Kautilya!

s Political Philosophy as Expressed in the Arthashastra and Its Influ-

ence on Contemporary Indian Foreign Policy

Introduction

Kautilya, also known as Chanakya, is regarded as one of the earliest political thinkers in Indian his-
tory, whose treatise, the Arthashastra, is a seminal work on governance, economics, and statecraft.
Written in ancient India, the Arthashastra provides a comprehensive guide to ruling a state through
pragmatic and strategic policies that prioritize power and national interest over moral or ideological
concerns. This philosophy, often referred to as Realpolitik, underscores the centrality of power, self-
interest, and adaptability in governance.

In the contemporary world, Kautilya's teachings remain profoundly relevant, particularly in the con-
text of India's foreign policy. As the world's largest democracy and a rising global power, India has
consistently demonstrated a diplomatic approach rooted in pragmatism, balancing its historical
ethos with modern geopolitical realities. This essay explores Kautilya!s concept of Realpolitik,
compares the principles of the Arthashastra to India!s foreign policy strategies—such as the Non-
Aligned Movement (NAM) and relations with China and Pakistan—and discusses how Kautilya!s
emphasis on statecraft continues to influence India's approach to global diplomacy.
Kautilya!s Concept of Realpolitik

Definition and Core Principles

Realpolitik, as defined in the Arthashastra, emphasizes governance based on the practical realities
of power dynamics rather than abstract ideals or moral considerations. Kautilya viewed politics as a
contest where survival and expansion of the state required strategic thinking and the effective use of
power. His philosophy is rooted in the belief that a strong and secure state is paramount, and all ac-
tions—diplomatic, economic, or military—must align with this objective.

Interstate relations and foreign policy find a prominent place in Kautilya!s Arthashastra. He has
tried to explain the dynamics of interstate relations through his mandala theory. Kautilya has also
explained upayas (peace politics) and shadgunyas (six war tactics). These were operational tips to
the conqueror to conduct his foreign relations in times of peace and war. He also emphasised that a
king should have a detailed system of diplomatic relations with different states and insisted on a
sound system of espionage or intelligence to protect the state from internal and external threats.
Kautilya argued that welfare of a state depends on its active foreign policy and he highlighted that
there are links between the domestic factors and foreign policy of a state. He emphasised an active
foreign policy which could used by a king to further his kingdom!s interests. Apart from highlight-
ing Kautilya!s views on foreign policy, this unit would also underline his arguments with respect to
national security, a theme which is of critical importance in contemporary international politics
dominated by geo-political interests.

Mandala Theory
Mandala is a Sanskrit word which means circle. Indians have ascribed pictorial characteristics to the
universe representing it in essential form. Mandala projects the world in terms of geometry. Kau-
tilya used the shape of mandala to develop a political geometry that accounts for different political
realities. In the seventh book of Arthashastra, he described international relations as a mandala sys-
tem. It was not a new concept given by Kautilya as it was earlier discussed by Manu and there were
indirect references to it in Rigveda. However, it was Kautilya who gave a comprehensive theory of
mandala for security and survival of state. Kautilya argued that acquiring power and its expansion is
the main aim of any state. He argued that power and success are inter-related. Power and success
resulting from its use are of three types. Intellectual strength (mantra shakti) gives the power of
good counsel; a prosperous treasury and a strong army give physical power (prabhav shakti) and
valour is the basis of morale and energetic action (utsah shakti). The success resulting from each
one is, correspondingly, intellectual, physical and psychological. Kautilya further said that conduct-
ing relations with a state would require special insight and skill. He gave importance to geography
and economic foundations of a state. In ancient India, due to lack of advanced means of transport
and communications, there could not be a central government which could extend its control in far-
off areas. India was divided in a number of small states and each state was tempted to annex its
neighbours. Strong states would try to expand their territory while the weaker ones would try to
maintain their independence by paying tribute to them. Kautilya described foreign policy of small
states constantly at war with each other and not of big empires like the Mauryan. Kautilya listed six
guiding principles of foreign policy as listed below.
" A king would enhance resources and power of his kingdom to embark upon a campaign of con-
quest
" Enemies to be eliminated
" Cultivation of allies
" Adoption of prudent course of action
" Peace to be preferred to war
" King must behave as just in both, victory and defeat
The central premise of the Mandala theory lies in locating the position of a kingdom as an enemy or
ally with respect to the intending conqueror and the kingdom!s spatial placement in the mandala.
Kautilya treats the vijigishu (the conqueror or the ambitious king) as the reference point of the
mandala theory and advocates four basic circles. In the first circle, there are three primary kings
forming a circle, the vijigishu, his friend and his friend!s friend. Each one of them possesses the five
elements of sovereignty, such as the amatya, the janapada, the durga, the kosha and the danda.
Hence, a circle of states would comprise of 18 elements (3 primary kings plus five elements of each
which is equal to 15). This also applies to three other circles of states - ari (enemy of the vijigishu),
the madhyama (the indifferent king) and the udasina (the neutral king) kings forming the core of
each of the three circles. Finally, the mandala theory would consist of four primary circles of states,
12 kings, 60 elements of sovereignty and 72 elements of states. The 12 kingdoms are shown in the
figure below.
Key elements of Kautilya!s Realpolitik include:

1. Matsya Nyaya: This principle of #big fish eating the small fish” highlights the anarchic na-
ture of international relations, where a weak state risks being overpowered by stronger ones.
Kautilya argued that a state must prioritize strength and stability to avoid becoming prey.
2. Mandala Theory: Kautilya!s Mandala Theory remains one of his most influential contribu-
tions. It posits that immediate neighbors are natural adversaries, while states further away
are potential allies. This framework advocates for dynamic alliances and enmities based on
shifting power equations.
3. Sadgunya (Six-Fold Policy): Kautilya outlined six strategic approaches—peace, war, neu-
trality, alliance, double-dealing, and isolation—to manage interstate relations, advising
rulers to adopt these strategies based on context and opportunity.
4. Espionage and Economic Power: The Arthashastra emphasizes the importance of intelli-
gence gathering and economic strength as tools to safeguard and enhance state power.
Arthshastra : Its nature and scope
Arthshastra contains 32 paragraphical divisions and adhikaranas (sections). It is widely believed by
scholars to be the oldest text on public administration anywhere in the world. The entire work con-
tains 413 maxims and 6000 verses classified into 150 chapters. Of the 15 sections of the Arthshastra
only four are devoted exclusively to public administration: the first, second, fifth and sixth. Though
government machinery and various aspects of personnel administration were dealt with in these
chapters, the focus of attention was on the duties of the King, or, what Chanakya called Rajdharma.
The first section is concerned primarily with how the King must proceed if he is to choose compe-
tent and reliable ministers and set up effective internal and external security systems. While the sec-
ond adhikarana deals with political and economic regulatory agencies, the next two focus on family
regulations, criminal justice and norms of public service. The rest of the Arthshastra take up other
issues of state and sovereignty, international relations and war. In brief, the Arthshastra deals with
the political, social and economic management of the state. Kautilya seemed primarily interested in
underlying the principles of what he called Rajdharma: Kingship and administration in order to
keep empires unified and stable. The Arthshastra counsels that no means is beyond the scope of the
ruler to expand the territory, gain power and wealth of a nation. Kautilya may be said therefore to
have subordinated ethics to politics though he did not endorse principles that ran counter to the
Vedas on which the teachings of the Dharmashastras rested. The Arthshastra views the pursuit of
artha, as the primary goal of human existence. He indicates that arjana (creation) vardhana (in-
crease) and rakshana (protection) are three important aspects of the wealth of a nation. Though Kau-
tilya!s primary emphasis is on politics or the #science of government” (dandaniti), the importance of
this science is said to derive in considerable measure from the dependence on three other crucial
sciences, viz, philosophy, theology and economics. The last plays a major role in the generation of
wealth which is of crucial importance for the achievement of public welfare.

The Saptanga Theory

The state of nature is visualized in Arthshastra as a state of total anarchy, in which the governing
principle was matsya-nyaya, (the law of the fish), in which the bigger fish swallow the smaller fish.
To escape this situation, the people selected Manu, the son of Vivasvat (the Sun) to rule over them.
It was settled that the king would receive one sixth of the grain and one tenth of merchandise and
gold as his due to ensure the security and prosperity of his subjects. People agreed to pay taxes and
be ruled by one person in order that they might be able to enjoy basic securities and well being.
Therefore there is a hint of a social contract though Kautilya does not explicitly discuss it. By tak-
ing Manu (the descendant of God) as the ruler an element of divinity is attached to Kingship.
Monarchy and rule by a single individual is Kautilya!s favoured political norm. In his Saptanga
Theory, Kautilya enumerates seven prakritis or essential organs of the state. They are Swamin, Am-
atya, Janapad, Durga, Kosha, Danda and Mitra.

