilya's Arthashastra is an Indian heritage which needs to have a significant place in IR
Kautilya's theories of mandala, matsya nyaya and shadgunyas have universal value in IR. These scourse.
can be instrumental in broadening policymakers' vision about statecraft, diplomacy and war The
know.
ge of such theories and strategies/tactics will enable scholars and officials to deal with securi
lenges more efficiently and effectively in the contemporary world. chal-

Suggested Questions
1. Why has the discipline of IR been homogenized by the Western thinking?
2. Do you think that Kautilya was the first realist thinker?
3. Discuss Kautilya's views on power and security.
4. How was Kautilya's perception of anarchy different from the dominant Western thinking?
5. Discuss the significance of good governance for national security.
6. Discuss various dimensions of statecraft in the conduct of foreign policy and diplomacy.
7. Discuss the significance of Indian historical indigenous strategic thinking in contemporary IR.

References
Acharya, Amitav. 2011. 'Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories beyond the he
Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39 (3): 619-637
Adityakiran, G. 2015 'Kautilyas Pioneering Exposition of Comprehensive National Power in Arthashastr
Indigenous Historical Knowledge: Kautilya and His Vocabulary. Vol. 1, edited by Pradeep Kumarlan
Saurabh Mishra, and Arvind Gupta, 24-38. New Delhi: IDSA and Pentagon Press. Available at htp /lidsa
in/system/files/book/book_IndigenousHistoricalKnowledge_Vol-Lpdf (accessed on 23 April 2020
Arndt, Michael. 2013. India's Foreign Policy and Regional Multilateralism. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmun in
Bajpai, Kanti. 2005. International Studies in India: Bringing Theory (Back) Home. In Internationat e
India: Bringing Theory Back Home, edited by K. P. Jog, 25. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
ooks
Boesche, Roger. 2002. The First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra. Oxford. Lexing uictory6
2003. 'Kautilya's Arthashastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India. The Journal of Miltary
(1): 9-37.
Chande, M. B. 2004. Kautilya Arthashastra, 63. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers. tructivist

Cupchik, Gerald. 2001. 'Constructive Realism: An Ontology That Encompasses Positivist and / / w w w

Approaches to the Social Sciences. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 2 (1). Availabe don 23 A
qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/968%20accessed%20on9%2014/6/19(access
2020). 14(
Deb, Harit Krishna. 1938. The Kautilya Arthashastra on Forms of Government. Indian Historical
366-379. rpretation.

Dutta, Anusmita, and Manish Dabhade. 2017. Diplomatic Theory of Kautilya and Sun Tzu: Assessing 2020
Available at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0020881717721758 (acces
cessed o n 23
April War College

Goodson, Larry. 2017. Kautilya and the Arthashastra: Lessons in Statecraft. Carlisle, PA: US Arny
Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_eNQ462nXo (accessed on 13 July 19).
 Kautilya's Realpolitik 171

