Introduction

The German sociologist Max Weber famously declares in his lecture 'Politics as a vocation',
"Truly radical Machiavellism in the popular sense of that word, is classically expressed in
Indian literature in the Arthashastra of Kautilya: compared to it, Machiavelli's The Prince is
harmless." (W.G.Runciman & Mathews, 2012).Kautilya's Arthashastra, a treatise on state and
governance ,though discovered only a little longer than a century ago has been identified as
one of the most elaborate and descriptive accounts of capturing ,maintaining and advancing
power. Written around 325 B.C and discovered and published by Shyama Shastri in 1909,the
Arthashastra contains 15 parts,180 divisions,150 chapters and around 6000 shlokas .It was
written by Kautilya,who was the chief adviser to the Indian King Chandragupta Maurya(317-
293BCE).Kautilya or Chanakya as he is known, was the master of the strategy that
Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Mauryan empire in India ,employed to overthrow
the Nanda dynasty and unified almost the entire Indian subcontinent under his reign. (Thapar,
1978).

Multiple scholars have attempted to interpret the literal meaning of the text:'Arthashastra'.1
Kautilya, through this work depicts a constant belief in science and regularised methods and
projects it as a science that will help the follower to conquer the world. In terms of contents,
'Arthashastra' or the science of politics is a manual to the conduct of
administration,governance,personal etiquette of the king, concepts of social ordering,inter-
state relations,espionage,criminology,intelligence and even concepts on sociology,
engineering etc.

Beyond the conception of various organs that provide leverage and sustenance to the
kingdom, Arthashastra provides a lot of importance2 to the concept of the maintenance of
power and its precondition for the survival of the kingdom. Anyone following his science is
promised "material gain, spiritual good and pleasures". (Boesche, 2003).However,to
understand the rationale behind the culture of potent strategic thinking depicted by Kautilya,
it is necessary to understand the world that he positions himself in which enables this gradient
of generalisation and further, understand his "Idea of the international" where the other
subjects that he envisions to be at the receiving ends of these extreme measures are
interacting with his kingdom.

Kautilya's realm of the International

Written in the 3rd century B.C.E,conceptions of nationality and statehood are variant from
the present connotations of these concepts. Though Kautilya wasn't a proponent of the theory
of the divine origin of the states/kingdoms, there was a considerable allocation of respect and
1
Translated literally,though it spells out as the science of wealth,R.P Kangle lays it down as the 'science of
politics',A.L Basham likes to see it through the lens of 'a treatise on polity ' (Basham)while Kosambi sees an
economic angle to the work and christens it the 'science of material gain' (Kosambi).
2
The requirement of power to control not only the outside behaviour, but the psyche of enemy states functions
as a prominent concept in the treatise. The ideas that Kautilya pushes forth in his treatise are requisite for
survival and subsequently, domination, in the world conceived by Kautilya
piety to the sovereign and the kingdom. The political reality of the time was competing
kingdoms governed by the 'Rajan' or the sovereign with set limits of territorial extent and
thriving contacts between each other through systems of trade,commerce,ties of matrimony
and aggression between the ruling families. Standing in the construct of the kingdom,
Kautilya conceptualises the international.

Kautilya harps on the duty of the Chakravartin3 (Kautilya, 1905) to conquer the world. The
conception of the world however is quite different from contemporary understanding. World
conquest is spelt out as the complete control over the expanse from the "himavat and the sea,
one thousand yojanas in extent across." (Boesche, 2003, p. 17). The Chakravartin,or the
"world emperor" wasn't seen as the master of the realms beyond India's borders. Culture was
seen as the distinguishing factor that drove a wedge between the 'international' that was
deemed to be captured by the the Emperor, and the land of the Mlecchas4 which was
completely different from Indian culture. Hence, the areas beyond the capital of the emperor
in this case Pataliputra5 and within the areas that shone with Indian culture were seen as areas
of interest for the conceptualisation of the international in Kautilya's literature6. There also
seems to be a literal reading into the title of the Chakravartin where chakra translates to
wheel. It is suggestive of the depiction of the Chakravartin as the ruler capable of having
under his control, all territories to which the wheels of his chariot could roll unopposed and
unobstructed. (Boesche, 2003) This conception of international is different from the
Westphalian idea.

