Rethinking International Relations: Kautilya’s Strategic Thoughts

Image Source Wikipedia

Kautilya's framework examined in the light of the current developments in international relations and contemporary western theories proves that classical Indian strategic thought deserves serious attention in tandem with established Western approaches says A Sathwik Raja Bose in his review of, “A Critical Study of Kautilya’s Concepts of Mitra and Raja mandala”.

Today, the world is becoming multipolar and this has led scholars to revisit non-Western traditions of strategic thought, seeking alternative analytical frameworks. In this intellectual trend, Sumedha Verma Ojha’s A Critical Study of Kautilya’s Concepts of Mitra and Rajamandala and Their Application to Global Geopolitics, argues that Kautilya’s Arthashastra provides a sophisticated and enduring frame for understanding contemporary international relations. The author argues that Kautilya should not be seen merely as an ancient political thinker, but that his ideas constitute a living strategic tradition that can account for the paradoxes of 21st century geopolitics. 

This article seeks to challenge the hegemony of Western epistemological approaches in the field of International Relations (IR). It argues that dominant theories, largely drawn from European historical experiences, present an incomplete picture of global politics. Alternatively, the author suggests that Kautilya’s ideas of Mitra (ally), Rajamandala (circle of states) and the Saptaanga theory of the state provide a comprehensive indigenous model to analyse interstate relations in the tactical, strategic and geopolitical domains. 

One of the main strengths of the paper is its systematic account of Kautilyan statecraft. The discussion opens with the basic concepts of Artha, Paalana and Labha. Then it introduces the Saptaanga model with the elements of leadership, administration, territory ,population, fortifications, military capability, treasury and international relations. The author then proceeds to explain the Rajamandala framework by classifying states into allies, adversaries, buffer states and distant powers. Kautilya’s Shadgunya (six measures of foreign policy) and Upayas (diplomatic and strategic instruments) further supplement these concepts, illustrating that the Arthashastra provides a multidimensional understanding of foreign policy, which transcends military competition and encompasses diplomacy, governance, economics and state capacity. 

One of the article’s noteworthy contributions is its attempt to apply these classical ideas in the contemporary geopolitics. The author uses the Rajamandala framework to examine India’s evolving strategic environment—from the Cold War period to the current Indo-Pacific order—and shows how the changing alignments between China, the US, Russia, NATO and new multilateral arrangements can be viewed from the strategic perspective of Kautilya. Yet another innovative attempt to transform an ancient conceptual frame-work into a practical analytical tool for modern strategic studies is the proposal to visualise inter-state relations using a graph-based Rajamandala model. 

The paper also speaks to the wider discussion on the decolonisation of International Relations. The study promotes more engagement with Indian Knowledge Systems in contemporary policy analysis, by showing that indigenous intellectual traditions have explanatory value independent of Western theoretical paradigms. Such interventions expand the conceptual foundations of the discipline as global strategic competition reflects increasingly civilizational diversity and multiple centers of power.

These are some of the strengths of the paper, but there are also several limitations that should be considered. One of the key issues is the absence of a defined research methodology. The article is primarily based on an interpretive and conceptual approach, without explicitly stating its analytical methods, research design or criteria for assessing the applicability of the Rajamandala Theory. This does not impact the theoretical contribution of this paper but it impacts the methodological transparency and academic rigor of the study.

The empirical basis of the argument is also rather restricted. The author provides examples from the domain of India’s foreign policy and the changing China–India strategic relationship, but these are more descriptive applications than systematic case studies. The absence of comparative empirical analysis makes it difficult to evaluate whether Rajamandala Theory offers always more explanatory power than dominant theories of International Relations in different geopolitical contexts.

Another limitation has to do with the paper’s engagement with existing scholarship. The book is critical of the Western dominance of International Relations, but it dedicates comparatively little space to systematic comparisons with major theoretical traditions such as Classical Realism, Structural Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism, or the English School. With a more detailed theoretical dialogue, the reader could have better appreciated the specific contributions and limitations of the Kautilyan framework vis-à-vis current approaches.

The article also embodies a normative preference for the current strategic trajectory of India. Some assessments of India’s geopolitical position, leadership and growing influence are presented with limited engagement with alternative interpretations or competing scholarly perspectives. A broader spectrum of views would have enhanced the analytical balance that is anticipated in academic research.

Furthermore, while the Rajamandala construct explains interstate competition, alliances and strategic balancing well, its relevance in new dimensions of global governance is underdeveloped. International politics today is increasingly about cyber security, artificial intelligence, climate diplomacy, multinational corporations, digital infrastructure and transnational networks. The issues are only briefly touched upon, suggesting that further conceptual development might be needed if Rajamandala Theory is to serve as a comprehensive framework for twenty-first-century global politics.

The paper is well structured, with a logical progression from the conceptual underpinnings to the theoretical explanation, practical application and policy recommendations. The language is accessible even though the subject matter is complex and the use of Sanskrit terms along with English explanations maintains conceptual precision but accessible to a wider readership. The concluding section rightly points to future directions, including the need to update Kautilyan concepts, to quantify the different elements of state power, and to develop visual analytical models that can be used in contemporary foreign policy analysis. 

Overall A Critical Study of Kautilya’s Concepts of Mitra and Rajamandala and Their Application to Global Geopolitics is a meaningful contribution to the ongoing effort to broaden the intellectual foundations of International Relations Its achievement is not to prove that Kautilya's framework should replace current theories, but to prove that classical Indian strategic thought deserves serious attention in tandem with established Western approaches. The study could benefit from greater methodological clarity, wider empirical validation, and more engagement with the contemporary literature of International Relations, but it successfully opens up an important avenue of future research.

The paper offers a stimulating insight for scholars of International Relations, strategic studies, Indian foreign policy and civilisational approaches to geopolitics, on how ancient political philosophy can influence present-day strategic challenges. It is an important step in the mainstreaming of indigenous knowledge systems in global geopolitical analysis and invites further engagement with India’s rich strategic tradition in global academic discourse.

A. Sathwik Raja Bose is a research intern with Security Risks Asia