democratic perspectives to institute a conservative orthodoxy.

Realism’s rise
represented the eclipse of the Enlightenment within political science.

B. Indian Tradition: Kautilya’s Realpolitik

Hindu Theory of International Relations by Benoy Kumar
Sarkar: india relational theory
This essay examines the Hindu theory of international relations as outlined in
Benoy Kumar Sarkar’s article “Hindu Theory of International Relations.” Sarkar
analyzes concepts from ancient Hindu political philosophy regarding the relations
between states, exploring the ideas of sovereignty, the balance of power, and
universal peace.
The Doctrine of Mandala (Sphere of Influence)
Sarkar first examines the Hindu conception of external sovereignty, which holds
that true sovereignty requires independence not just within a state but in relation to
other states. This underlies the doctrine of mandala, referring to a state’s sphere of
influence and relations with other states.
The doctrine assumes an inherent drive for conquest and expansion (vijigeesoo) in
rulers. Hindu thinkers saw this as rooted in human nature, with states naturally
seeking to expand their territory and power. This produces inevitable rivalry and
conflict between states.
To maximize power, states must skillfully manage relations with different
categories of states:
- The enemy (ari): states on the borders, seen as the chief threat
- The mediator (madhyama): who can help or resist the aspirant and enemy
- The neutral (udaseena): distant but powerful states
These four states constitute the smallest unit of international relations. The aspirant
state seeks to draw allies from among the other states based on geographic
proximity. However, the doctrine of mandala assumes endless clashes between
aspirant states seeking supremacy. Sarkar likens this to the Hobbesian state of
nature and an international bellum omnium contra omnes.
The ’octri’e of Sarva-Bhauma (World Sovereign)
Sarkar argues Hindu thought also developed the notion of universal peace under a
world sovereign to counterbalance endless conflict. Concepts like chakravarti and
samrat embodied this ideal of one universal empire encompassing the entire world.

This builds on other ideas in Hindu philosophy:

- A hierarchy of rulers from small to large states
- Rituals conferring higher sovereignty with greater territory
- Conquest of the four quarters (dig-vijaya), subduing all rival states
Under a world sovereign, the disorder of mandala relations is replaced by a pax
sarva-bhaumica. Sarkar relates this to Western notions of unified Christendom or a
federation of mankind.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Sarkar finds Hindu political philosophy contained both realist
acceptance of ceaseless international struggle for power, and idealist hopes of
overcoming conflict under universal sovereignty. The concepts of external
sovereignty, mandala, and sarva-bhauma underpin the Hindu theory of
international relations. Sarkar illuminates the sophistication of ancient Indian
thinking on state relations and the timeless dilemmas of unity vs anarchy. His
analysis sheds light on an important tradition of political philosophy.
 The Dharma of Governance: A Systematic Analysis of
Hindu Perspectives on Statecraft
Introduction
This essay systematically analyzes the major concepts and themes in Hindu
political philosophy pertaining to statecraft and governance. It is structured into
five sections. Section I summarizes the Hindu view of human nature and the
necessity of the state. Section II examines the concept of danda
(punishment/coercion) as the defining feature of the state. Section III explores the
doctrine of mamatva (property) and its dependence on state enforcement. Section
IV investigates the central role of dharma (ethics and duty) in Hindu political
thought. Section V synthesizes these concepts into the Hindu theory of rajadharma
- the dharma of governance.
I. Human Nature and Necessity of the State
Hindu philosophy holds a primarily negative view of human nature. Thinkers like
Kautilya and Manu argue that humans are driven by desires, morally weak, and
quarrelsome. Without an external authority, society would fracture into chaos and
disorder. This Hobbesian “state of nature” is encapsulated in the doctrine of
matsya-nyaya or “law of the fishes” – the strong devour the weak. A coercive state
is necessary to restrain human nature and institute order.
The Mahabharata describes how the vices of human nature – greed, temptation,
moral indifference – lead to collapse of social norms and rise of anarchy.
Unchecked human desires breed conflict and suffering. Political authority is
requisite to manage man’s flawed nature and create conditions for ordered liberty.
Hindus view the state as essential for purging evil and uplifting humanity from its
natural depravity.
II. Doctrine of Danda (Punishment/Coercion)
Danda refers to coercive power, sanction and punishment. Hindu thinkers hold that
danda is the defining feature of the state. The ruler wields danda to restrain citizens
from preying upon each other. Without danda, matsya-nyaya prevails. The
use
delimma
check
Arthashastra states danda protects the weak from the strong, ensures rule of law,
and promotes prosperity.
But danda contains an inherent dilemma. Unconstrained coercion leads to
oppression and police states. The Mahabharata warns that unjust use of danda
invites disaster for ruler and realm. Checks on danda come from the requirements
of wisdom, ethical counsel and rajadharma (virtues of rule). The king must wield
danda like a surgeon’s scalpel, with discretion and care. Right application of danda
upholds freedom and order.
III. Doctrine of Mamatva (Property)
Mamatva refers to right of private property. In the matsya-nyaya state, the strong
seize the property of the weak without limits. The state guarantees property rights
by enforcing the rule of law through danda. But the king can also expropriate
property arbitrarily. Hence property rights require checks on danda through
rajadharma and constitutional rules on taxation and seizure.
Kamandaka argues that guarantees of private property are foundational for
civilization. But Hindus also impose dharma-based limits on acquisition.
Concentration of wealth violates cosmic order. The Arthashastra deplores the
unlimited accumulation and hoarding of riches. Economic equity must balance
property rights.
IV. Doctrine of Dharma (Ethics and Duty)
Dharma is the cardinal principle of Hindu statecraft. It refers to universal ethics,
social norms and duties specific to one’s role and station. The king upholds societal
dharma through coercive enforcement. But the king must also follow his personal
dharma (rajadharma) by ruling ethically. This mutual interdependence creates a
dynamic ethical order.
The Mahabharata states that dharma perished in matsya-nyaya due to lack of
external restraints. Government restores dharma through education, custom and
law. But dharma itself limits exercise of state power. Rajadharma requires the ruler
to govern with wisdom, restraint and concern for the welfare of all subjects. A king
who breaches dharma loses legitimacy and invites dissent.
V. Rajadharma: The Dharma of Governance
Rajadharma synthesizes the key principles of Hindu political philosophy. The king
upholds public dharma by wielding danda. But he must also follow personal
dharma and rule ethically, with prudence and compassion. Counsel from ministers
trained in dharma helps ensure judicious use of coercive force. Promoting social
harmony and justice is the rajadharma.