Kautilya's theory of the international

"Prepare for war and plan to conquer"

Kautilyan thought on statecraft is seen as a classic example of the realist school of political
thinking. As mentioned at the beginning, the Arthashastra seems to dwarf Machiavelli's 'The
Prince' which is largely seen as a classic in realist literature. Kautilya sees the international
as a sphere of continuous competition, an arena where doctrine of might is right is the only
avenue for survival. The world is envisioned as a sphere of anarchy resulting in a sphere of
"continuously warring states" (Sarkar, 1919, p. 408)where matsya nyaya7 is seen as the
accepted practise. Each country is in the pursuit of the best of its own interests and almost
always at the cost of contending states. Kautilya makes a case for a world sovereign to bring
into this anarchy, a system of order and balanced existence, drawing parallels with the order
that is achieved in the domestic sphere by the presence of a dandadharabhave8 who uses
'danda' or punishment to ensure that the weak aren't unduly impacted by the overreach of the

3
Emperor
4
Barbarian
5
Capital of the Mauryan empire under Chandragupta Maurya
6
There are also however conflicting claims about the emperor's domain being the whole world (Modelski,
1964), through an expansion to four quarters, but dominant reinforcement happens to the idea of the area south
of the Himalayas.
7
A doctrine of might is right where the bigger fish swallows the smaller fish in a display of might in a system of
anarchy.
8
A magistrate
strong. (Kautilya, 1905).Thus the concept of Matsya nyaya is used both at the domestic and
the international level to depict the "might is right" philosophy.

The world order of a realm filled with such aggressive pursuits of self interest thus can be
taken control of only by amassing power ,through a practise of offensive realism, according
to Kautilya. The idea is that, to ensure survival, the only fool-proof plan of a kingdom is to
amass so much of power that you attain a hegemonic status and then dictate the terms of the
world order, since no other entity can be trusted with your security, neither ally nor foe. In the
pursuit for the hegemony or world conquest, there seems to be little reference to the concept
of morality. Strategy overrides conditions of morality where all means are justified for this
end. The only morality of consequence is the wellbeing of one's own kingdom and people.
Religious principles, ethics and compassion aren't of any relevance unless they ensure a
military upper hand, in the cold hearted pursuit for survival through victory. (Boesche, 2003,
p. 29).Instead of being a normative and prescriptive account of political philosophy, the
Arthashastra gives a realistic picture of 'what is' and gives measures to deal with the situation
at hand. This preponderance given to ends over means and the sidestepping of morality is
visible in many of the aspects of statecraft and conduct of international relations ranging from
the relations that an emperor should formulate with an ally, the subscription and violation of
treaties that he has entered into, but no more fits into the interests of the state he governs.

Many instruments that are marks of the modern civilised polities are given conditional
compliance ,based on calculations of realpolitik.Treaties9 for instance ,according to
Kautilya's beliefs, should be struck and abided to as long as both powers are equal. The use
of women to seduce subvert and start quarrels with enemies(vishakanyas) and the usage of
spies to not only gather enemy secrets and spread lies and deceit,but also to assassinate
envoys and persons of importance through subversive tactics have been advocated by
Chanakya extensively in almost a manual like fashion. The laws of Manu10, which were
authoritative normative doctrinal structures which go against the usage of poison and the
usage of flammable weapons haven't been paid heed to by Kautilya. (Boesche, 2003, p.
27)Though these tactics may not appear to be the attributes of a righteous king, Kautilya sees
these as justified in the pursuit of the well being of the state. Though Kautilya disregards the
moral principles that go into invasion, he does lay down a mechanism which defines friendly
and adversarial relations between states ,based on calculations of balance of power and an
analysis of geopolitical arithmetic.

The doctrine of the Mandala

Translated roughly to mean "the circle of states", the Mandala theory is a doctrine that
directed foreign policy and functioned as a mechanism to determine potential adversaries and
allies. Standing within the precepts that states behave in the pursuit of furthering their best
interests, Kautilya derives that some of their interests might prove to be coinciding and hence
9
The moment the treaty kingdom becomes weaker ,and hence of no benefit ,the treaty is to be violated. In this,
he conveys that the most dangerous situation would be to enter into a treaty with a stronger state and hope for its
compliance and security. According to him, this power imbalance is a problematic structure and can hence never
with endowed with trust. (Boesche, 2003, p. 28)
10
A renowned authority of Hindu law
yield better results if pursued collectively. The theory propounds that the 'Vijigishu' or the
ambitious king is situated at the centre of the circle and is in constant opposition with the 'ari'
or the king/kings situated immediately next to his kingdom. Replicating this aggression
amongst immediate neighbours, the king beyond the 'ari' is found to be his enemy and
thereby the potential ally(mitra) of the Vijigishu.