The Swamin
Kautilya gives extensive powers to the king, alongwith an extensive list of duties which he must
perform for the welfare of his people. Firstly, the king should preferably belong to the nobility, be a
native of the land and follow the teachings of the Shashtras. Emphasis is laid on the King!s training
in philosophy, economic sciences and political science, therefore expecting every King!s legitimacy
to rest on education and training. The King!s foremost duty is rakshana (protection) and palana
(nurture) of his subjects. He is also asked to ensure their Yoga-Kshema, a broad term implying the
idea of welfare, wellbeing, prosperity and happiness. The text asserts #In the happiness of the sub-
jects lies the happiness of the King and in what is beneficial to the subjects, lies his own benefit”.
The king was the head of civil, judicial and military administration. Appointments to the most im-
portant offices were to be made by him, though a rigorous method of training was also mandatory
for his civil and military personnel in order to be trained for their tasks. The King would lay down
the broad outlines of public policy and protect the social order based on the varnashramas. Though
the preservation of the Vedic social order was emphasized, governance was to be organized through
codes of law which were completely secularized. Religion was not meant to interfere in matters of
state and administration. 4 Among his other duties, great stress was laid on welfare administration,
such as building of bridges and irrigational works, providing pastures for livestock, opening of trade
routes and working of mines. The subjects were to be protected from natural calamities and anti so-
cial elements. It was the duty of the King to provide social security for the minors, the sick, the
aged and the unemployed. Together with the ideal of the welfare state, the Arthshastra maintains
that danda (the use of coercive power) is the symbol of sovereignty and is absolutely mandatory to
prevent anarchy in a state. However, he also advises the King to exercise danda with utmost re-
straint. Its improper use turns the ruled against the ruler, a situation of revolt may also develop if a
majority of the public are discontented (atusta) or disaffected (apacarita) and the army rises against
the King. The threat of a revolt is expected to serve as a warning to every ruler that in the last
analysis, the stability of his regime depends on the contentment of the subjects. Kautilya!s concep-
tion of law was essentially empirical and his conception of justice consisted in compliance with
what the law sanctioned on the ground that it promoted the common good. Some 300 offenses, to-
gether with the fines to be imposed create the basis for an elaborate system of criminal justice ad-
ministration in Arthshastra. By virtue of his power to guard the violation of the Dharmas, the king is
the fountain of justice. The king who administers justice in accordance with sacred law (dharma)
evidence (vyavahara) custom (samstha) and edicts of king (nyaya) will be able to conquer the whole
world. Kautilya was the first to emphasize the importance of secular law and recognized reasoning
as a source of state law.

The Amatya
The king rules through an elaborate administrative machinery. Amatya stands for the higher eche-
lons of administration who form an inner cabinet. The Prime Minister and the High Priest are the
most important ministers. In times of emergency, Kautilya asks the king to consult the members of a
wider council of ministers. The Inner Cabinet assists the king to appoint the ministers and the exec-
utive heads of departments. The important ministers in Arthshastra include the priest, the prime
minister, the commander of the Army, the Treasurer General and the Collector General.

The Janapada
This refers to the citizens settled in the territory of a nation. Kautilya points out that the territory of
the state should be devoid of rocky, saline, uneven and thorny tracts, be free from wild beasts and
abound in fertile lands, timber and elephant forests. The land should be watered by rivers and there
should be suitable places for establishing villages and cities and should be provided with all means
of communication. The people should be industrious and followers of dharma. The king has to pro-
tect both land and the people from external aggression and make all possible efforts to promote the
economic prosperity of the state.

