Kautilya, also known as Chanakya, was an influential thinker who played a crucial role in shaping the theories of statecraft, diplomacy, strategy, and power. His seminal work, Arthashastra, written around 300 B.C., predates the works of Western thinkers such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Thucydides, making him the first realist thinker. In his book “World Order,” Henry Kissinger recognizes Arthashastra as a significant text that outlines the principles of power, which is the primary reality in politics. Kissinger compares it to a blend of Machiavelli and Clausewitz. Max Weber, a German sociologist, describes it as “truly radical Machiavellianism.” However, since Kautilya wrote Arthashastra centuries before Machiavelli, it would be more appropriate to consider Machiavelli as the European Chanakya rather than the other way around.
The concept of Realism as proposed by Kautilya differs from Western perspectives and is particularly relevant to countries in the global South, which have historically prioritized the tangible aspects of security since gaining independence. In the modern world, where the meaning and scope of security are undergoing transformation, it becomes necessary to reexamine Kautilya’s theories of statecraft, diplomacy, and warfare in order to grasp the intricacies of security and power that are pertinent to global South nations. Unlike Western Realists, Kautilya embraced a comprehensive understanding of security. Western Realism views war as a necessary but amoral means within the anarchical international system. Kautilya, however, presents an alternative viewpoint by incorporating morality into his theories of power and security. He does not perceive war as essential for achieving state objectives. According to Kautilya, the primary objective of the state should be the welfare of its people. He emphasizes the significance of a strong treasury for effective governance and the establishment of a robust defense capability.
Kautilya advocated for rulers to strive to become a Vijigishu, which refers to the most powerful king or hegemon, in order to establish peace and security. When Kautilya used the term Vijigishu, it encompassed the desire to conquer other territories. While military expansionism is an apparent implication of this term, Kautilya attributed significance not only to physical territorial control but also to psychological influence and even physical dominance. He opposed open warfare due to its potential for destruction, high costs, and unpredictability. Instead, he proposed covert or clandestine warfare using methods such as intelligence gathering, spies, and deception. According to Kautilya, if a state failed to achieve its objectives through peaceful means, specifically Sadgunayas (diplomatic strategies like alliances, seeking refuge, division, provocation, and negotiation) and Upayas (diplomatic policies of conciliation, inducement, punishment, and division), only then should it resort to war, and only in dire circumstances. Thus, he favored diplomacy and peace over war, particularly in the context of national interest.
Kautilya emphasized the utmost importance of economic development, considering it the foundation for effective governance and defense capabilities of states. The primary responsibilities of a king within a state are the welfare of the people, their protection, and the establishment of a just legal framework. The king’s power relies not solely on territorial expansion, but also on the loyalty of his subjects. Kautilya held the belief that the inhabitants of any conquered territory should be treated well. In contrast to the historical patterns observed in international relations, where Europeans engaged in imperialistic wars for plunder, exploitation of resources, and human rights abuses, Kautilya’s theory diverges significantly. He never regarded plunder, exploitation, or looting as justifications for territorial invasions. Instead, he placed great importance on internal stability within states, recognizing that internal instability could pose a greater danger than external aggression.
The theory of democracy and good governance carries immense significance for countries in the global South, as they grapple with deficits in governance and development, resulting in severe internal instability, insurgencies, and conflicts that threaten the integrity of the state system itself. The disintegration of the former USSR, once a powerful nation, serves as a testament to the consequences of internal instability. Security for a state entails not only military defense but also the establishment of secure structures from within, including stable political institutions and a robust economic system. Kautilya indeed proposed the need for a strong army to facilitate diplomacy and maintain a balance of power.
Kautilya’s perspective on statecraft emphasized the significance of ethical conduct and justice when exercising power. He believed that a wise ruler should uphold the principles of dharma, which encompass honesty, fairness, and compassion. According to Kautilya, a ruler who acted unjustly or violated these principles would eventually lose the support of the people and become susceptible to external threats. However, realists argue that moral considerations hold little relevance in international politics, asserting that states must pursue their interests even if it means resorting to unethical or illegal methods.
Kautilya’s understanding of anarchy is reflected in his Mandala theory, which revolves around the political assumption that the ruler, known as the Vijigishu, is at the center of the Mandala. The ruler’s immediate neighbors are considered Ari or enemies, while the states adjacent to the immediate neighbors are regarded as friends or Mitra. Elements of this logic can be observed in India’s foreign policy. Presently, India’s foreign relations can be understood through the lens of Kautilya’s Mandala theory. For instance, India maintains friendly relations with countries such as Afghanistan and Russia, while its relations with Pakistan and China are generally seen as antagonistic. India’s Look East Policy, participation in BRICS, and involvement in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization demonstrate its intention to cultivate broader partnerships that extend beyond its immediate neighborhood. These partnerships are built on mutual benefits, in contrast to Cold War alliances where superpowers exploited their allies to confront each other. Consequently, India’s policy of polycentrism and multipolarity aims to achieve diplomacy and a balance of power.
In the post-World War II era, India has rejected the concept of Vijigishu and instead advocated for a democratized international system, where each country acts as an independent actor. This stance led India to adopt a non-alignment policy, enabling it to remain neutral in Cold War conflicts and prioritize economic development. India also pursued the development of nuclear capabilities, primarily for deterrence purposes, which has altered its image and global power position. Even in present circumstances, India’s decision to avoid open warfare with other nations signifies its intent to strengthen its growing power by cultivating partnerships regionally and globally.
In conclusion, Kautilya’s understanding of statecraft encompasses deeper and broader dimensions compared to the realist scholars of international relations. His emphasis on morality, justice, welfare, diplomacy, alliances, treaties, economic development, and ethical behavior renders his conception of statecraft more comprehensive and applicable to contemporary discussions in international relations.