Rajadharma involves balancing political realism and ethical action. Excessive

idealism undermines order, while unrestrained pragmatism breeds despotism.
Rajadharma also entails protecting the privileges of all varnas, not just the elite.
Universal well-being defines good governance.
No formula or institution can guarantee an ethical politics, given human
imperfections. But the principles of rajadharma aim to orient statecraft towards a
moral vision of stability, justice and harmony. Through the sustained effort to
uphold rajadharma, Hindus believe, the state can approach the ideals of dharma.
Conclusion
Hindu political thought recognizes the paradox between state power and individual
freedom. Its unique resolution lies in rajadharma - restraining power through
ethics, and giving teeth to ethics through power. This dialogue between danda and
dharma remains relevant in negotiating the dilemmas of statesmanship.
Kautilya’s Arthashastra on War and Diplomacy in
Ancient India

Kautilya’s Arthashastra is an ancient Indian treatise offering pragmatic advice on

statecraft and administration. Written around 300 BCE by the chief minister to the first
Mauryan emperor, it advocates realpolitik methods for rulers to maintain power,
including extensive espionage, ruthless diplomacy and unapologetic force. However,
Kautilya balances harsh pragmatism with some ethical principles, arguing it is wiser to
win over subjects through righteousness than pure tyranny.

Kautilya sees states as operating in an anarchic realm where self-interest and conflict are
inevitable. He argues kings must be cunning and amoral, using any means to eliminate
rivals and enrich the treasury, which funds the military. Intellect and strategy exert greater
force than raw military power alone. While distasteful, covert violence may be necessary
to enforce justice and secure the state.

To check incompetence and disloyalty, Kautilya prescribes strict supervision of officials

through an extensive spy network. Harsh penalties deter corruption. He outlines measures
to disrupt potential threats from regional governors or ambitious princes through
propaganda, bribery and assassination. While using fear as a tool, Kautilya also stresses
kings should uphold justice, provide infrastructure and promote public welfare to gain
loyal support from grateful subjects.

Kautilya argues ethical leadership brings prestige and public backing more useful than
military force alone. The king upholds dharma by ruling justly, promoting his people’s
welfare and seeking wisdom over personal glory. However, such ideals do not limit the
ruthless means required to eliminate traitors and enforce order. Survival of the kingdom
remains paramount.
 Kautilya accepts warfare as inevitable when required to expand territory or preempt
rivals’ weaknesses. Motivations include gaining land, enforcing treaties and vengeance
for perceived injustice. But avoid superior forces on difficult terrain since victory is
unsure. Use spies, assassination, bribery and propaganda to silently weaken rivals before
open battle. Apply shock, deception and superstition to demoralize enemy troops, while
bolstering your own soldiers’ morale.

Regard diplomacy as another weapon to weaken rivals through overt and covert means.
Surround enemy kings with spies and provocateurs while promising alliances. Station
envoys abroad but see them as conduits for disinformation and assassination, not true
friendship. Kautilya’s Mandala theory assumes states act solely from self-interest in an
inherently competitive realm.
After victory, treat subjects well through privileges and humanitarian aid, releasing
prisoners and allowing customs and laws to continue. Execution and brutality only
inspire further resistance. Turn the defeated into grateful subjects, then slowly revoke
privileges to maximize economic gains. The people remain instruments of state power,
not its aim.

In conclusion, while occasionally harsh, Kautilya balances realism with idealism by

stressing that righteousness and ethics are pragmatic tools superior to pure tyranny in
gaining loyal subjects and public support. His insights remain relevant, blending hard and
soft power and advocating sophisticated statecraft alongside necessary violence. The
Arthashastra provides an influential manual of amoral political strategy..