The immediate neighbour of the mitra, is found to be the ally of the ari and hence an enemy
of the Vijigishu.This progression is replicated at the rear end of the Vijigishu as well. A
numbering centred at the Vijigishu will yield the even number states as potential/actual
enemies and the odd numbered ones potential/actual allies.

Beyond these engaged players, Kautilya also talks of the presence of the 'madhyama' or the
mediatory king, who is equidistant from both and is capable of allying or completely
opposing both . The other neutral state in the picture is the 'udasina' or the detached king,
away from the realm of contention, but extremely powerful. (Modelski, 1964, p. 554)All
these four types of kings are embodiments of centres of power and their manipulation and
interplay are seen as manifestation of balance of power structures in action by Kautilya.

This "checkerboard model" (Modelski, 1964) is a viable alternative11 for the bloc model in
vogue since the cold war years .The geographical placement of a kingdom thus determined
the Vijigishu's conduct with it. Kautilya talks of four upayas or policy directives, namely
Sama(conciliation),Dana(gift),Danda(punishment),Bheda(dissension) as methods used to
interact with different kingdoms in the Mandala. These were to act as stimuli to further the
Vijigishu's pursuit of victory. (Modelski, 1964, p. 554).

The Mandala theory was key to Kautilya's conceptualising the international and devising a
method for creating some form of order in the international society. It enabled a process of
labelling and devising plans of interactions with respect to the respective players. The order
that Kautilya seeks to construct, is one in which the superiority of the Vijigishu is
acknowledged by the other princes. This assurance is the only world order worth justifying
by methods of diplomacy, which "was a subtle act of war, (Boesche, 2003, p. 14) and warfare
at end, drawn out as a result of cold calculations of enemies and allies. Morality remained
eluded in Arthashastra, with even considerations of pardoning captured princes and leaving a
front open for losing soldiers to escape ,based on calculations of realpolitik,which would
fetch the Vijigishu goodwill in the long run.

Contemporary relevance and applicability of the Arthashastra

There have been multiple attempts at tracing links with current strategies in the policy
making circles with the political thought propounded by Kautilya. Though many historians
such as Romila Thapar have argued that the space and time that the Arthashastra was set in is

11
. It provides an alternative to the requirement of two major powers necessarily forming a bipolar
confrontational front and furthers the idea of multiple centres by a focus on the new element of geography. The
madhyama and udasina kings, acting as neutral elements bring into the picture ,the concept of buffer states,
which may play significant roles in altering the power structure when a major player chooses to ally with or
attack them.
completely a different scenario from the Westphalian model of today (Leibzig, 2013),the fact
that Arthashastra is grounded in hard based realist considerations and realism espousing the
survival of the state as the chief concern makes it a text that is unlikely to become irrelevant.
Though argued that policymaking, in the Indian context is based on ad-hoc considerations
,nothing suggests the importance of Kautilya as being the constant undercurrent in the
background, than a considerable amount of thought devoted to the Arthashastra in Jawaharlal
Nehru's "The discovery of India" which is seen as his attempts to contain the composite
history and spirit of India with his dreams for the newly independent India. Other than
mentioning Kautilya in the context of Chandragupta Maurya's reign, Nehru also has waxed
eloquent about his diktats on statehood ,morality and war12. (Nehru, 2004).

As Clausewitz or Admiral Mahan is rarely mentioned in the American context, in the Indian
political strategic discourse, Kautilya is rarely explicitly mentioned, but his thoughts are
almost always present. The former NSA Shiv Shankar Menon has mentioned (Kautilyan
Approach useful in multipolar world:Shiv Shankar Menon, 2014) on the value of the
Arthashastra in the sense that it itself is a product of centuries of evolved strategic thinking.
Mentioning a slew of authors on strategies, this document of political strategy thus has the
potential to function as a new direction of discourse in Indian strategic thinking.

However, as mentioned earlier, the latent presence of Kautilyan thought in Indian foreign
policy and South Asia in general cannot be ruled out. His doctrine of motivation13 is still used
to achieve political objectives by states in the region and elsewhere. Pakistani strategic
thinkers14 generally seem to be suspicious of Indian strategists adopting the principles of
Arthashastra in its foreign policy doctrine, especially after the Narendra Modi government's
rise to power. The six fold policy of Chanakya, or sadhgunya (Modelski, 1964) can be
demonstrated successfully by an analysis of India's strategic movements in the
neighbourhood.