hev. Mikhail. 1987. Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World. London: Collins.
nta, Alok Kumar. 2016. Kautilya's Relevance for India's Foreign Policy. Politico 5 (2).
Gupta
Arvind. 2014 'Need for Modern Arthashastra. The Indian
Gupta, Express, 14 April.
Haipern, George M. 2003. The Arthashastra of Chanakya. Available at https://drgeorges.net/wp-content/uploads/4-
GMH-Arthashastra-nm.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2020).
Haskar, A. N. D. 2015. A Post-Kautilya View of Diplomacy: The Nitisara of Kadambari. In Indigenous Historical
Knowledge: Kautilya and His Vocabulary. Vol. 1, edited by Pradeep Kumar Gautam, Saurabh Mishra, and
Arvind Gupta. New Delhi: IDSA and Pentagon Press.
Imtia Ahmed. 1993. State and Foreign Policy: Indias Role in South Asia. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.
Available at https://www.academia.edu/6725519/Kautilya_The_Indian_Strategic_Thinker_and_Indian_
Strategic_Culturehttps (accessed on 23 April 2020).
li, Hemangini. 1999. 'Lokasamgraha in Kautilya. In Perceptions on Kautilya Arthashastra: In Commemoration of
Prof. R. P. Kangle Birth Centenary, edited by K. P. Jog. Mumbai: Popular Prakashan.
loshi, Akshay. 2019. "Strategic Wisdom from Orient: Evaluating the Contemporary Relevance of Kautilya's
Arthashastra and Sun Tzu's The Art of War'. Strategic Analysis 43 (1): 54-74. doi:10.1080/09700161.2019.157
1747.
Kalyanaraman, S. 2015. Arthashastra, Diplomatic History and Study of International Relations in India. In
Indigenous Historical Knowledge: Kautilya and His Vocabulary. Vol. 1, edited by Pradeep Kumar Gautam,
Saurabh Mishra, and Arvind Gupta, 1. New Delhi: IDSA and Pentagon Press. Available at https://idsa.in/
system/files/book/book_IndigenousHistoricalKnowledge_Vol-Lpdf (accessed on 23 April 2020).
Kangle, R. P. 1965. Kautilya's Arthashastra, 266. Part III. Mumbai: Bombay University Press. 266.
-1992. The Kautilya's Arthashastra. Part II. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
2010. Kautilyas Arthashastra. Part I. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Keegan, Jon. 1993. A History of Warfare. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Kumar, Amit. 2014. Talk by Michael Liebig on Relevance of Kautilya's Arthashastra for Modern Political Science'
Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis. Available at https://idsa.in/event/TalkbyMichaelLiebig_
ArthasastraforModernPoliticalScience (accessed on 23 April 2020).
Law, N. N. 1931. 'Dvadi Bhava in Kautilya Indian Historical Quarterly 7: 253-258.
Mehta, V. R. 1992. Foundation of Indian Political Thought. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers.
International System in the Ancient Hindu World. The
Modelski, George. 1964. Kautilya: Foreign Policy and
American Political Science Review 58 (3): 549-560.
153-171. Available at https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/
Nye, Joseph S., Jr. 1990. 'Soft Power. Foreign Policy (80):
aetault/tiles/joseph_nye_soft_power_journalpdf (accessed
on 19 April 2019).
Defence Studies and Analysis.
llalamarri, Akhilesh. 2015. Chanakya: India's Truly Radical Machiavelli. Institute for (accessed
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/chanakya-indias-truly-radical-machiavelli-12146
Available at
on 29 2015).
January Arthashastra. New Delhi: Inter-India Publications.
, Rajendra. 1989. Politico-Geographical Analysis of the
Delhi: Penguin. New Delhi.
angarajan, L. N. 1992. Kautilya: Arthashastra, 28. New
Books.
2000. The Arthashastra. New Delhi: Penguin
Kautilya: Ancient India. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
2010. To Uphold the World: A Call for a New Global Ethicfrom
D.ruce. and Mandala. In ndian
Political Thought, edited by
1998. 'Kautilya: Saptanga, Dharma,
aranjan.
M. P.Singh and Himanshu Roy. Delhi: Jnanada Prakashan.
New
Set, for the Modern World: Revisiting
Kautilya and Arthashastra in the Third
unak. 2015. Ancient Wisdom
Millennium Strategic Analysis 39 (6): 710-714. In Indigenous Historical
The "Eclectic" Face of Kautilya.
Pnika. 2015. 'Arthashastra Beyond Realpolitik: Kumar Gautam, Saurabh Mishra, and
Vol. 1, edited by Pradeep
and His Vocabulary.
A age: Kautilya Delhi: IDSA and Pentagon
Press. Available at
https://idsa.in/system/files/book/book

Gupta. New
on 23 April 2020).
NagenousHistoricalKnowledge_Vol-I.pdf (accessed Academic Publishers.
Sil.Naras A Comparative Study. New Delhi:
Arthashastra:
Frosad. 1985. Kautilya's
172 NIRMAL JINDAL

Tisdell. Clement Allan. 2003. 'A Western Perspective on Kautilyas "Arthashastra": Does it Prcd.
Economic Science?" Working Paper. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4kaa for
western_perspective_on_Kautilya's_Arthasastra_Does it_provide_a_basis_for_economic e/2057 A
on 14 June 2019). science (accessed
Wendt, Alexander. 1994. 'Collective Identity Formation and the International State.
American Politicn
Review 88 (2): 384-396.
Political Sciena
Zaman, Rashed Uz. 2006. 'Kautilya: The Indian Strategic Thinker and Indian Strategic
Culture, Comas
Strategy. Comparative Strategy 25 (3): 231-247. Available at https://www.academia.edu/6725519/Ka.
The_Indian_Strategic_Thinker_and_Indian_Strategic_Culture (accessed on 23 April 2020). Kautilya
Zimmer, Heinrich. 1967. Philosophies of India. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Further ReadingS
Bhattacharjee, A. 1979. History of Ancient India. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers.
Mookerji, R. K. 1988. Chandragupta Maurya and His Times, 2. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Wolpert, S. 1982. A New History of India, 59. London: Oxford University Press.