Detailed essay - Introduction

Kautilya’s Arthashastra, written around 300 BCE, is an influential treatise on
statecraft, economic policy, military strategy, and foreign relations in ancient India.
Attributed to Kautilya, also known as Chanakya or Vishnugupta, who was the chief
advisor and prime minister to the first Mauryan emperor Chandragupta, the
Arthashastra provides wide-ranging discussions on administration, law, diplomacy,
espionage, and military strategy.
The Arthashastra Is fundamentally a realist perspective, outlining practical advice
for rulers to maintain power and achieve material gain. Kautilya advocates a
centralized administration with the king at its head, extensive spy networks,
pragmatic diplomacy, and the unapologetic use of force when necessary. He offers
advice on a range of military issues, including the organization of the army, tactical
maneuvers, and incentives to motivate soldiers. Kautilya also elaborates on the
principles for dealing with neighboring kingdoms, laying the foundation for the
Mandala theory of foreign relations.
While the sometimes harsh recommendations of the Arthashastra have aroused
controversy, scholars have also argued that Kautilya’s insights into human
psychology, administration, and international relations remain highly relevant. This
essay will examine several key aspects of Kautilya’s approach to war and
diplomacy, including his discussion of:
- Political realism and pragmatism
- Administration and the power of the state
- Ideas on moral leadership and conquering by righteousness
- Motivations for waging war
- Secret agents, assassins, propaganda and psychological warfare
- Diplomacy as an extension of warfare
- Treatment of the vanquished foe
Kautilya’s Pragmatism and Political Realism
A fundamental theme in Kautilya’s Arthashastra is a hard-headed pragmatism and
political realism. He saw the dynamics between states as inevitably involving
conflict, with each seeking to maximize self-interest. In his view, moral principles
have little force in dealings between kings who operate in an anarchic realm where
power alone guarantees security.
Kautilya argues that a king must do whatever is necessary to strengthen his state
and weaken rivals. A major objective is to enrich the treasury, which funds the
army – “the army is the root of the success of the kingdom.” Like Machiavelli after
him, Kautilya maintains that the king must be prepared to adopt any means to
protect himself and the state: “An arrow, discharged by an archer, may kill one
person or may not kill even one, but intellect operated by a wise man would kill
even children in the womb.”
Rather than resign himself to fate, the wise king uses cunning and his intellect to
master policy and strategy. There is no room for blundering or relying on
superstition. Kautilya compares the intellect to a powerful weapon that exerts
greater force than military might alone: “Intellect by itself is more powerful than
millions of armed men.”
While A. L. Basham calls the Arthashastra an “amoral textbook of kingcraft”,
others argue Kautilya balances harsh pragmatism with underlying moral principles.
Just means are preferable if they lead to the same beneficial ends, though he will
advocate violence as a last resort. However, Kautilya’s key priority is always the
consolidation and expansion of the state. As he remarks, "there is no country
without people and no kingdom without a country,” meaning a prosperous nation
requires a large productive population, not a ravaged countryside.
Administration and the Power of the State
In outlining an ideal bureaucracy Kautilya emphasizes the role of strict
administration and close supervision of officials to minimize corruption. He
understood that incompetent administration causes internal weakness that invites
external threats.
The king himself must be actively engaged in overseeing the system, or else
officials will steal from the treasury and disobey orders. An extensive network of
spies embedded throughout the bureaucracy monitors the conduct of ministers and
bureaucrats. He even recommends that the king disguise himself and covertly tour
the countryside to gather information firsthand.
To combat corruption and disloyalty, Kautilya advocates paying officials well but
also imposing harsh penalties if they take bribes or misappropriate revenue. Fines,
corporal punishments, exile or even execution await the dishonest official. While
these measures seem draconian, Kautilya argues that an orderly bureaucracy
ensures the king is obeyed and the people are happy. As he says, “the root of
wealth is (good) activity" and a plundered treasury cannot support the army or
administration.
The Arthashastra further outlines measures to contain threats to the king’s power,
whether from wealthy or disgruntled subjects, regional governors, or ambitious
princes. Kautilya suggests sowing discord among the aristocracy by secretly
encouraging princes dissatisfied with their inheritance to quarrel or revolt. Officials
suspected of disloyalty are reassigned to remote regions, punished or even
discreetly assassinated.
While Kautilya endorses using fear and punishment to check opposition, he
balances this by stressing that the king should also promote public welfare through
infrastructure projects and upholding justice. This gains popular legitimacy and
keeps subjects united under the king’s authority. As R.P Kangle writes, the
Arthashastra depicts an ideal “socialized monarchy” that acts for the public benefit
while concentrating power in the king’s hands.
Ideas on Moral Leadership and Conquering by Righteousness
At several points, Kautilya suggests that exercising power ethically and winning
the hearts of the people is pragmatically superior to pure tyranny. These ideas
reflect an ancient Indian notion of dharmic kingship – conquering through
adherence to righteousness and duty.
According to Kautilya, the king conquers the earth not through unjust violence but
by upholding dharma, enforcing the law judiciously, promoting the welfare of his
people, and unifying the land. His goal is not personal glory but rather greatness
through ethical rule for the common good.
The King, Kautilya declares, is not to satisfy his whims but must seek wisdom,
self-control, honesty and the counsel of elders. He should be dignified, steadfast
and energetic while avoiding vices like gambling and debauchery. Power is fleeting
without virtue: “Deliverance is possible in gambling, without deliverance is
addiction to women.”
To implement righteousness, the king must provide justice and protection for his
subjects while avoiding self-indulgence in luxury that will make him soft and
despised. He is to act like a father figure and “establish a righteous course of
conduct.” Specific measures include building infrastructure, promoting trade,
undertaking public works in times of calamity, reducing taxes for the poor, and
ensuring the law applies equally to all, including royal relations. Kautilya argues
that this sober, righteous conduct instills loyalty among the subjects while
enhancing royal prestige. It brings enthusiastic public support that is more useful
militarily than a mere fortress or wealth.
However, Kautilya cautions that the demands of realpolitik sometimes require
actions that seem cruel, such as covert assassination of dangerous traitors. Though
distasteful, such measures may be the only way to enforce justice and secure the
broader social order. So while moral leadership is wise, the survival of the
kingdom remains paramount.
Motivations for Waging War
While counseling ethical rule, Kautilya accepts war as an inescapable part of state
policy when required to expand territory and defend national interests. He
discusses three main motivations for waging war: gaining territory, enforcing
treaty obligations, and vengeance for perceived injustice. Territory offers increased
population, resources and prestige. Treaties allow smaller states to call on allies
when threatened – an early version of collective security arrangements. Revenge is
retaliation for breach of good faith agreements between rulers.