The first policy being accommodation or Sandhi:The Arthashastra espouses making of peace
by a ruler with another ,only if he finds himself in decline compared to him. In the Indian
context, after the defeat that it suffered with China in 1962,India had to make peace and steer
its policies in a non aggressive route with respect to China.
In dealing with an inferior power, Hostility or Vigraha and attack or Yana are the tactics that
are employed. Vigraha being a policy of active competition in a cold war like manner which
12
Nehru, in his address on the destiny of Asia conference held on 3rd may 1950 cites Kautilya from the play
'Mudrarakshasa' the following way:

"Victory is not the objective. War is fought to remove an obstruction, which comes in the way of your gaining an
objective. If by victory you mean the removal of your obstruction, well and good. If victory itself becomes an
objective, then you have forgotten your real objective. You have gone astray and therefore it is the end of it. You
have gone off, the objective has gone somewhere else and new problems face you. That is a very wise message
indeed"
(Leibzig, 2013)
This thought regarding using war as a recourse only for achieving objectives has been more or less been
enshrined in the strategic thought in India
13
Saam,Daam,Dand,Bhed : Reasoning and coaxing, the delivery of gifts and aid to win over aides, the use of
punishment to send strong messages and use of subversive tactics to disintegrate enemy unity
14
Strategic thinkers such as Masood Ur Rahman Khattak (Khattak, 2011) and Javid Hussain (Hussain,
2015),post Mumbai terror attacks have written articles projecting India's use of Arthashastra to decide strategic
moves vis- a- vis Pakistan
doesn't involve the active mobilisation of troupes. The infrastructure build-up across borders
with China, competitive naming of ballistic missiles as 'prithvi','ghauri' in the case of Pakistan
and India's usage of the cold start doctrine are examples of the Vigraha doctrine at work.Yana
or armed mobilisation have been demonstrated a total of four times in the case of Pakistan.
Beyond direct methods at warfare, indirect subversive attempts at destabilising the enemy as
advocated by Kautilya have also been depicted by Indian activities in clandestinely
supporting rebel groups in Baluchistan and Bangladesh.

The Arthashastra also provides the doctrine of Asana or indifference, when dealing with
equal powers in some respect. This policy is arrived at when the ruler realises that both him
and his adversary do not have enough capacity to decimate each other. The policy of nuclear
deterrence followed worldwide is the best example of this policy in action. India's decisions
in 2001 following Kargil and in 2008 following Mumbai terror attacks, depict the Asana
policy at work.

Another policy resorted from a position of weakness is the policy of Samsraya or protection.
It refers to the formation of alliances by a ruler when threatened by a milieu of powers. The
alliance system is an age old concept and India's seeking of assistance from Russia during the
1971 war against Pakistan backed by the U.S is a classic example of the samsraya policy. In
the present day, the Samsraya concept is fortified in Indian foreign policy by India's intimacy
with the U.S in defining common enemies and guided by common interests of democracy.

Finally, India also displays Dwaidhibhava or double policy which involves an active build-up
of aggression or Yana with one power while practising sandhi,with another. Indian attempts
at building close ties with China by methods of inviting FDI and infrastructural development
domestically to fortify its capacities ,despite the existence of a tense policy with respect to
Pakistan depict the Dwaidhibhava at work. This policy depicts that state interests matter
much more than alliance considerations when it comes to realpolitik.

These six policies depict the latent use of the Arthashastra in Indian strategic thinking circles.
More importantly, the Mandala theory ,which is one of the most relevant concepts in
Kautilyan thought, can be found to be indicative of the realities in India's neighbourhood. If
the Vijigishu were to be placed in India, the states immediately sharing borders, both Pakistan
and China are found to depict characteristics of the ari, given the constant skirmishes over
questions of the border. Reinforcing the concept of the mitra in the mandala,stand
Afghanistan and Iran, which share borders with Pakistan, forming their ari and hence the
Mitra/ally of the Vijigishu. Afghanistan has been traditionally an ally of India post the
Taliban era and has depended on India for infrastructure and military capacity building and
denounces many activities of Pakistan with respect to the support of terror. Iran as well, has
been India's long term ally, in the sense that historical ties bind India and Iran, and India has
many interests in terms of fuel in Tehran, coupled with the natural cold shoulder that the Shia
Iran gives to predominantly Sunni Pakistan.