The Durga
Durga is the fourth element of the state and it literally means a fortress. Kautilya has referred to
only four types of durgas, they are as under: audaka durga (surrounded by water), parvata durga
(made of rocks) dhanvana – durga (surrounded by desert) and Vana – durga (surrounded by forests).
The first two type of durgas were useful for protecting Janapada in case of emergency and the fol-
lowing two types provided shelters to the king in the event of any emergency. It has also been said
that on the frontiers of Janapada on all four sides the king should get such natural forts erected
which may be suitable particularly from the defense point of view.

The Kosha
This is the fifth most important element. All the activities of the state depend on finance and there-
fore foremost attention should be given to the treasury. The state treasury should be a permanent
source of revenue for the state. The king is advised to take one sixth of the produce and there must
be sufficient reserves of currency and valuable minerals like gold. In case of emergency, particular-
ly in times of war, the king was at liberty to collect heavy taxes from his subjects. The chief sources
of income of the state were the King!s share of the land produce, customs duties and the amount
collected as fines. The main tax payers were the farmers, traders and artisans.

The Danda
The King should have at his command a strong military force. The army ought to be well versed in
military arts, contended and therefore loyal and patriotic. The soldiers recruited in the army must
belong to one these seven categories
1. maula (recruited on hereditary grounds)
2. bhrtaka (paid)
3. shreni (well trained)
4. mitra (soldiers of friendly kings)
5. amitra (soldiers of conquered or hostile territories)
6. atavika (tribal soldiers) or
7. autsahika (leaderless and invaders)
The kshatriyas are best for military service and the senapati (commander in-chief) should generally
belong to this caste. Under him, there are two branches, one in charge of actual defense forces con-
trolling strategy and tactics on the field and the other in charge of supplies. A good fighting and loy-
al army is an invaluable asset to the King.

Mitra
The last element mentioned by Kautilya is mitra or allies and friends in need. Kautilya describes six
type of friends i) traditional ii) permanent iii) those who could exercise restraint upon themselves
iv) not of hostile attitude v) endowed with courage and ability to offer worthy advice and vi) those
who could help in times of need. A friend (inside or outside the state) equipped with all these quali-
ties was indeed a real friend. It was indispensable for a king to make friends and enjoy the confi-
dence of allies in order to achieve the goal of a prosperous state. Each of these seven components
are organically linked. The king however remains the most important of all the prakritis.
Kautilya on Justice
Kautilya believed that for the prosperity of a state, the state must be devoid of internal conflict and
the King should be in control of the state. To maintain this internal peace he believed in a just and
realistic rule of law. His definition of a state was one which had power and wealth and hence he put
property rights and protection of wealth as one of the important themes in his jurisprudence. In fact
he advocated that one could get rid of corporeal punishment by paying off fines. Kautilya also at-
taches great importance to human rights on how the invaded ruler and his ministers should be treat-
ed. He shows a deep understanding of criminal justice and war justice. Surprisingly, for a harsh and
realist man like Kautilya he shows mercy towards the people defeated in a war and recommends
humanity and justice towards them. He thinks that this important to preserve the mandala structure
of war and peace. He advocates that defeated king shall be treated with respect and he should be
made an ally. He thinks that they key people advising the defeated king should be eliminated
through a silent war. Kautilya believes that law should be in the hands of the King and punishments
need to be awarded to those who are guilty so that King can protect himself from the social unrest
and unhappiness. He believes that punishment is a means to an end and it needs to prevent the
commission of the crime. Kautilya also was a reformer where he though punishments could reform
a person and hence a society. His devotion to social structure was so strong that he thinks that
Brahmins11 need to be punished less by only exiling him and not torture him. This unequal social
justice was in itself injustice but so was his belief. He attaches great importance to dandaniti 12
which includes, protecting property, acquiring property, augmenting them and distributing them. He
thinks that justice is an important constituent of sovereignty and it needs to be preserved by the
State and the ultimate responsibility lies with the King. Kautilya!s view on crime and justice is very
elaborate and goes on to differentiate between various crimes. He advocates different punishments
depending if they were crimes committed while in public office, civil crimes, sexual crimes, reli-
gious crimes etc. This shows that he had great grasp to customize the rule of law depending both on
the offence and the structure of the society. He believed that the structure and peace is preserved in
a society by effective jurisprudence. In today!s context some of his ideas might be irrelevant but it
shows that the ancient Hindu jurisprudence was codified and actually more resembled the common
law. Kautilya!s understanding of justice, war, diplomacy and human rights makes him unique in his
times. In ancient India there is no one comparable who could have stood the test for justice being a
tool for statescraft. Kautilya believed that while it is as much important for the state to wage a war
and conquer, it is also important to maintain law and order within the state in order to make it more
powerful.
 Examples from the Arthashastra