Kautilya advises avoiding war when the enemy has superior forces or terrain
advantages, since battles are unsure. But war should be embraced when the king
sees weakness or disunity among rivals, which signals an opportunity to seize land
and expand the kingdom.
He outlines both human and material factors that demonstrate an enemy’s
vulnerability. Human weaknesses include an unpopular ruler facing widespread
rebellion, factions among a ruler’s ministers, and succession disputes within the
royal family. Material factors are famine, pestilence, inflation, foreign invasion of
the enemy state, and harm from acts of nature like excessive rain or drought.
Kautilya reminds kings that fortune can rapidly reverse in politics. Today’s strong
ally can become tomorrow’s enemy if he grows ambitious or untrustworthy. The
wise king prepares for any contingency and does not let sentiment influence cold
calculations of national interest. The Arthashastra states, “That ally who might do
harm or who, though capable, would not help in times of trouble, he should
certainly exterminate him, when trustingly, he comes within his reach.”
Secret Agents, Assassins, Propaganda and Psychological Warfare
Kautilya condones the ruthless use of violence, deception and propaganda to defeat
enemies. He encourages the liberal use of secret agents, spies, saboteurs and
assassins in both wartime and peace. Methods range from spreading disinformation
to the stealthy elimination of enemy leaders. Kautilya stresses that silent, secretive
means are superior to open warfare, which depletes the treasury and causes
casualties among one’s own troops.
Among the tactics endorsed in the Arthashastra are:
- Deploying beautiful women as secret agents to seduce enemy officials and
sow discord among them. Women may also be recruited to assassinate
leaders with poison.
- Bribing or otherwise inducing members of the enemy royal family to stage a
coup against their own relatives.
 - Using disinformation and propaganda to bolster troop morale on one’s own
side while spreading defeatism and disunity among enemy soldiers. This
includes planting false news of battle outcomes, promoting propaganda
songs and poems, and interpreting omens to proclaim divine favor for the
king.
- Assassinating enemy officials and making the killings seem like an internal
purge by the enemy leadership. Secret agents also provoke quarrels between
ruling oligarchs by fomenting scandals or injuring cattle and property.
- Inciting the urban population to revolt against enemy officials through
bribery, false promises of power and faked astrological predictions.
- Employing poison in a variety of ways, including intentional contamination
of water supplies or secretly poisoning wine before a banquet for enemy
commanders.
- Using occult rituals and magic to spread superstition among enemy troops.
Religious specialists under the king’s control interpret dreams and other
signs as favoring the king.
While these methods seem ruthless, Kautilya insists they are necessary when
facing a grave foreign threat. They avoid much higher casualties of direct combat
while efficiently accomplishing the goal of weakening or defeating the enemy with
minimal losses to one’s own side. Shock and deception are key tools for the king to
master along with conventional military force.
Diplomacy as an Extension of Warfare
Kautilya regards diplomacy as another weapon for defeating rivals, writing
“fighting with the weapon of diplomacy is preferable.” Treaties are agreements
between kingdoms of roughly equal power, but the king should not hesitate to
break any treaty when it is no longer useful. The goal is to continually weaken
enemy states through overt force or silent war while eventually conquering them.
In Kautilya’s view, envoys and diplomats should consist largely of spies and
assassins. They surround the neighboring kingdom with secret agents provoking
quarrels and undermining trust. Networks of beautiful women pass along
information they coax from besotted kings. Envoys openly try to negotiate
marriage alliances and other deals while covertly assassinating key leaders and
fomenting revolts. The Arthashastra advises that the shrewd king ”should ever
station envoys and secret agents, becoming a friend of the rivals, maintaining
secrecy when striking again and again.”
This pragmatic notion of diplomacy maintains that nations always act from self-
interest rather than moral duty or compassion. They are either strong rivals to be
weakened and eventually conquered or potential allies to help defeat a common
enemy. But the latter will also be annexed when the time is right. These principles
underlie Kautilya’s Mandala theory of foreign relations, which views states as
perpetually scheming against immediate neighbors while cooperating with the
enemies of their enemies. There are no true long-term friends, only permanent
national interests.
Treatment of the Vanquished Foe
While Kautilya advocates harsh violence against enemies during wartime, he
counsels that gentleness and mercy are appropriate after achieving victory. Those
who fought bravely should be treated with honor and incorporated into one’s own
army. Any act of brutality only strengthens resistance among the remaining
population.
Kautilya notes that the king’s power depends fundamentally on the people tilling
the fields. Therefore, soldiers must allow peasants and other non-combatants to
flee rather than slaughtering everyone in a besieged city. After defeating the enemy
army, Kautilya suggests releasing prisoners of war and providing humanitarian
relief to the populace by distributing food and medicine.
While using secret agents to eliminate key leaders who remain loyal to the defeated
kingdom, the king is advised to promise security, grant privileges and show
kindness to the masses. By these measures, the king turns former enemies into
grateful subjects of his own expanded kingdom. Kautilya advocates acting like a
father by granting tax exemptions, upholding local religious customs and letting
subjects maintain their traditional laws and leaders.
However, Kautilya has no illusion that peoples’ memories are short. He knows
grants of privileges can later be revoked to extract higher revenue from the newly
conquered land. What seems like benevolence is pragmatic policy for maximizing
the economic potential of newly acquired territory. The counsel to treat subjects
well must be balanced by the king’s overridingly self-interested goals. The people
are instruments of national power, not its aim.
Conclusion
 Kautilya’s Arthashastra offers an incisive handbook of realpolitik from ancient
India covering administration, law, foreign policy, war, and economics. While
occasionally harsh, the treatise also reveals a sophisticated thinker who balanced
ruthlessness with ethics. Kautilya advocated conquest by adherence to dharma,
which wins the loyal support of the subjects. His pragmatism is evident in advising
mercy and moderation after achieving victory.
While later Indian empires would be less overtly militaristic than the martial
kingdoms Kautilya describes, his Arthashastra continued to be studied and his
ideas incorporated into policy. The diplomacy of the Mauryas combined shrewd
statecraft with humanitarian initiatives like medical clinics and food distribution
centers. Kautilya’s emphasis on the pragmatic use of religion and superstition is
also reflected in the intricate strategies and propaganda campaigns of the Gupta era
and medieval Indian states.
Despite occasional moralism, the Arthashastra essentially assumes that power and
self-interest govern international relations. In realpolitik terms, Kautilya argues for
cultivating both hard and soft power to get the better of rival states through
strength as well as strategy. His insights into human psychology, administration,
and adept diplomacy maintain their relevance in the modern world, while his
advocacy of covert warfare prefigures 20th century tactics. For its systemic analysis
of how to attain and expand power, the Arthashastra remains an influential manual
of political statecraft.

