Beyond Eurocentrism: Kautilya's realism and India's regional diplomacy

International Relations (IR) especially with the post-positivist turn has been subjected to serious scholarly discontent for being a parochial discipline. For the dissident scholarship ever since its beginning as a discipline, IR has reproduced itself by either silencing or confiscating knowledge production at the margins of the 'self, that is, by articulating and re-articulating the coloniality of knowledge (Quijano, 2000; Mignolo (2011)). John Hobson even traces back this process to the mid-18th century and argues, thereafter the international theory that developed both inside and outside of the discipline has mostly been a Eurocentric construct. For him, in a very precise manner, the international theory essentially constructs a series of Eurocentric conceptions of world politics (Hobson, 2012, p. 1). In this way, the notion of Eurocentrism does not simply refer to a geographical question but articulates a much deeper one-the epistemic question. Eurocentrism as a knowledge system gets re-articulated through the spatio-temporal binaries by locating 'Europe' as space separate from the 'non-West' and always ahead within the story of the progressive narrative of the international. This is a deliberately designed choreography to explicitly and implicitly place Europe as the origin and originator of all developments, which are considered to be central to the development of international relations. The subsequent knowledge system develops into intellectual colonialism or the coloniality of knowledge which post-colonial thinkers define as an 'epistemic violence committed at the 'encounter' with the 'other' and leading to what Boaventura de Sousa Santos refers to as 'epistemicide' (Fonseca, 2019, p. 3). So instead of elucidating international politics in an objective, positivist, and universalist manner, international relations theory rather celebrates and promotes the West parochially as the highest or ideal normative referent in world politics. Being the dominant theory of the discipline, Realism is quintessential a Eurocentric theory as international politics is conflated with the politics of intra-Western relations so much so that reference to the non-Western world is all but absent. According to Hobson, the focus of realism is what he calls the "Westphalian big bang" of 1648, which assumes that the international system exploded in Europe as the result of the peace of Westphalia (Hobson, 2012, p. 190). The 'Westphalian Myth' as labeled by Andreas Osiander, linking the emergence of the Westphalian model to the Peace of Westphalia is largely based on the 19th and 20th-century fixation on the concept of state sovereignty. Consequently, the IR theory in general and the dominant realist paradigm in particular argues Osiander, developed against the background of the ideology of sovereignty (Osiander, 1 2001). In this way Eurocentrism under-pins both classical, as well as neo-realism given their normative and explanatory framework being grounded within a parochial analysis of West wherein intra-Western politics is presented as world politics. Back in 1977, Professor Stanely Hoffman had stigmatized IR as an American Social Science as he famously put it, 'the discipline of international relations was born and raised in America which had profound consequences for thinking and theorizing' (Hoffman, 1977, p. 59). The master variables of Kenneth Waltz and Mearsheimer's theories are all derived from European and American experiences and not from the analysis of interstate relations elsewhere. To expose and therefore defeat this parochial bias of the discipline, there has emerged a plethora of scholarly works approaching narratives and theorization beyond the West. As Ersel Aydinli and Gonca Biltekin in one such latest work argue that there is increasing desirability within the discipline of IR which reflects a consensus on the need for encouraging homegrown theorization to overcome the global hegemonic structure of the discipline which had pushed the periphery scholars to be just consumers of theory rather than producers of it (Aydinli and Biltekin, 2018, p. 16). Therefore, to enrich the theoretical horizon of the discipline, as well as simultaneously to defeat the Eurocentrism, non-Western perspectives apart from interrogating the geographical aspect must problematize the epistemic primacy of Europe. In this respect, the historical turn constitutes an important critique that opens researchers' curiosities to search for (or create) 'different' narratives, draw on concepts that were left at the margins, and prioritize the work of authors outside of the canon. This article is one of the modest attempts in that direction to move beyond the Euro-centric theorization and in particular, deparochialize the realist theory. The potent intellectual tool will be the ancient Indian realist, Kautilya, and his classic text Arthashastra. Being a non-Western, Kautilya is in fact the first great political realist and his text's subject matter underscores his place in the otherwise Euro-centric realist tradition. He had addressed those timeless questions that would much later in modern times become the bedrock assumptions of realism as a mainstream theory. The second task of the article is to examine the regional diplomacy of post-independent India in South Asia via Kautilyan realism. The main argument put forward is that Kautilya's Arthashastra as a reliable non-Western realistic classic offers an important theoretical and conceptual reservoir for contemporary scholars to engage with and also serves as a reliable theoretical toolkit to understand the strategic culture of India as an emerging great power. Finally, the article argues that even if Kautilya's realism has been the default strategy of India in South Asia nevertheless its execution varies across leadership and Modi has demonstrated the will and determination to embrace Arthashastra openly and very boldly. The article is divided into four sections; section first deals with Kautilyan realism, the second section provides an overview of India's regional diplomacy through a Kautilyan realistic analysis, section third examines Modi's embrace of Kautilya via his neighborhood first policy and the final section provides the concluding remarks.