The Arthashastra details methods to consolidate internal stability and expand territorial influence.
Kautilya advocated for a balance of diplomacy, alliances, and war, stressing that a ruler must always
act in the state's best interest. For instance, he proposed using espionage not only to gather informa-
tion but also to destabilize adversaries. Additionally, he underscored the significance of a strong
economy as a foundation for military and diplomatic strength.

Relevance in Modern Times

Though rooted in ancient India, Kautilya!s philosophy continues to resonate in contemporary

geopolitics, particularly in situations where pragmatism outweighs ideology. His insights into power
dynamics and strategic alliances remain timeless. Kautilya!s philosophy, as outlined in the
Arthashastra, remains highly relevant in modern times due to its pragmatic and adaptable approach
to governance, diplomacy, and statecraft.

1. Realpolitik in Diplomacy: Kautilya!s emphasis on prioritizing national interest and power

dynamics is mirrored in India!s foreign policy strategies, such as its balanced approach to
relations with the U.S., Russia, and China. Pragmatic decision-making over ideological
rigidity re ects his teachings.

2. Strategic Autonomy: India!s emphasis on self-reliance, such as the "Make in India" initia-
tive, resonates with Kautilya!s advocacy for economic strength and reducing dependency on
external powers.

3. Mandala Theory in Geopolitics: The theory's focus on managing adversaries and alliances
can be seen in India!s engagements in the Indo-Pacific region, strategic partnerships like the
Quad, and its nuanced stance on neighboring countries like Pakistan and China.

4. Soft Power Diplomacy: India!s cultural outreach, including yoga diplomacy and initiatives
like Vaccine Maitri, aligns with Kautilya!s idea of influencing through non-coercive means.

5. Espionage and Security: Modern counterterrorism strategies and intelligence operations

reflect Kautilya!s emphasis on internal stability and vigilance.

In essence, Kautilya!s focus on pragmatism, strategic foresight, and adaptability continues to guide
India!s navigation of complex global and domestic challenges, making his philosophy timeless and
influential.

4o
fl
COMPARING KAUTILYA

Having looked at Kautilya!s approach to war, diplomacy and ethics, it is but important to compare
him with Plato and Machiavelli. I chose them because Plato was born before Kautilya and has been
considered as the greatest philosopher of all times. His view on state, war and society could have
been different because of the geographic origins of these two great minds. I also chose Machiavelli
because he is in recent history and also has written extraordinarily on statescraft and both Kautilya
and Machiavelli served a king.

Kautilya and Plato

Kautilya and Plato have many similarities in terms of social structure, belief in autocracy, emphasis
on virtues of honesty and favoring the elitist in the society. Kautilya endorsed caste structure and
approved of lower caste doing menial jobs while Plato strongly favored slavery. But both men never
discuss slavery in detail nor do they justify it as an institution. Plato and Kautilya both thought the
state should be governed by the learned and elites while despising the idea of democracy. They
thought democracy would result in anarchy. Plato and Kautilya liked the idea of a military class and
thought that the rulers should come from that sect of the society. In addition they believed in hon-
esty and just behavior by the kings towards their subjects as Kautilya and so did Plato believe in the
state of happiness for the Nation. The important difference comes between these two men come
their support for different parts of the society. While Kautilya favored the Brahmins or the priests to
make the law and policy he also favored the warriors to be the rulers. In case of Plato, he favored
the aristocrats to both rule and act as the intellect for the society. In addition Plato was a philosopher
and not a politician, while Kautilya was a seasoned politician with views on philosophy. This be-
comes important because Kautilya has been time and again reproached for being harsh and wicked
in his treatise but I attribute it to his being extreme side of realism having been a politician. The
context in which Plato lived was a group of small states with Athens only as the large empire. In the
case of Kautilya, he was part of a large state with centralized bureaucracy and an expanding empire.
The other key difference between them was the construction of the state. Plato believed in unity and
common good central to the state, while Kautilya thought military to be the focus of the state and a
powerful state can be created only by a strong military. In terms of diplomacy, Plato has very little
contribution towards foreign policy and infact thought foreign trade was a negative influence on the
state. In contrast, Kautilya has thought about diplomacy and foreign policy elaborately. Similarly
these two men differ on their economic policy making where Plato thinks about the State as a
provider of rule of law, Kautilya extracts value from the citizens through taxes and redistributes
wealth. Overall I would say that Plato operated in a less complicated environment and his thought
process laid the foundation for future European statesman and politicians. In the case of Kautilya he
was part of a complicated web and enmeshed in politics hence his treatise is less philosophical and
scarcely idealist