Arthashastra beyond Realpolitik

The 'Eclectic Face of Kautilya'-- deepshikha shahi
 The Arthashastra has become a key source of inspiration for scholars exploring Indian contributions to international relations
(IR) theory. Rather than institutionalizing an Indian IR school, the aim is to recognize the intellectual legacy of the Asian world.
Efforts to demonstrate its contemporary relevance focus on two approaches: applying Kautilyan theories to modern conflicts
and drawing parallels between Kautilya's ideas and those of respected Western thinkers.
The application of *Arthashastra* in modern scholarship faces two key issues. First, many scholars applying its concepts
have not studied the original text, leading to misinterpretations, such as the incomplete use of the Mandala theory.
Additionally, its focus on politics overshadows its economic dimensions, leaving the latter underexplored in world politics.
Second, *Arthashastra* is often confined to comparisons with Western Realist thinkers, which restricts it to Political Realism.
This limits its scope, portraying it as deterministic and unethical, and reducing it to a tool for analyzing shifts in power
dynamics.

This article seeks to liberate *Arthashastra* from its association with power-centric Political Realism, positioning Kautilya's
work on a broader intellectual framework. It highlights *Arthashastra*'s "eclectic" theoretical base, which integrates multiple
perspectives to provide complementary insights into international politics. The article critiques the narrow linkage of
*Arthashastra* with Realism, explores its alignment with Social Constructivism in IR, and demonstrates its relevance
beyond Realist paradigms. It concludes that eclecticism—blending ideas from diverse sources—is a powerful approach to
showcasing *Arthashastra*'s contemporary significance while challenging Western dominance in IR theorization.

The strategic importance of reinventing *Arthashastra* lies in its potential to contribute to India’s image as a rising power in
the global order. Drawing on Michel Foucault’s link between knowledge and power, the article emphasizes the need to
produce a distinct knowledge base to sustain this image. As India aspires to shape the world order, scholars see this as an
opportunity to develop indigenous theories, moving from consuming knowledge to producing it. This aligns with Pratap
Bhanu Mehta’s call for India to actively shape its global role through intellectual contributions.

As India’s global influence grows, integrating Indian international relations (IR) with global IR is crucial. Scholars emphasize
the need for theories explaining political change and transitions. *Arthashastra* offers a foundation for creating knowledge to
support India’s rising power. Ashis Nandy notes that true power lies in defining ideas, but Indian scholars have yet to develop
unique global frameworks, often relying on Western theories adapted to South Asia.

