Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra is widely recognised as a precursor to Political Realism, which underpins the writings of Machiavelli, Morgenthau, and Waltz (Weber 1919; Sarkar 1919; Modelski 1964; Kosambi 1994; Boesche 2002; Tisdell 2003; Singh 2011; Michael 2013).
As an acknowledged precursor to Political Realism as realpolitik, Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra asserts that a ruler must continually strive to augment the power of the ‘self’, wherein power is defined by the possession of a strong army, a prosperous treasury, martial capabilities (analogous to ‘hard power’), and intellectual deliberation (equivalent to ‘soft power’).
Kautilyan political thought is fundamentally concerned with the idea of lokasaṃgraha (लोकसंग्रह), or the welfare of the world/state—the benefit and happiness of subjects—so that they do not become discontented or disaffected. Indeed, it is this concern for lokasaṃgraha that leads Kautilya to embed a self-critical undertone within the concept of the ruler’s self-interest (as defined by power).
For instance, he warns that a ruler’s self-interest is harmed if they attack a state with a virtuous ruler or a preponderance of loyal subjects, if they fail to pay what ought to be paid, or if they exact what ought not to be taken. He explicitly cautions against aggression towards states with virtuous rulers or deeply loyal subjects, as such actions are likely to be detrimental to a ruler’s own strategic interests.
This principle remains strikingly relevant today, particularly in the context of modern democracies. Countries where democratic values flourish, and those that adopt a democratic framework for governance, are often perceived as more legitimate and credible, both by their own people and on the international stage.
Moreover, states with a longstanding democratic tradition tend to assert a hegemonic interpretation of democratic values, shaping global narratives on what constitutes democracy and what does not. The United States serves as a prime example, wielding its historical democratic legacy to define and enforce its vision of democracy worldwide.
Further Readings:
Weber, M. (1919 [1978]). Politics as a Vocation. A Speech Delivered at Munich University. In W. Runciman (Ed.), Max Weber: Selections in Translation (E. Matthews, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sarkar, B. K. (1919). The Hindu Theory of International Relations. The American Political Science Review, 13(3), 400–414.
Modelski, G. (1964). Kautilya: Foreign Policy and International System in the Ancient Hindu World. The American Political Science Review, 58(3), 549–560.
Kosambi, D. D. (1994). The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.
Boesche, R. (2002). Moderate Machiavelli? Contrasting the Prince with the Arthashastra of Kautilya. Critical Horizons, 3(2), 253–276.
Tisdell, C. A. (2003). A Western Perspective on Kautilya’s ‘Arthasastra’: Does It Provide a Basis for Economic Science? Available at http://ageconsearch.umn. edu/bitstream/90523/2/WP%2018.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2018.
Singh, M. P. (2011). Indian Political Thought: Themes and Thinkers. New Delhi: Pearson.
Michael, A. (2013). India’s Foreign Policy and Regional Multilateralism. Basingstoke, Hampshire, and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kamal. (2022). Kautilya's Arthashastra: Strategic cultural roots of India's contemporary statecraft. Routledge.
Very Good Post