• Kautilya’s Arthashastra represents a foundational non-Western realist text articulating core realist concepts long before European theorists: national interest as the guiding principle, anarchy (matsya-nyaya), balance of power via self-help and alliances (Mandala theory and sadgunya), and pragmatic statecraft unconstrained by moralism. - India’s strategic culture and regional diplomacy reflect Arthashastra’s logic: viewing South Asia as a natural sphere of influence and employing concentric circles of engagement (immediate neighborhood, extended neighborhood/Indo-Pacific, global stage). - Across leadership: Nehru pursued non-alignment and keeping foreign powers out of South Asia but faltered vis-à-vis China (1962); Indira Gandhi applied realpolitik effectively (integration of Sikkim, creation of Bangladesh in 1971, Indo-Soviet treaty as Mandala balancing); Rajiv Gandhi sustained regional interventions (e.g., Sri Lanka). - Post–Cold War: India increasingly operationalized Arthashastra through the Gujral Doctrine (non-reciprocity toward smaller neighbors), “Look East” and extended neighborhood concepts, nuclearization and doctrines like Cold Start, and outreach to Central Asia to balance Pakistan and China. - Under Manmohan Singh: emphasis on what is most advantageous to India, elevation of economic statecraft (e.g., US civil nuclear deal), and explicit intellectual engagement with Kautilya in policy circles (IDSA, ICWA). - Under Modi: explicit embrace of Kautilya via “Neighborhood First,” high-level outreach to all neighbors, resolution of the India–Bangladesh land boundary issue, renewed engagement with Sri Lanka (including Mattala airport JV, 2018), and deepening with Bhutan and Nepal. - Managing Pakistan: initial outreach (Lahore visit), followed by coercive measures after terror attacks (surgical strikes in 2016; Balakot airstrikes after Pulwama in 2019), and use of “SAARC minus one” and BBIN to sidestep Pakistan’s veto—illustrating Danda and Dvaidhibhava. - Afghanistan: sustained developmental assistance exceeding $3 billion (including Parliament building and Salma Dam) and pragmatic opening of channels to the Taliban to protect interests. - China and the Indo-Pacific: shift from Look East to Act East, strengthening ties with Vietnam, Japan, Australia, ASEAN (10 ASEAN leaders at Republic Day 2018), and the Quad (“Mod Quad”) as Arthashastran circle-of-states balancing; calibrated restraint after Galwan while reallocating focus to the primary challenger. - Overall, the paper argues Kautilya is integral to India’s strategic DNA; application varies by leadership capacity and will, with Modi markedly revitalizing Arthashastran praxis in regional diplomacy.

The paper addresses the problem of Eurocentrism in IR—particularly in realism—by foregrounding Kautilya’s Arthashastra as a rigorous, earlier articulation of realist principles from the non-West. This re-centering provides both an epistemic corrective and a practical framework to interpret India’s foreign policy. By tracing India’s regional diplomacy from Nehru through Indira Gandhi, Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh, and Modi, the analysis shows that Kautilyan tenets—national interest primacy, alliance-building and balancing (Mandala), calibrated coercion (Danda), dual policy (Dvaidhibhava), and concentric engagement—consistently inform policy choices. The significance lies in demonstrating how a non-Western realist corpus not only enriches theory by challenging Eurocentric origin stories but also robustly explains empirical patterns in India’s neighborhood management and broader Indo-Pacific strategy. The findings suggest that leadership capacity and geopolitical context condition the explicitness and assertiveness of Arthashastran application, with Modi’s tenure exemplifying its overt revival.

