Unlike Machiavelli’s Prince, Indian-born Kautilya’s Arthashastra has recently gained renewed interest among American and European scholars and foreign policy strategists. The third-century B.C. Sanskrit tome on the art and science of beyond “realpolitik” in governing statecraft, economic policy, and military strategy is still relevant today. Indeed, the great power politics and reforms that have taken place in the United States under President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India present a vivid case study to understand the enigma that is Kautilya and his influence.
Nonetheless, Machiavelli, who wrote the instruction guide to new Italian princes and royal courts, is more famous than the so-called “Indian Machiavelli,” who lived almost two millennia before the European Renaissance. In all accounts, the Italian political philosopher has the reputation of an “amoralist,” but he is now considered a saintly counselor and strategist compared to astute Kautilya. Undeniably, the blatant nature of the state to engage in conquests and ultimately to reach the path of world conquest (Vijigishu) was aptly captured in Arthashastra as Kautilya described a vast array of shrewd political manipulations in politics that showed his adamant nature as a political realist.
In his book, World Order: Reflections on the Character of Nations and the Course of History, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger invoked ancient Indian thoughts in governing the affairs of statecraft and foreign policy. Kissinger, the American “realist” in the foreign policy establishment, explained that “for Kautilya, the power was the dominant reality. Geography, finance, military strength, diplomacy, espionage…needed to be shaped as a unit by a wise king to strengthen and expand his realm…This was an inherent dynamic of self-preservation to which morality was irrelevant.”
Likewise, both American and Indian leaders showed an ardent interest in engaging themselves with ethno-religious and nativist roots in their respective state affairs, government policies, and military strategies. This proclivity played a crucial role in bringing Trump and Modi to power—and together in bilateral relations. The American realist concluded that “the state is a fragile organization, and the statesman does not have the moral right to risk its survival on ethical restraint” over maintaining his power.
It is the same story with Narendra Modi as he vehemently lampooned the democratic ethical values Nehru, Gandhi, and Ambedkar propounded after India gained independence in 1947. In coming to power in 2014 to begin his first term as the premier, Modi’s vision was to instill the Hindutva concept within the state, which would protect the aspirations of the Hindus. Yet, being the largest democracy in the world, India developed itself into a multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic society after independence as the founding fathers of the modern state of India believed in the idea of secularism that set aside India’s historical caste system and the religious conflicts to form a new nation in which every citizen stands equal before the law regardless of his caste or creed. Driven by his firm conviction on the fundamental necessity to remove religious dogma from the social apparatus, India’s first prime minister, Pandit Nehru, adhered to promoting ethnic diversity and social harmony through the lenses of secularism.
Idiosyncratic values inculcated by the Indian Congress under Nehru Gandhi’s legacy survived many decades after India’s independence as the nation’s guiding principles till the influx of Hindu nationalism into the political realm. Modi and his ruling party, BJP’s fascination with Hindu nationalism, owes their intellectual gratitude to Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, whose ideas resonated powerfully with the rise of Hindutva. At the very outset, Savarkar distinguished his concept of Hindutva from Hinduism as his doctrine formed the national character for the state he longed for. Despite his antipathy toward British and Islamic expansion, Savarkar argued the greater need to form a global Hindu empire. This ideological impetus has become the cardinal value system of Narendra Modi and his party, BJP. Still, this ideology has altered the founding secular values indoctrinated by the Congress leaders at the inception of making India a modern nation-state.
It is by no means an exaggeration to claim that ascertaining the depth of Arthashastra and analyzing the astute power strategies used by Kautilya would certainly help fathom Modi’s actions, which are driven by Savarkar’s ideology. Kautilya served his whole life as the adviser to Chandragupta Maurya in the 4th century CE. A little information has been left on his background, mainly derived from Buddhist, Jain, and Kashmiri sources. According to Buddhist sources in the Pali-Chronicle “Mahavamsa,” Kautilya used his strategies in establishing the Maurya empire as his protégée Chandragupta relied on his advice in expanding the empire, which finally resulted in the forming the vast Maurya empire. The text “Arthashastra” is considered Kautilya’s guidebook to transform Chandragupta from a layman to a powerful monarch.
