Chanakya Kautilya’s philosophy and its influence on current Indian

Foreign policy

Muhammad Rashid1
Umer Farooq2
Riphah International University Islamabad

Abstract

After the decolonization of the sub-continent, India's behavior in the international community
has been quite different and is worth the scholarly exploration in terms of foreign policy analysis.
India adopted a Non-aligned movement during the cold war, considered itself a great power, and
demanded a permanent seat in the UN. These policies adopted by India entice the scholars to
make an in-depth analysis of the discourse adopted by India post-1947 which seems to be greatly
influenced by the philosophy of Kautilya. This paper will examine the influence of Chanakya
Kautailya's philosophy in the current foreign policy of India. Content Analysis of six foreign
policy techniques which are written by Kautilya in his book Arthashastr adopted as a research
methodology. The realism theoretical paradigm is an appropriate theory to understand this
research phenomenon. Previous studies suggest that there is always an influence of Kautilya's
philosophy that has been seen in Indian foreign policy. This paper explores the various
philosophies of Kautilya regarding foreign policy and its implementation in the current Foreign
Policy of India.

Keywords: Chanakya Kautilya, Arthashastr, foreign policy, philosophy, India

1
Research Associate at Riphah International University and Student of MS Media and Communication
Email; [email protected]
2
Program Coordinator at Media Department of Riphah International University and Student of MS Media and
Communication
Email; [email protected]

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3464259

Introduction

Teachings of Chanakya Kautilya comprised on a wide array of subjects such as political

science, economics and foreign policy whereby he specifies various aspects of the qualities of
rulers, administration of the state, social pearls of wisdom and religion which, therefore,
rendered him as Pandit Kautilya (Goswami, 2013). Chanakya also is known as Kautilya and
Vishnugupta, was the famous Indian philosopher and strategic thinker responsible for the fall of
the last ruler of the Nanda Dynasty as well as the enthronement of Chandragupta Maurya who
was the king of first Indian Empire known as the Mauryan Empire (Subramanian, 1980).

He was a Brahmin by caste and approximately lived during the period 350-275 B.C.
There is less information available on Chanakya's biographical history, therefore, one can rely
primarily on tradition and Buddhist and Jain Texts of subsequent periods. Similarly, Chanakya's
birthplace is controversial. The Tika Mahavasma a Buddhist worker mentioned Tashasila
(Taxila) as his birthplace while Hemachandra, a Jain writer, mentioned in his book
"Abhidhanachintamani” Chanakya, son of Chanaka was a Dramila, a resident of South India
(Subramanian, 1980).

There is another version that name derived from the name Chanakya his native land (a
place called Chanakya in Punjab). In brief several places mentioned as his birthplace, but a solid
show with respect regarding his birthplace which other historian agreed on that "since the
campaigns of Alexander were predominantly in Punjab and Plutarch records that Alexander had
met Chandragupta in his youth during their campaigns, it would be safer to accept the Takshsila
(Taxila) in Punjab was the hometown of Chanakya, where he and Chandragupta spent several
years together". So obviously Taxila is more accepted as his birthplace, and also the answer to
the question that many people argued Chanakya is fact or myth? Another answer to this question
is that Chanakya and Kautilya are the ones and the same person has been universally accepted by
historians.

As mentioned above the Mauryan Empire also called Indian Empire, Chandragupta was
the king of this Dynasty and Chanakya was his advisor, he also played an imported role in the
establishment of this empire. Because of his ideas and strategies this empire able to succeed
against forces of great Alexander (Singh, 2016)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3464259

 There is an interesting story about the first meeting of Chanakya with Chanadargupta
Maurya mentioned in the book ‘Maxims of Kautilya by V. K. Subramanian, this meeting was the
cause of their collaboration and the chapter of power in the Indian history (Subramanian, 1980).
One day when Chadargupta was fired from the Nanda army walking through the woods there
was a Brahmin pour sugar syrup into the roots of kusa grass rendered curious, Chandragupta
asked to him the basis of his action, he (Chanakya) replied "this kusa grass hit my leg, I,
therefore, intend to destroy pouring sugar syrup, I am doing the root of sweet grass. As a result,
thousands of ants will be attracted to him. These ants chew and destroy the root and grass. As he
spoke, ants began to collecting and an army of ants around the root of the kusa grass which hit
the Kautilya,s leg, grass-finished within few minutes. This the behavior against the enemies
adopted by Kautilya. Chandragupta bowed before him and requested him for help against Nanda.
He agreed, and because of him the Maurain Empire raised and became more powerful.