Muni (1984) challenges the labeling of Indian IR theories as "sub-systemic," questioning the criteria for such classifications.
While *Arthashastra* qualifies as systemic theorization due to its ancient Indian origins, it must be adapted to modern and
postmodern realities to refute claims of India's inability to produce systemic theories. Scholars like Navnita Chadha Behera
Deepshikha Shahi - Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra: A Non-
and Siddharth Mallavarapu propose exploring the political thought of anti-colonial leaders like Gandhi, Nehru, and Ambedkar
for post-Western IR frameworks. Similarly, Amitav Acharya suggests drawing insights from leaders like Nehru or Sukarno,
Western Eclectic Theory of International Relations
akin to Western reliance on figures like Woodrow Wilson and Henry Kissinger.

Introduction
While Kautilya's stature in Indian political thought rivals that of figures like Wilson or Kissinger in the West, it remains
uncertain if the West will recognize this equivalence. This challenge has led scholars like Kanti Bajpai to question whether an
Indian thinker akin to Kenneth Waltz could elevate Indian IR theory. Efforts to align *Arthashastra* with dominant Western IR
theories haveThe academic
drawn parallelsdiscipline
with Westernofrealists
International RelationsMorgenthau,
such as Machiavelli, (IR) has evolved along
and Waltz. Max several
Weber noted that
Machiavelli’s‘great debates’, including the rationalist-reflectivist debate. Alexander Wendt’s
realism was less extreme compared to Kautilya’s. Roger Boesche highlighted differences, noting Machiavelli’s
focus on republics and public trust, concepts absent in Kautilya's *Arthashastra*.
Social Constructivism has tried to bridge the rationalist-reflectivist divide by
offering a ‘middle-grounded
Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyaya (1993) comparedtheory’,
Kautilya'srepresenting
*Arthashastra* the
with fourth great Classical
Morgenthau's debate as the suggesting
Realism,
that Morgenthau's idea of the "splendid isolation" of the balancer may have been influenced by Kautilya's concept of *udasina*
rationalist-constructivist-reflectivist
(detached balancer). MP Singh (2011) found parallels between debate. While these
*Arthashastra* anddebates
Kennethhelp clarify
Waltz's variednoting that
Neorealism,
both theoriesassumptions in IRpolitics
explore international theories, they focus
at multiple more on quasi-religious
levels—individual psychology, domesticbelief in different
regime, and international anarchy.
Concepts like the "saptanga state" and "rajamandala" in *Arthashastra* resemble Waltz's structural analysis of world politics.
‘isms’ rather than explaining international politics. In contrast, an ‘eclectic theory’
While these academic efforts to link *Arthashastra* with Political Realism have revived interest in the text, they have also
couldscope
limited its broader be abymore progressive
focusing narrowly onway to understand
Realist paradigms. A international politics.
critical reassessment Kautilya’s
of these interpretations could help
reimagine *Arthashastra* beyond Realpolitik, highlighting its broader applicability and relevance.
Arthaśāstra does not adhere to rigid oppositions between rationalist-realpolitik and
reflectivist-moralpolitik. It absorbs claims of Wendt’s Social Constructivism and
Kautilya is widely regarded as a staunch political realist by scholars such as Benoy Kumar Sarkar, D.D. Kosambi, Max
offers
Weber, George groundRoger
Modelski, for aBoesche,
non-Western eclectic
and others. theory ofis IR,
*Arthashastra* oftenadvancing both
described as Indianguide
a ruthless IR to political
and Global IR.
realism, with Sarkar noting it as a document outlining immoral practices by rulers. Boesche emphasizes the brutal nature of
the text, highlighting its open discussions on topics like the justification of violence, assassination, espionage, betrayal, and
even using family members and children for political manipulation. Kautilya's work addresses morally troubling topics,
including when to spy on citizens, test loyalty, and use torture, which some view as chilling, yet it underscores Kautilya as an
unflinching political realist.
 In his lecture *"Politics as a Vocation"*, Max Weber describes Kautilya's *Arthashastra* as a prime example of radical
Machiavellianism, even more extreme than Machiavelli's *The Prince*. Realist readings of *Arthashastra* emphasize its
bleak and pragmatic nature. Modelski highlights Kautilya's theory of Mandala/Rajamandala (the circle of states), which
suggests that a state's enemy is its neighbor's enemy, leading to a "checkerboard" model of shifting alliances. Although
Modelski notes that Kautilya's theory includes room for qualifying this model, the dominant Realist interpretation tends to
This essay demonstrates how Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra does not strictly uphold
view it as a rigid, geographically deterministic system.
Political Realism, partially resembling Wendt’s Social Constructivism. It then
develops
Michael explains Kautilya’s
that the Arthaśāstra
Mandala model, intoto aKautilya,
according non-Western
places a eclectic theory of(Vijigisu)
potential conqueror IR using its center, with its
at the
immediateextra-Political
neighbor as an enemy (ari), and the state next to that neighbor as a friend (mitra).
Realist philosophical foundations in Sāṃkhya-Yoga and Lokāyata. This pattern of friend and
enemy states continues in a geographical sequence. The Realist interpretation of Kautilya's Mandala emphasizes this
This
geographical Kautilyanleading
determinism, theory blends
to the methodologies
simplistic for complementary
view that Kautilya insights
inherently saw neighbors into and their
as enemies
enemies asinternational politics and provides unconventional perspectives to improve Indian
allies.

and Global
Kosambi compares IR.
Arthashastra favorably to Greek texts, emphasizing its practical effectiveness for its time, while Tisdell
highlights Kautilya’s advanced understanding of economics, which preceded Western economic thought by centuries.
Wendt’s Social Constructivism and the Rationalist-
Kautilya’s emphasis on the king’s social contract and the responsibility to benefit his subjects further distinguishes
Arthashastra. This comparison sets up a contest between Indian and Western scholarship, positioning Arthashastra as
Reflectivist Divide
superior in certain aspects, but also narrowing its relevance to a specific context, both spatially and temporally.