The question arises: how come the ancient wisdom of Kautilya, a text written more than two thousand years ago, helps understand the current actions of two leaders driven by their ethnoreligious narratives? In analyzing this effect, one should relook at the closer ties maintained by Modi with Donald Trump. When Trump visited India in 2020, just before the Covid outbreak, the streets of Delhi were filled with a massive wave of protests followed by state violence against Muslims. After Modi’s government introduced the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act, India’s large Muslim population erupted in anxiety as they believed the proposed amendment would undermine their rights in India. Notwithstanding the violent protests in the capital city, Trump’s visit was celebrated as an event of jubilation, showing the camaraderie between the two leaders.
Kautilya’s adage in his book XI of Arthashastra is a good theoretical tool for understanding this trajectory. In the sixth book regarding the source of sovereign states, Kautilya states an important truth.
“The king who is situated anywhere immediately on the circumstance of the conqueror’s territory is termed the enemy. The king who is likewise situated close to the enemy, but separated from the conqueror only by the enemy, is termed the friend.”
– Kautilya
It seems to indicate that following Kautilyan’s adage, Modi wanted to build a rapport with Trump as his anti-immigrant, xenophobic policies aptly equated with his own Hindutva agenda. As a realist with a penchant for diplomatic showmanship, it was unsurprising that Modi built a strong personal relationship with Trump to counter Islamic threats and China.
On the other hand, the US regarded India as central to its Indo-Pacific strategy. The White House National Security Strategy Report issued in 2017 during the first term of Trump welcomed India’s emergence as a leading global power and strong strategic partner. From a vantage point, the affinity between Trump and Modi truly manifests how Kautilyan idea of realpolitik worked for strategic gains regardless of the moral compunctions of the acts.
In American foreign policy strategic thinking, Henry Kissinger invoked Kautilya in his book “World Order” as a thinker who relied on political realism devoid of passion. Kissinger states, “This work sets out, with dispassionate clarity, a vision of how to establish and guard a state while neutralizing, subverting, and conquering the neighbors.” Ironically, the Kautilyan elements were purely visible in the US’s Jacksonian tradition, which became revered guiding principles to Trump.
One of the key concepts derived from the Jacksonian school on war affirmed that American lives should not be put at risk on the battlefield and that American leaders must crush the key elements of enemy power professionally. Trump’s claim after the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in January 2020 echoed the Jacksonian legacy as he openly stated that killing the Iranian General intended to prevent an imminent attack against US personnel and embassies. Kautilya’s position on approving the clandestine missions of killing the ministers and powerful leaders of an enemy nation in a silent war epitomizes Jacksonian values. Despite the civilizational difference, the Kautilyan approach and Jacksonian thought on foreign policy have positioned themselves on the same ground with no moral qualms.
It is important to understand that the values instilled in India and the USA are rooted in much higher norms that appreciate moral stances than the mere depiction of “Realpolitik.” For instance, Nehru often admired the ethos of Mauryan Emperor Asoka, who abandoned Kautilya and his “vijigishu” to form his dharmavijaya policy, which embodied the triumph of “moralpolitik.” Regarding the US foreign policy tradition, the inherent American values have played a dominant role in their global quest. All in all, the strategies accustomed by both Trump and Modi that resemble the political evasiveness of Kautilya in Arthashastra do not represent the deeper moral value-based norms of both the USA and India as the two largest democracies in the world.
If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please check the Submissions page.
To stay updated with the latest jobs, CSS news, internships, scholarships, and current affairs articles, join our Community Forum!
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
Punsara Amarasinghe is a post-doctoral researcher affiliated with Scuola Superiore Sant Anna, Pisa. He is a PhD holder in Public International Law from the Institute of Law, Politics and Development at Scuola Superiore Sant Anna (Sant Anna School for Advanced Studies) in Pisa, Italy. He holds LL.M. from the South Asian University, New Delhi, and completed his undergraduate studies in law at the Faculty of Law, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.
He completed another master's degree in international relations from the HSE, Moscow. He has held two visiting research fellowships at the Global Legal Studies Centre at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Sciences PO, Paris. He was affiliated with the Minerva Center for Strategic Studies at Hebrew University, Jerusalem for a brief period in 2019.