Kautilya was a king advisor, professor, strategic thinker, and writer. He wrote
Arthashastra and this text divided into fifteen books on deferent topics like administration, law,
and order, taxation, revenue, expenditure, foreign policy, and defense and war. This paper
emphasizes on the foreign policy mostly founded from book seven, eleven and twelve. This
research paper focuses on economic aggression by India against Pakistan using an arms race,
impediments to trade and efforts to restrict infrastructure development and resource mobilization
which damages Pakistan's economy. This paper explores the various philosophies of Kautilya
regarding foreign policy and studies its implementation in the current Foreign Policy of India.

SIGNIFICANCE OF KAUTILYA’S PHILOSOPHY

Chanakya was also called Indian Machiavelli particularly in the 20th century when India
got independence. Jawaharlal Nehru writes in his "Discovery of India" Chanakya has been called
the Indian Machiavelli and to some extent, the comparison is justified. And it is true because a
lot of Kautilya's thought resemblance with the philosophy of realism. He says "One should save
his money against hard times, and save his wife at the sacrifice of his riches but invariably one
should save his soul even at the sacrifice of his wife and riches” (Davis, 2014).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3464259

 The state is like a soul for saving her put everything on behinds and just secure it means
the state is the main actor as realism says. And another place he says "There is some self-interest
behind every friendship. There is no friendship without self-interests. This is a bitter truth’ it is
also the same with the key assumption of realism that self-interest when states interact with each
other there is always self-interest behind this action. Machiavelli, he wrote "Prince “ which he
described the qualities of ruler and way of governing, in contrast, Chanakya wrote
“Arthashastra” and called by people kingmaker like Machiavelli (Pillalamarri, 2015). He says
"If the ruler is righteous, people are righteous, if they are sinners, people are also sinners, as a
ruler, like people".

Like this his text full of wisdom and other intellectual quotes. Another thing regarding his
strategies Henry Kissinger refers to the ancient Indian treatise, the Arthashastra, a work that
details the power requirements, which is the dominant reality in politics. For Kissinger, the
Arthashastra contained a realistic view of politics long before the Prince which Kissinger deems
"a combination of Machiavelli and Clausewitz". The purpose of the referencing is that work on
Chanakya,s philosophy not done by just Indians but also adopted by western writers.

As mentioned above this paper will focus on the philosophy of Chanakya regarding
foreign policy and its implementation on current Indian policy. In the era of Chanakya Kautilya
when the Mauryan Empire was on the peak of power, there was created a situation resemblance
of Westphalia like many states situated here and there around the Mauryan Empire. "Chanakya
introduced by seeing the situation a term "rajamandala” its mean circle of states, according to
this term hostile states those that border the ruler’s state, forming a circle around it. In turn, the
states surrounding this set of hostile states form another circle around the circle of hostile states
(Jindal, 2019). This second circle of states can be regarded as natural allies of the ruler’s state
against the hostile states that lie between them” (Jindal, 2019). In easy words as Chanakya says
“the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Elements of this logic are found in India's foreign policy
today, which sees states such as Japan and Afghanistan as natural allies against China and
Pakistan.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3464259

Theoretical Framework
Realism is the most dominant theory in the discipline of global politics. The main assumption of
this theory is that the system of the states is anarchical with the absence of higher authority to
check and balance, in this case, security and survival of the state is only responsibility on the
state itself (Falode, 2009). According to this theory states only act on the bases of their interests
(MCGLINCHEY, 2017) and this study shows that Indian foreign policy is based on only self-
interest without any concerned about other countries.

Kautilya’s Foreign Policy Methods

The main analytical part of paper starting now which will be a focus on Kautilya,s six-
fold foreign policy, ways of war and its implementations on current Indian foreign policy
(Shamasastry, 1995). Chanakya offered in the “Arthashastra” six ways of foreign policymaking,
which will be discussed in the paper one by one.