The Realist interpretation of Arthashastra faces three main issues: it presents an ethically insensitive view by emphasizing
In his 1988
Kautilya's acceptance presidential itaddress,
of "immoralities," imposes Robert Keohane
a rigid, spatially and bifurcated IR theories
temporally limited into through "locational
understanding
‘rationalism’ and ‘reflectivism’. Rationalist theories posit a knowable worldby contrasting it with
determinism," and it adopts a "nativist" stance that reduces the universal applicability of Arthashastra
Western texts. These problems can be addressed by recognizing the eclectic nature of Arthashastra, which integrates
aspects of separate from and
Political Realism theories
alignsabout it and
with Social aim to capture
Constructivism. itsConstructivism,
Social essence empirically.
exemplified by Alexander Wendt,
Reflectivist approaches do not share this positivism, so rationalists dismiss
views international relations as a socially constructed system influenced by state interactions themgoing
and cultures, as beyond the
deterministic and power-maximizing focus of Realism.
unscientific for lacking testable theories.
As rationalism
Social Constructivism, and reflectivism
as articulated thrive challenges
by Alexander Wendt, as incommensurable agendas,
the deterministic and power-centered view of
international relations found in Realism and Neo-Realism. While Neo-Realists argue that anarchy in the international system
leads states constructivism emerges intending
to pursue power maximization due to the to find aof'middle
absence ground'. Constructivism
a world government, marks
Wendt contends that anarchy is socially
constructed abyconnection between the incommensurable rationalist and reflectivist poles by
states themselves. He acknowledges the anarchical nature of the international system but rejects the notion
that it necessarily leads to a security dilemma. Instead, he argues that states shape and redefine anarchy through their
interactions,expressing
emphasizing interest
the role ofinculture
and capability for communication
and social constructs in internationalwith both.
relations.

In *Social Theory of International Politics* (1999), Alexander Wendt presents three cultures of anarchy based on the
philosophies of Hobbes, Locke, and Kant, which correspond to the roles of "enemy", "rival", and "friend" in international
relations. In Wendt’s Social
a Hobbesian world,Constructivism
states are enemies, connects rationalism
using unlimited violenceand reflectivism
against each other.by In a Lockean world, states
are rivals, competing with calculated violence to maximize interests. In a Kantian world, states are friends, forming alliances
and avoidinginvestigating theinstead
violence, focusing concepton of ‘power’.
collective A for
action conception of power
security. Wendt arguesasthatideational
anarchy israther
shaped by state
interactions than material raises the issue of whether this makes a difference to international
(agency) rather than being an inherent structure, as suggested by Realists like Waltz. He emphasizes that
anarchy is a product of "ideational" or "cultural" factors, meaning it can vary based on the identities and interests of states.
politics.
Identities define Wendt
who states are,argues it does,
and interests as materialist
define explanations
what they want, with interestsof power
being are by
shaped insufficient.
these identities.
Power and interest function due to the ideas comprising them. Power and interest
Wendt's Social Constructivism makes three core claims: (1) states are the primary units of analysis in international politics; (2)
explanations
the key structures presuppose
in the state system ideas and are
are inter-subjective, notnot rivalsand
material; to (3)
ideational explanations.
state identities and interests are shaped by
social structures rather than being determined by human nature or the anarchical system, as Realists suggest. A careful
Inquiries into ostensibly materialist explanations should examine the discursive
analysis of Kautilya's *Arthashastra* reveals a similarity with Wendt's theory. While *Arthashastra* aligns with Realist ideas like
the balance ofconditions
power and the enabling
concept of them. For
a circle example,
of states the ideational
(Rajamandala), it goesconditions constituting
beyond simplistic Realism. state
Kautilya's work
introduces a complex system of state interaction, where the identity of neighboring states is "constructed" by the potential
identities as enemies or friends better explain Neorealist multipolarity or Liberal
conqueror state (Vijigisu). States are categorized in various ways (enemy, ally, neutral, etc.), and these identities change based
interdependence
on shifting interactions. This dynamic, arguments.
fluid identity construction echoes Wendt's ideas about the evolving nature of state
interests and relations. : (i) ari (the enemy); (ii) mitra (the Vijigisu's ally); (iii) arimitra (ally of the enemy); (iv) mitramitra (friend of
Wendt’s
ally); (v) arimitramitra core
(ally claimsfriend);
of enemy's are: (vi) parsnig- raha (enemy in the rear of the Vijigisu); (vii) akranda (Vijigisu's ally in
the rear); (viii) parsnigrahasara (ally of parsnigraha); (ix) akrandasara (ally of akranda); (x) madhyama (middle king bordering
both Vijigisu and the(i)ari); and
states
(xi) are the main
udasina units ofindifferent/neutral,
(lying outside, international political theory;
more powerful than Vijigisu, ari and madhyami).