. Kautilya and Machiavelli

Kautilya!s work comes from his myths and beliefs where as Machiavelli mainly writes based on his
experiences and examples from history. One of benefits of Kautilya!s work is that this imagination
has given his work a robust structure and can last over a period of time. In addition Machiavelli!s
work can be considered as one of the possible subsets of Kautilya!s statecraft. The weakness of
Kautilya!s work is that it is not empirical and is not time tested. Yes, some of his writings were used
by his King Maurya but they were denounced by King Ashoka as wicked and cunning. In addition
the language that Machiavelli uses is very learned while Kautilya uses terse statements which make
the point. Though this might look to be more an issue of education and expression, I think language
is a representation of diplomacy and suaveness. In general Kautilya has been criticized for being
harsh and crude in dealing with spies and espionage and this language differential only vouches for
it even more. In my opinion, Machiavelli was a shrewd man and did not want to explicitly write
down that was implicitly known. Machiavelli and Kautilya both believe in one state and endorse
imperialism of their emperors in their times. Both these men advocate flexibility and treachery in
war. They understand the need for diplomacy but do not dissuade their kings to go to war. They
both believe that the populace or the society is to be respected and different traditions need to be
tolerated to bring stability within the state. One interesting point here is that it somehow looks like
both these men thought that there was a trade-off between internal stability and external war con-
quests. Also they believe that the religion should serve the state but the difference is that while
Machiavelli seems to sometime condemn the religion, Kautilya eschews the religion and believes in
the given social and religious structure. Machiavelli and Kautilya both managed to blur the distinc-
tion between utility and morality. Who was more immoral when it came to war is debatable but they
were both realists guided not by religion but by their belief in the concept of state and craft needed
to run a state. This was because they were able to clearly distinguish the morals which governed the
state and the morals that governed the individual. They both longed for a world order where their
state was center, sought social and economic justice and a world order. The distinction only occurs
in the world order where Kautilya believes that the world social order should be as per the caste
system in India far fetched from Machiavelli!s modern world order. The important question remains
as why didn!t Machiavelli bother to explain the different tactics of sly war fare or diplomacy as
written by Kautilya. It looks like Machiavelli!s moderating force came from his desire for a republi-
can virtue unlike Kautilya who had unabashed liking for political realism. The key learning from
Plato, Kautilya and Machiavelli is that all believed in a world order, justice and peace17. They did
excel on understanding ethics of war and peace and despite different times in history their ideolo-
gies on internal v. external relations of a state were not very different.Comparing Principles of the
Arthashastra to India!s Foreign Policy Strategies

Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)

India!s leadership in the Non-Aligned Movement during the Cold War exemplifies the application
of Kautilyan principles in modern diplomacy. NAM allowed India to maintain strategic autonomy,
avoiding alignment with either the U.S. or the Soviet Union while maximizing benefits from both
blocs. This approach aligns with Kautilya!s Mandala Theory, which advocates for flexible alliances
to safeguard sovereignty and promote national interest.

NAM also reflects the Arthashastra!s emphasis on neutrality as a strategic tool. By positioning itself
as a leader of the developing world, India leveraged its influence to shape global discourse while
avoiding direct entanglement in the ideological conflicts of the Cold War era.

Geopolitical Decisions Involving China and Pakistan

India!s relationships with China and Pakistan provide contemporary examples of Realpolitik in ac-
tion.