1. Samdhi: peacemaking
2. Vigraha: waging war
3. Asana: doing nothing
4. Yana: preparing for war
5. Samsraya: seeking protection
6. Dvaidhibhave: dual policy

Three ways of war:

1. Declare war
2. Secret war
3. Undeclared war

Samdhi; Making peace, according to Chanakya state should enter an agreement with the
specific condition for some time. This method is used when a state is in relative decline as
compared to other states. For example, states fought against Napoleon to enter various collations
with him due to their defeat but this agreement ended after Waterloo. Kautilya says "the only
time a king will make peace is when he found himself in relative decline compared to his enemy”

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3464259

(Shamasastry, 1995). This method applied by India when she defeated by China in 1962, she
realized that we cannot defeat China, so she established peace with China". And by adopting
another policy have a good relation with Japan, and Japan is a rival of China. It means peace
with China for a limited time but it's another debate that this time going on prolongs. This is a
clear indication of Kautilya's six-fold policy. India is still following Kuatilya's policies to
safeguard their interest and defeat their enemies (Khattak, 2011)

Vigraha means waging war: This strategy occurs when a state is more strengthen in
power capabilities than another state and can easily defeat through military, tactics, or internal
conditions in the country of the enemy. Kautilya says “when a king in a superior position as
compared to his enemy, he will attack and wage war” (Shamasastry, 1995). King should observe
the condition of enemy state internally and externally both and when he realized this state can be
easily defeated by my army, he should take action and wage war. This kind of behavior seen in
India's policy when she tried several times waging war against Pakistan due to large military
strength and other powerful capabilities. Since the few past decades, India and Pakistan nearly
waged war due to a major crisis of Brass Tacks (Khattak, 2011). India accelerated Brass tacks
exercise, the largest military maneuvers in the history of South Asia. A tense situation developed
across the borders but at last, great powers got involved and the threat of the nuclear escalation
was sidelined. The terrorist attack on the Indian parliament in 2001, a clear prediction that both
countries may go to war against each other as India claimed that Pakistan is responsible for this
attack and deemed it as a threat to their sovereignty. As a result, India deployed approximately 8,
00,000 troops, two-strike corps and heavy arms on its western border but because of the credible
nuclear deterrence, the war did not occur (Bender, 2013)

Asana, doing nothing or neutrality, is a strategy used where there is no benefit either war
or peacemaking. When a state faced this kind of situation she should be isolated or made a peace
agreement. Kautilya says "if a king feels that his enemy and he are equal and neither can harm
the other nor ruin the other's undertakings, then he shall choose to do nothing" (Shamasastry,
1995). It can be a long wait for a state that when she able to do something? for example in near
past decades, the conflict between Pakistan and India particularly the 1987 Brass tacks and 2001
Mumbai attacks, India realized at this time not possible to win against Pakistan because of the
nuclear deterrence, she decides to do nothing. Non- alignment policy introduced by Jawaharlal

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3464259

Nehru also a result of Kautilya's thought. He said we are not part of any power, because he
realized benefit and harm are equal in this situation he decided to do nothing.

Yana, means preparing for war or marching and is a method about the construction of
military capabilities of the country, and tried to use any sources which lead towards the defeat of
the enemy. If the country not prepared itself for war, the enemy can get the benefit and destroyed
this state. Kautilya says "when a king increases his power and has a special advantage over his
enemy" (Proportion, 1995). Increase the power of state ultimately a fear builds up over the
enemies, and enemy state could not able to attack it. India's current situation shows this kind of
behavior, one can easily evaluate India following Kautilya's policy today. "It is expected that
defense spending in India to increase as it pursues a modernization process. Currently, it is
estimated that India only spends $46 billion on the military from its budget, and have desired to
become the fourth largest investor in 2020 (Bender, 2013). It is the largest importer of military
products. India has ballistic missiles with the range capable of reaching all over Pakistan and
almost of China”. Although in the history a conflict had been between China and India, this
strategy adopted for Pakistan due to the dominance of conflicts between the countries. (Khattak,
2011)

Samsraya means protection or alliances. In contrast to preparing war, this policy

emphasized that if the circle of states has a most powerful state, so ally with it for protection of
own security. Chanakya says “a king seeking an alliance must ensure that he finds a king more
powerful than the neighboring enemy” (Shamasastry, 1995) India working actively on this
strategy and making alliances with the powerful state of the world to ensure its security, due to
alliances India save from sides, powerful states and neighboring countries. India had been made
alliances in the past with US, Russia, France, Israel, and Japan, these alliances are not only the
bases of signs or pacts she also doing with these countries arms trade, nuclear deals, and space
programs. The purpose behind it to undermines Pakistan's national security interests in the region
(Khattak, 2011).