The article examined Kautilya as a political realist and his influence on contemporary India's regional diplomacy in South Asia. Being disavowed in the scholarship of his own country, as well as orientalized in the West, Kautilya however is the doyen of the well-established tradition of realism in the discipline of IR. His magnum opus, the Arthashastra is a remarkable non-European realistic classic which serves as a very powerful analytical tool to deparochialize the Euro-centric discipline of IR in general and the realistic theory in particular. Kautilya's realism can be gauged from the establishment of the Mauryan Empire to unify the whole subcontinent and beyond. With his practical advice, Chandragupta was able to establish a mighty empire larger than the Mughal and British empires. The subject matter of Arthashastra where hardly any issue is considered immoral certainly surpasses the chronologically worthy competitor Thucydides and earns him the title of 'first great political realist'. Kautilya had discussed the core ideas and concepts of realism long before West came to know them. The primacy of national interest, foreign policy, war, as well as among others the balance of power dynamics through alliances and self-help and the anarchic nature of international politics makes his text an untapped conceptual and theoretical toolkit, contemporary scholars must engage with. Even if he is not acknowledged as the father of the realist tradition in the Indian scholarship, nevertheless his ideas and strategies constitute the DNA of contemporary India's foreign and security policies. His influence is much more visible in India's neighborhood diplomacy as India still looks at the region from the traditional sub-continental perspective. Echoing Kautilya, India considers South Asia as its exclusive sphere of influence and strives to be the dominant power in the region. From Nehru to Man Mohan Singh as the article argued Kautilya and his Arthashastra remained the default strategy for South Asia; however the execution depended very much on state capability and willingness from leadership. Even though Nehru followed realpolitik but his mishandling of China proved his inadequate grasp of Kautilya than her daughter Indra Gandhi. She seemed to be very well acquainted with Arthasastran diplomatic skills and effectively played the dynamic of Mandala by carving out Bangladesh and establishing an alliance with the Soviet Union. With the end of the Cold War and growing self-confidence in India, South Asia assumed much more prominence with Kautilya's diplomacy being applied gallantly. The Chinese growing influence within the region became a serious priority to ward off. From Gujral Doctrine to Look East, as well as the extended neighborhood concept by invoking the notion of 'concentric circles' post-Cold-War leadership continued the Kautilyan strategic heritage followed by Nehru and Indra. Even if Kautilya's ideas have remained the holy grail of India's regional diplomacy, nevertheless there has been a kind of diffidence from hitherto leadership except for Indra Gandhi which in part can be attributed to India's lacking sufficient power potential to apply Kautilya more explicitly. However, with the emergence of Modi, India's regional, as well as global standing had improved a lot. He further elevated India's self-confidence as a great power and demonstrated willingness and ability to assertively invoke the Arthasastran diplomatic skills. Contrary to the suppositions, he devoted much energy to foreign policy and seemed familiar with the realistic diplomacy of Kautilya. He quickly grasped China's increasing forays in South Asia, as well as understood the importance of the backyard, he came up with his 'neighborhood first' policy mantra. Putting Arthashastra into action he played the dual policy of winning over the lost ground and simultaneously offsetting China's penetration in the region. This is in consonance with Arthasastran wisdom that to counter the growing influence of Beijing, New Delhi must reinvent its relationship with its small neighbors and as such must continue its realism-driven geopolitical pragmatism derived from the dual policy of Kautilyan Dvaidhibhava. For Pakistan, however being the smaller enemy as per Kautilyan wisdom, Modi had pursued an aggressive posture by claiming to conduct surgical strikes, as well as Balakot airstrikes. He assertively played the Danda option along with Dvaidhibhava in the case of Pakistan and Rajamandala more specifically in the case of China. For the former, he embraced Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, and Afghanistan, etc. and for the later the more robust 'Act East', as well as the 'Mod Quad' loudly echoes the sound of Kautilyan maxim 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. Thus India has done a lot of groundwork to keep South Asia as its natural sphere of preeminence in a typical Arthashastra fashion; nevertheless, the regional states continue to play the China card because of the Mandala dynamic of perceived insecurity from neighboring India. However, this in no way should suggest India to back off in extending its benevolence towards the smaller neighbors that are very realistic; after all the road to becoming the chakravartin passes through South Asia being the immediate neighborhood. Along with Kautilyan interpretation of India's approach towards China, there is further scope for exploring the latter's way of handling the former, and in that the best available indigenous theoretical toolkit would be Sun Tzu's The Art of War. This is a very promising research agenda given the similar recurring themes about restraint and moderation, as well as a balanced attitude to the use of force is to be found in both these texts, nevertheless, there are clear divergences when it comes to methodologies to be employed. The divergences will not only help in understanding the behavior of India-China towards each other as Asian neighbors from a homegrown theorization but will also broaden the realistic paradigm by incorporating in it the contributions from non-West especially from Asia and therefore would free the discipline's dominant theoretical paradigm from the clutches of eurocentrism.