In the *Arthashastra*,(ii) key system

identity construction structures
plays a central roleare intersubjective
in shaping rather
Vijigisu’s foreign than material;
policy towards different states. Kautilya outlines a sixfold
policy (sadgurtya) for managing relationships with various types of states, which include enemies (aris), allies (mitras), and rivals (samantas). These
six policies are: (1) samdhi (peace treaty), (2) vigraha (hostility), (3) asana (quiet stance), (4) yana (military action), (5) samsraya (seeking shelter with
another king), and (6) dvaidhibhava (simultaneous peace with one and hostility with another). The use of violence in these policies varies, reflecting
Wendt's idea of differential violence in different cultures of anarchy. Importantly, Kautilya emphasizes that a state's identity is not solely defined by its
geographical position, but also by its relative strength, relationships, and the context of interactions with other states. Thus, Vijigisu's identity and
policies are fluid, allowing for complex, dynamic relationships that go beyond simple geographic determinism.
In the *Arthashastra*, identity construction and the selection of appropriate policies towards other states are driven by an ideational process rather
than purely material considerations. Kautilya suggests that the choice of policy—whether peace (samdhi), hostility (vigraha), military action (yana),
or others—depends on the relative strength of the Vijigisu and its neighbors. This process is ideational, based on the assessment of power
dynamics rather than material factors alone. This flexible approach aligns with the theory of Social Constructivism, as both Kautilya and Wendt
argue that interstate systems can change without material changes, emphasizing the importance of ideational shifts. This challenges the Realist
view of functional similarity and locational determinism, showing that materially similar or dissimilar states can behave differently based on
(iii)and evolving
constructed identities state identities
perceptions. and interests are significantly constructed by these
structures rather than human nature or structure, as Political Realists
Kautilya’s *Arthashastra* incorporates ethical considerations in his political strategies, contrary to the purely power-driven Realist approach. While
he offers a variety of policiescontend.
(sadgunya)The
for the next section
Vijigisu, showsthe
he emphasizes logical parallels
importance of justice in
andKautilya’s
tolerance in decision-making. For example,
Arthaśāstra.
Kautilya suggests that a Vijigisu should prioritize attacking a stronger, unjust king over a weaker, just king, as the subjects of the unjust king may
turn against him. He also advises that a king should avoid actions that foster greed or disaffection among his subjects, as such conditions can lead
to instability or defection. In this way, Kautilya links power enhancement with ethical governance, recognizing that just rule strengthens a kingdom
Overlaps Between Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra and Wendt’s
and its stability.

Social
Kautilya advises Constructivism
the Vijigisu to win the loyalty of conquered peoples by respecting their customs, cultures, and beliefs, rather than exploiting or
terrorizing them. He emphasizes the importance of tolerance and aligning foreign policy with the changing identities and interests of states. While
Kautilya incorporates moral considerations into his strategies, he also permits unpredictable shifts in foreign policy based on the evolving
Kautilya’s
dynamics of alliances Arthaśāstra
and treaties. strikingly
For instance, resembles
if an ally becomes Wendt’s
unhelpful or weak, Social Constructivism.
the Vijigisu should be ready to break alliances or treaties.
This flexibilityWendt’s three core claims find logical expression in the Arthaśāstra.
in policy contradicts the Realist view of consistent state behavior and shows that the Vijigisu can shape anarchy according to its
needs and aspirations, potentially achieving universal authority.

Declaring states as the ‘principal unit’, Wendt justifies that a states-system requires
states. Like Wendt, Kautilya’s primary concern is the state. The Arthaśāstra
envisions its conqueror (vijigishu) at the center of concentric circles of states
(mandala) comprising the system. Any state can see itself as vijigishu: rulers/kings
are all potential vijigishus.
Wendt establishes states as ‘personified selves’. Kautilya too creates states as
‘intentional actors’ in ‘political life’. He posits states having good/bad intentions,
discussing foreign policies contingent on intentions in hypothetical war and peace.
After portraying states as intentional actors, Wendt emphasizes their intrinsic yet
partially exogenous identities and interests. Kautilya also admits intrinsic and
exogenous influences. He advises a ‘powerless king’ to externally behave as a
‘conquered king’ before an enemy, hiding his intrinsic identity/interest, thereby
misleading the enemy about his true position.
Wendt concludes that states act based on ‘collective meanings’, with system
structures organizing actions via intersubjective estimations of identities/interests.
Similarly, Kautilya implies states act upon others based on ‘intersubjective
meanings’. These meanings constitute system structures organizing state actions.
Although state actions target ‘balance of power’ in Kautilyan state-system,
exhibiting Political Realism, Kautilya denies states respond functionally similar to
structure, unlike Neorealism. Instead, he proposes complex interactions between
vijigishu and other states, categorized as:
(i) ari (enemy); (ii) mitra (ally); (iii) arimitra (enemy’s ally); (iv) mitramitra (ally’s
friend); (v) arimitramitra (enemy’s ally’s friend); (vi) parsnigraha (enemy in the
rear); (vii) akranda (ally in the rear); (viii) parsnigrahasara (parsnigraha’s ally); (ix)