Father of Indian Strategic Thought- Kautilya

Intro: Father of Indian strategic thought, statecraft and political economy. Was Chandragupta Maurya’s chief advisor and helped him defeat Nanda dynasty and establish the Mauryan dynasty.

Context: like Machiavelli was unhappy with corruption in Italy, Kautilya was unhappy with corrupt and inefficient governance of Nanda dynasty in Magadha and wrote Arthashatra in which he talks of making an ideal and corruption free state.

Book: Arthashastra: deals with both Dharma(laws) and Danda(statecraft). Deals with both, internal as well as external aspects of statecraft.
The Arthashastra talks about grand strategy that includes states military and non-military, material and ideational resources and using these power factors for the realisation of its foreign policy goals
Comparable to Sun Tzu's art of war and Machiavelli's prince
Deals with types of war, espionage, types of corruption.

In the words of Bhikhu Parekh, Kautilya represents the realist tradition of India

Described state of nature as “Matsya Nyaya” similar to Hobbes’s Anarchical state of nature.
Says state is an organism, it will perish if not expand
Neighbour is our natural enemy, as both look for same piece of land.
Calls his king as Vijigishu and wants him to be a Chakravartin Samrat(all encompassing emperor)
Says a king derives his power from three main sources-

Organised an elaborate network of bureaucracy to manage the Mauryan Empire. His work inspired Max Weber’s work on bureaucracy as highly structured, formalised and also an impersonal organisation
Acc to Kautilya war is “kshtriya dharma”
Believes in psychological warfare like Sun Tzu
King should achieve Yogakshem( material well being of his people).
Relations between states are relations of war where strength of lion prevails
Belongs to school of offensive realism, i.e. offence is the best defence.
Mandal Siddhant- Mandala is circle of friends and foes embracing 12 kings in vicinity. Circle is dynamic, shows maxim of international politics that there is no permanent friend and enemy. based on the view that neighbours are natural enemy and a king must expand his empire starting from inner to outer circle.

Saptang theory- state has 7 limbs and 12 mandals determine possibilities of conflict so 84 elements of sovereingty to be considered before king goes to war.

Pnumonic- BDJKAM
If king is strong and all other elements are weak still no problem
Suggests king to follow “Rajdharma” - In the words of Kautilya in the well-being of citizens lies the well-being of the King
Suggests his king to uphold dharma and make conducive conditions for people to carry out trade and commerce
On corruption- says there are 40 ways of embezzlement. Talks about transfers at regular interval, protection to the whistle-blower, punishing the whole chain of transaction,etc

the potential roles that India envisions its two largest neighbours will play in securing its foreign policy objectives is in tandem with Kautilyan concepts: of Pakistan as “innate” and China as “contingent” enemy; and of the former as a “strategic opponent” and the latter, a “strategic competitor”.
Talk about India’s neighbourhood and extended neighbourhood through mandal siddhant.
Checks on govt corruption through PCA and lokpal.
Espionage through RAW, IB.
Book: The India way -chapter: Krishna's choice”— “follow the dharma of the state”, that is asserting national interest and securing strategic goals through various means.

They have shifted the attention from political philosophy to political science as both belong to the realist tradition
Both make a distinction between politics and ethics
More concerned with security of state than of people, wanted to make a strong state
War must be used as last resort as it causes economic loss and well being of citizens.
Both placed great emphasis on conquest and expansion of territory
kautilya: sama dama danda bheda; mach: clever like fox and brave like lion
on corruption- Kautily explained 40 types of embezzlement while Machiavelli was concerned with corruption in Church percolating to the common person.

Says king cannot be above Dharma in strong contrast to Machiavelli who asks prince to use religion to keep people in control.
Machiavelli's ideas remained in theory and Kautilya got his ideas implemented through Maurya

Weber in his work politics as vocation says Kautilya was more Machiavellian than Mach and mach's prince appears harmless in comparison to Kautilya's Arthshastra

Nehru calls Kautiya as Indian Mach in his book discovery of India

By Gandhi- for separation of ends and means . Says Yogakshem must not only mean material well being but also spiritual well being.

Conclusion- Medha Bisht in her book “Kautilya’s Arthashastra: philosophy of strategy” mentions that Arthshastra as a text of grand strategy, fills the gap in otherwise Eurocentric discipline.

Class Notes 4 You