The classics are marvelous works which stand many re-readings without losing their force. In fact, they almost demand rereading, as a Beethoven symphony demands replaying (Cowan and Guinness 2006: 12). The ancient Indian classical text of Kautilyaâs ArthaĹÄstra (second to fourth century CE) has gone through numerous re-readings since its discovery around 1905. 1 In fact, the story of its discovery reads like a âthrillerâ that contains a few âIndiana Jones-likeâ moments (Olivelle 2013). Of course, the textual tradition of Kautilyaâs ArthaĹÄstra was never lost: its existence was already known from various direct and indirect references to it in the extant literature. 2 However, its discovery in the form of palm-leaf manuscripts is attributed to the Indologist R. Shamasastry who received it from an anonymous person at the Oriental Research Institute of Mysore in south India . As it was originally received, it was written in grantha scriptâthat is, a script used by Tamil speakers in south India (Allan et al. 1934). It was Shamasastry who not only recognized the received palm-leaf manuscripts as âKautilyaâs ArthaĹÄstraâ, but also produced the first Sanskrit and English translations of it in 1909 and 1915 respectively, thereby making it accessible to the readers across the world. Since then a few more English translations (including lessons drawn from the discovery of further manuscripts and commentaries) have arrived 3 âthe prominent ones are composed by R. P. Kangle (1960s/1997), L. N. Rangarajan (1992), and Patrick Olivelle (2013). Given the âall-embracing contentâ of this classical text, its re-readings over the past several years have influenced scholarly research in wide-ranging disciplines of social sciences: for instance, political science , economics , history , archaeology, anthropology, jurisprudence, and administrative studies.
Nevertheless, the re-readings of Kautilyaâs ArthaĹÄstra in the academic discipline of International Relations (IR) remained relatively ignored for regrettable reasons. Navnita Chadha Behera (2009: 101) reports:
Unlike other social sciences, which study Indiaâs âtraditional pastsâ to understand their respective notions of the âPresentâ, and as a legitimate source of learning, Indian IR takes the Indian state as a given starting point of all its scholarly endeavours. It has âno pastsâ to look into because they have been discredited or rendered irrelevant. Following the footsteps â metaphorically and substantively â of its âMaster Creatorâ (read Western IR) wherein the realist power rituals administers âsilenceâ regarding the historicity of the boundaries it produces, the space it historically clears, and the subjects it historically constitutes (Ashley cited in Tickner 2003: 300), Indian IR has also shied away from critically interrogating the story of its birthâŚ[Indian IR] does not recognize or own Indian political philosopher, Kautilya, as the âfather of realpolitik â. (emphasis added)
It was not long before the ambition to match the pace with Western IR allowed Kautilyaâs ArthaĹÄstra to steadily seep into the scholarly boundaries of Indian IR. Nonetheless, the re-readings of Kautilya as a âfather of realpolitik â almost always delivered the same monotonous theoretical resultâthat is, Kautilyaâs ArthaĹÄstra is a valuable non-Western resource which mirrors the Political Realism/realpolitik that characterizes the dominant theoretical models of Classical Realism and Neorealism in Eurocentric IR. Although it is extremely puzzling as to how the âall-embracing contentâ of this incredibly vast classical text could be fitted into the tight theoretical straitjacket of Classical Realism /Neorealism , the Political Realist interpretation of Kautilyaâs ArthaĹÄstra gained greater momentum when Eurocentric IR began to make attempts to acquire a âGlobal â shape, and, therefore, permitted unprecedented admittance to heterodox theorizations inspired by non-Western knowledge-forms. Against this backdrop, the initiatives to include the non-Western knowledge-forms of Political Realism/realpolitik in Kautilyaâs ArthaĹÄstra tended to instigate a sort of âchronological battleââsince Kautilyaâs ArthaĹÄstra predates Hobbes âstate of natureâ, Machiavelliâs âPrinceâ, Morgenthauâs âunchanging human nature (animus dominandi), and Kenneth Waltz âs âanarchy â, the IR scholars engaged with this chronological battle voiced their discontent with the labeling of Kautilya as âIndian Machiavelli â, and not labeling of Machiavelli as âItalian or Mediterranean Kautilyaâ (Acharya 2014); in fact, fresh studies were conducted for the relabeling of Machiavelli as a âmodern European avatar of Kautilyaâ (de Souza 2011).
Evidently, the ongoing scholarly discourses have revitalized the status of Kautilyaâs ArthaĹÄstra as a potent non-Western tool to attack the Eurocentric roots of contemporary IR. But its narrow re-readings in terms of Political Realism/realpolitik have done profound injustices to this extraordinarily comprehensive classical text: it is precisely so, because these narrow re-readings (in terms of Political Realism/realpolitik ) have made no attempts to reconstruct the âeclectic philosophical foundationâ of this classical text that explicitly claims to amalgamate the diverse philosophical substructures of SÄáškhya , Yoga and LokÄyata (literally meaning ânumbersâ, âaggregateâ, and âworldly onesâ respectively). As the philosophical foundation of this classical text remained unexplored, its distorted re-readings in terms of Political Realism/realpolitik remain apologetic at worst and expository at best. Bhikhu Parekh (1992: 535 and 548) complains:
Non-Western societies have frequently and rightly complained that Western political theory is ethnocentric and has a limited explanatory power when applied outside the West. One would have thought that they would therefore produce both a well-considered critique of its central categories and modes of inquiry, and an original body of ideas capable of illuminating their political experiences. Surprising as it may seem, this is not the case⌠Kautilyaâs Arthasastra is theâŚtext on which some work continues to be done, but most of it is expository and apologetic. No attempt has been made to reconstruct and produce scholarly editions of scores of ancient Hindu, Jain and Buddhist texts on politicsâŚThere is no attempt to reflect on the structure and assumptions of classical Indian political thought and to show how its approach differed from its counterparts elsewhere.
It is in the context of these rightly pointed out lacunae in the study of Kautilyaâs ArthaĹÄstra that the present study acquires particular significance. The present study undertakes a re-reading of the classical text of Kautilyaâs ArthaĹÄstra for the purpose its philosophical reconstruction; it then mobilizes the philosophically reconstructed classical text of Kautilyaâs ArthaĹÄstra to produce an original ânon-Western eclectic theory of IRâ. The study raises the following central question: How does Kautilyaâs ArthaĹÄstra (which combines the philosophical and logical aspects of SÄáškhya , Yoga and LokÄyata ) cultivate a non-Western eclectic theory of IR? A systematic response to this central question requires a careful examination of several related questi...