Dvaidhibhava meaning the dual policy is a strategy that is used to addresses several
states at once, by joining some states together with the state itself to form an alliance to fight
enemy states. It is making peace with one state while waging war with the other. Kautilya says
“the enemy of my enemy is my friend” (Davis, 2014), after the bad defeat against China, India

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3464259

stopped the war and make peace with China but also good relation with Japan who is the rival of
China. Chanakya says "Separation from the wife, disgrace from one's people, and an enemy
saved in battle, service to a wicked king, and mismanaged assembly, these all kinds of evil, if
afflicting a person burn him even without fire” (Proportion, 1995). The enemy who survived
from the battle it is a cause of misery for the Indians; they are burning in a fire of revenge and
trying to make possibilities to degrade China. Another example of this policy India entered in
relations with Afghanistan, and Afghanistan is an old rival of Pakistan, so India makes peace
with Afghanistan and trying to make the critical situation in Pakistan through it.

Kautilya also described the ways of war and noteworthy India almost following these
methods of war. First is “Open War "its mean declared war and attacked openly, India openly
attacked Pakistan in 1965 and onward. The second is" secret war "which means sudden attack,
terrorize from one side and attack from the other side. India through Afghanistan making the
worthless situation for Pakistan in Fata, Baluchistan and other tribal areas and on the other hand,
making the critical situation on the eastern border, so Pakistan facing threats from both sides.
The third is "undeclared war” through the agencies, secret services, religious and women. India's
involvement in Baluchistan in Pakistan, supporting Hindu Tamils in Srilanka, supporting
Maoists Separatists in Nepal and supporting Shanti Bahini in Bangladesh, these are the result of
Chanakya,s policies which are adopting by India. This policy also called the aggressive
expansionist concept which founded on Chanakya's lessons.

CONCLUSION:

These are some policies from Chanakya's work, he also worked on other matters of the
state like administrations, law and order and economy. This paper tried to examine those policies
related to the foreign policy of the state. In this era, India still follows the philosophy of
Chanakya Kautilya as a role model. The time has been changed, a lot of brilliant philosophers
passed away before a few centuries, they gave new rules and lessons for the generations. Why
India still following him, the answer is simple as every nation has its historians and philosopher
and they want to follow them but this nation has no power to do that. When India got freedom
from the British Empire, she remembered her forefathers and dedicated freedom to them. After
decolonization, India immediately behaved differently in comparison with Pakistan.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3464259

 Indians were greatly inspired by the philosophy and preaching of Kautilya. With time,
India has included Chanakya's philosophy in its domestic and international policies as per the
requirements of the circumstances. His policies were not only adopted by Indians rather by
westerners as well. Henry Kissinger, Secretary of Treasury during Roosevelt's regime, in his
book “World Order” made a comparison between Kautilya, Machiavelli, and Clausewitz. And
he pointed out some important theories from the Arthashatra related to new world order like
international system theory, realism, and classical realism.

It is the result of the behavior of India which created curiosity in the mind of western,
they compel into know that which person or philosophy followed by India. When they came to
know about Kautilya, ultimately they started work on him and pointed out some new knowledge.
Arthashastra and some versions of this book translated into English and Indian writers also
wrote a replica of Kautilya's studies in English. One cannot criticize Indians why the state is
adopting these kinds of policies based on realistic behavior, every state has the right to adopt any
kind of policy which is good for its interest. Other regional countries should come up with smart
foreign policies to tackle India.

References

Bender, J. (2013). The 11 Most Powerful Militaries In The World.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3464259

Davis, M. (2014). Chanaky Niti -Shastra .
Falode, A. (2009). The Theoretical Foundation of Realism. Lagos State University.
Goswami, D. K. (2013). Chanakya and Chandra-gupta Maurya : The affair of a companionship.
Jagannath University - Bangladesh.
Jindal, N. (2019). Relevance of Kautilya in Contemporary International System. International
Journal of Historical Insight and Research (IJHIR).
Khattak, M.-U.-R. (2011). Indian Strategic Thinking: A Reflection Of Kautilya’s Six Fold Policy
– Analysis. Eurasia Review Journal & Think Tank.
MCGLINCHEY, S. (2017). International Relations Theory. Bristol, England.
Pillalamarri, A. (2015, 1 19). Chanakya: India's Truly Radical Machiavelli. Central & South
Asia'.
Proportion, P. A. (1995). Percent: A Privileged Proportion. Review of Educational Research.
Shamasastry, R. (1995). Kautilya's Arthashastra.
Singh, B. (2016). India’s Neighbourhood Policy: Geopolitical Fault Line of Its Nepal Policy in
the Post-2015 Constitution.
Subramanian, V. K. (1980). Maxims of Chanakya.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3464259