Sri Lanka ,India's maritime neighbour fits the status of the Madhyama king well, being in the
realm held by India and in the vicinity of China, with alliances formed between both on the
basis of considerations of realpolitik. Colombo did look onto reconstruction and capacity
building post its ethnic conflict years, but has also been a prominent ally of China, providing
harbouring facilities to Chinese warships and collective development projects such as the
Hambantota15 port.

Lastly, the United States fits the role adorned by the Udasina or the dispassionate one(this
udasina is very passionate about the region though). The Vijigishu and the Ari make attempts
at coaxing and winning over to their side and seek the help of the udasina who sits
dispassionately and at a considerable distance outside the Mandala. This stands true in the
case of defence deals, strategic exercises and support for state specific policies at the
international fora.

The Mandala theory has thus been able to stand its ground in terms of relevance even to the
present day, given its basis being built upon geopolitical calculations.

Conclusion

The theory of International depicted in the Arthashastra has thus been established as one that
transcends time and proves relevant across vastly different societies and systems of
government. This is because of the rooting of Kautilyan ideals in the fundamental nature of
man and his instinct to survive and because of his building up of theory based on multiple
accounts of earlier strategists, about whom we have limited information. A few scholars have
questioned the relevance of the harsh actions advocated by Kautilya in the present day. Given
the realist worldview that Kautilya takes, the inept and cruel order of the Nanda kings and
anarchy inside the kingdom, is a reality even in today's nation state. The extreme steps that
Kautilya advocates are only steps towards constant vigilance that will ensure the survival of
the state.

Kautilya continues to live on in the world of Indian strategy, given that the diplomatic district
16
in New Delhi is named after him, a slew of books on business strategy17 ascribing his name
to a stream of thought, and think tanks18 which engage in political strategising and prediction
adopting his name to betray their character. Kautilyan ethos is one that is popularly
subscribing to a shrewd, calculative method of strategising. Policy makers in India are slowly
realising the importance of this indigenous strategist to India's policy making circles, with
prominent think tanks organising avenues for discussion of the relevance Kautilya to current
day foreign policy formulation and the call for academic curricula to involve the study of
sections of the Arthashastra in higher educational institutions. A more engaged, systematic
assessment and inclusion of Kautilyan thinking and this indigenous treatise of statecraft in
policy making is sure to yield considerable returns to India's strategic front, which seems to
be at the back foot in contemporary times.

15
Important port in Sri Lanka
16
Chanakyapuri
17
The Corporate Chanakya: Successful Management the Chanakya Way by R. Pillai (2011).
18
Today's Chanakya
Bibliography
1.Basham, A. L. The Wonder that was India.

2.Boesche, R. (2003). Kautilya's Arthashastra on war and diplomacy in ancient India. Journal of
Military history , 16.

3.Hussain, J. (2015, march 17). Kautilya's arthashastra and Pakistan. Retrieved november 2, 2016,
from The nation: http://nation.com.pk/columns/17-Mar-2015/kautilya-s-arthashastra-and-pakistan

4.Kautilya. (1905). Arthashastra. (R.Shamasastry, Trans.)

5.Kautilyan Approach useful in multipolar world:Shiv Shankar Menon. (2014, april 9). Retrieved 10
28, 2016, from idsa:
http://www.idsa.in/pressrelease/KautilyanApproachUsefulinMultiShivshankarMenon

6.Khattak, M. U. (2011, march 29). Indian Strategic thinking: A reflection of Kautilya's six fold policy-
Analysis. Retrieved november 2, 2016, from Eurasia Review:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/29032011-indian-strategic-thinking-a-reflection-of-kautilyas-six-
fold-policy-analysis/

7.Kosambi. Culture and Civilization of ancient India.

8.Leibzig, M. (2013). Kautilya's relevance for India today. Sage Publication , 106.

9.Modelski, G. (1964). Kautilya:Foreign Policy and International System in the Ancient Hindu World.
APSA , 549-560.

10.Nehru, J. (2004). The Discovery of India. Gurgaon: Penguin books india .

11.Sarkar, B. K. (1919). Hindu theory of International Relations. American Political Science Review ,
400-414.

12.Thapar, R. (1978). Ancient Indian social history. New Delhi: Orient Longman.

13.W.G.Runciman, & Mathews, E. (2012). Weber:Selections in translations. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.