1. China:

$ The Arthashastra!s advice to anticipate threats from powerful neighbors aligns with
India!s cautious approach to China. Whether it is the border standoff in Ladakh or
countering China!s Belt and Road Initiative through initiatives like the Quad (India,
the U.S., Japan, and Australia), India has adopted strategies that reflect Kautilya!s
emphasis on preparedness and strategic alliances.
$ Economic policies such as "Atmanirbhar Bharat" (Self-Reliant India) also resonate
with Kautilya!s emphasis on economic strength as a foundation for security.
2. Pakistan:

$ India!s dual approach of diplomatic engagement and military action mirrors the
Arthashastra!s advice to use both peace and war as tools of statecraft. The Balakot
airstrikes, for instance, demonstrated India!s willingness to take decisive military ac-
tion when provoked, while continuing to pursue broader peace initiatives.
$ Intelligence and counter-terrorism efforts highlight the relevance of Kautilya!s focus
on espionage and internal security.
Economic Diplomacy and Regional Alliances

India!s active participation in organizations like BRICS, G20, and the Indian Ocean Rim Associa-
tion reflects the Arthashastra!s emphasis on regional and global cooperation to advance economic
and strategic interests. Additionally, India!s development partnerships in Africa and Southeast Asia
showcase its use of economic diplomacy to strengthen influence and build alliances.

Kautilya!s Emphasis on Pragmatism and Statecraft in Global Diplomacy

Principles of Pragmatism

India!s foreign policy consistently reflects pragmatic decision-making. Whether navigating its rela-
tionships with the U.S. and Russia or addressing global challenges such as climate change, India
has demonstrated an ability to prioritize national interests while balancing competing pressures.

Examples include:

• Vaccine Diplomacy: India!s Vaccine Maitri initiative during the COVID-19 pandemic not
only addressed global health needs but also reinforced its soft power and strategic partner-
ships.
• Balanced Stance on Russia-Ukraine Conflict: India!s decision to abstain from voting
against Russia at the United Nations reflects a careful balancing act, prioritizing energy se-
curity and long-standing defense ties.
•
• Statecraft in the 21st Century
Modern statecraft, as practiced by India, continues to draw from Kautilyan principles:

• Espionage and Intelligence: Organizations like RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) play a
crucial role in gathering intelligence and safeguarding national security, akin to the
Arthashastra!s emphasis on a robust spy network.
• Strategic Autonomy in Defense: Initiatives like #Make in India” in the defense sector echo
Kautilya!s focus on economic self-reliance as a pillar of state power.
• Soft Power Diplomacy: India!s promotion of yoga, Ayurveda, and cultural diplomacy aligns
with the Arthashastra!s emphasis on influencing others through non-coercive means.

Continued Relevance of the Arthashastra

The principles of the Arthashastra provide a philosophical foundation for India!s foreign policy,
offering timeless insights into power dynamics and statecraft. As India aspires to play a larger role
in global governance, these principles continue to guide its strategies for achieving economic
growth, regional stability, and global influence.

Conclusion

Kautilya!s Arthashastra is not merely an ancient text but a timeless guide to governance and diplo-
macy. Its emphasis on Realpolitik, strategic alliances, and pragmatic decision-making has profound-
ly influenced India!s approach to foreign policy. From the Non-Aligned Movement to contemporary
geopolitics involving China and Pakistan, Kautilyan principles are evident in India!s strategies to
safeguard its sovereignty and promote its national interest.

In an increasingly complex and multipolar world, the relevance of Kautilya!s teachings has only
grown, providing India with a philosophical and strategic framework to navigate global challenges.
By blending ancient wisdom with modern pragmatism, India continues to craft a foreign policy that
is both effective and uniquely its own.

References

1. Kangle, R. P. (1965). The Kautiliya Arthashastra. Part I: Text and translation. University of
Bombay.
2. Boesche, R. (2003). Kautilya's Arthashastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India. The
Journal of Military History, 67(1), 9-37.
3. Dixit, J. N. (2002). India's Foreign Policy and Its Neighbours. Gyan Publishing House.
4. Sharma, R. S. (2017). Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India. Motilal
Banarsidass Publishers.
5. Baru, S. (2020). India and the World: Essays on Geoeconomics and Foreign Policy. Penguin
Random House.
6. Pant, H. V., & Joshi, Y. (2019). The US Pivot and Indian Foreign Policy: Asia!s Evolving
Balance of Power. Palgrave Macmillan.
7. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. (n.d.). Official documents and speeches.