By Rana Danish Nisar
“Every neighboring state is an enemy and the enemy’s enemy is a friend.”~~~ Kautilya, the Arthashastra
The depth analysis of India’s foreign policy as well as a strategic culture tells the bibliophiles that it is much fascinated by Chanakya Kautilya’s “ARTHASHASTRA” wisdom. In the context of etymology, Kautilya is India’s strategic intellectual along with political highbrow around three hundred (300) BC. His renowned piece of writing titled “Arthashastra” is the masterpiece of writing in the context of “Diplomacy”, “Warfare” tactics, and how to deal with the vicinities and regional as well as global level. Interestingly, after a long time, this magnificent work of Kautilya is still being used by the Indian political pundits, strategic think tanks, and diplomats who aim to deal India with other entities of the region. Kautilya was the chief and beloved advisor of a King named “Chandragupta” and had an expansionist notion and desire to conquer the world.
Not todays but for much long time, Indian strategic thinking and culture is the pure reflection of Kautliya’s policy of conquering which is based on the main six points. The present piece of writing will discuss the Kautilya’s six points:
– Peace – War – Neutrality – Marching – Alliance – Double Policy
In his first point named “Peace”, Kautilya suggests that if the King/ Ruler feels the decline, defeat, and deterioration as compared to its powerful enemy then the king should follow the notion of peace and arise the solon of “Peace”. If we do a deep analysis, during the time of the Indo-China war of 1962, and defeat of India, India followed the philosophy of peace because India came to know that it were not possible to defeat China.
In recent time, at the Glawan-Valley India-China military stand-off, India declared that India wants peace with China. India knows very well that India can’t defeat China because there is still no comparison between India and China even in their annual defense budget. Frankly, there is no comparison between China’s almost 270 billion $ military budget with the Indian 62 billion $ budget. China is at least more powerful.
By explaining this second very significant point “War”, Kautilya suggests that “if the Ruler/ Head/ King is in the superior as well as grander position, he/she should attack its enemy as well as adversary with a brutal war.” History has witnessed not only the brutal offensive looms of India towards its western border Pakistan; also the Blackwater (kala Pani) canal issue with Nepal, the interface in Bhutan and Maldives, the brutal snooping in Sri-Lanka in 1980s, are lively example. Additionally, the Indian offensive march-past towards Pakistan and wars of 1948, 1965, 1971, and going on and recant surgical strikes on Pakistan is a true reflection of India’s offensive motives.
Currently, Indian military formation in the context of “Corps-II” which is commonly known as “Strike Corps” and based at location of “Ambala”. Often, this strike corps is used by India against Pakistan in the time of conflict. Moreover, this corps has approximately fifty percent more capabilities in the context of offensive strike and the main focused to do pre-emptive strikes against Pakistan. An example is in January 1987, when India started its Brass-tacks military exercises near the border with massive and world largest deployment of the military in the entire history of the region of South Asia.
This tense action of India could be triggered into the major military war between two aggressive rivals. Soon after the tense relations, the telephonic words “Cool it” to Zia_ul_Haq and Rajiv Gandhi by the American president Reagan decreased the conflict. Again in the year 2001, after the Indian parliament attack, Indian deploy almost 800000 military troops near the western border along with strikes crops-II including air force and naval aim to aerial attack and move fleets in the Arabian Sea aim to the naval blockade of Pakistan.
Even India used the term “Coercive diplomacy” against Pakistan and put more pressure on Pakistan from global fora too. By following the same suiting and effective defensive response, Pakistan adopted the “Mirror Diplomacy” any eye-to-eye interaction by following the “Tit-for-Tat” notion along with “Action-Reaction” syndrome counter Indian offensive looms. In the third folded wisdom named “Neutrality”, Kautilya suggests that “if a ruler, head of state/king feels that his/her enemy is equal to him/her in capabilities/abilities and some extent power, he/she should adopt neutral policies and avoid to do nothing”. The lively examples are the 1986-87 crisis, the 2001-2002 compound crisis, the 2008 Mumbai attack, when Indian didn’t escalate the conflict owing to Pakistan’s potent nuclear deterrence and show the gesture of neutrality. By following the fourth suiting of “Marching” as fourth significant pillar of Kautilya’s policy of war and diplomacy, Kautilya suggests that “If ruler/king upsurge its power and has a special massive advantage over her/his adversary or enemy he/she will/ should adopt the “Marching” notion and make active preparedness for war against its enemy”. India is actively follows this notion perfectly.
The evolving military exercises since 2004 after the announcement of the “Cold Start Doctrine (CSD)”, India had systematic military exercises in the western border, near Pakistan. The following picture can show the detail.
Figure 1:
Source: Masood ur Rehman, “The Indian Army’s Land Warfare Doctrine 2018: A Critical Analysis” IPRI Journal, Vol. XX, No. 1, 2020, p. 128
Additionally, India has provoked a synergy as well as integration among Indian Army (IA), Indian Air Force (IAF), and Indian Navy (IN) aim to robust their capabilities, abilities, warfare tactics, logistic and kinesis, advance artillery, warfare techniques, and marine distinct commandoes and forces. The evolving military modernization i.e. nuclear arsenals delivery systems, defense systems, advance combat aircraft (Raffle), and the mounting annual defense budget is the reflection of Indian offensive marching. India is highest munitions importer for long time.
Figure 2:
Moving ahead, the next fifth folded notion is making “Alliances”. By follow this notion, Kautilya suggests that “to prepare for war and want more power, king/ruler should get the help of other entities particular major powers. It is the most significant pillar of Indian foreign policy. Moreover, King seeks alliance with neighbors, major powers to ensure its power and maximize its power. India is also the biggest follower of this notion and enhancing its strategic partnership with neighbors and major powers. The “123” accord, ten-year defense deal, and ever-mounting defense and security ties with the USA is highly beneficial for India and upsurge its offensive power and intentions. The sharing of advance munitions by the USA with India is believed to augment India’s strategic warfare power. Moreover, India has also strategic relations with American allies such as Israel and purchasing advanced weapons. Russia is also a suitable market for purchasing weapons for India.
As Machiavelli said that “politics have no relation to Morals”. So, International Politics has meagerness and scantiness of moralities and ethics but full of paradox duplicity. Since the very first day, India has double face stranded while dealing with nation-states. By following the sixth notion of “Double Policy”, Kautliya suggests that king/ruler should adopt double dealing while dealing with vicinities; one side purse peace and on the contrary adopt offensive looms or war. An example of this double policy is defatted of India from China in 1962. One side India arises hand towards China for peace but at same time adopt offensive military march towards Pakistan.
Interestingly, India doesn’t want peace in Pakistan. The Kashmir issue, Sir Creek, water issue, Siachen are the active bilateral issues of conflict among them. Most recently, in the context of Galwan-valley conflict with China. Now India is ready to withdraw from this military stand-off because it knows that it’s not easy to defeat China, but on the contrary India adopts an aggrieve offensive march aimed to de-stabilize and de-securitize Pakistan. So one can be argued that Indian strategic thinking is a reflection of Kaulaity’s philosophy.
Rana Danish Nisar The author is a PhD (International Relations) Student at the School of Politics and International Studies (SPIS). He holds Mphil in (International Relations), Masters in (Pakistan Studies), and Masters in (International Relations) degrees. He won acceptance Harvard Project for Asian and International Relations HPAIR (USA), 2017. His research interests are broadly in South Asian Affairs, South Asia Geo-Politics, India-Pakistan Relations, South Asian Nuclear Politics, US and South Asia, Indian Ocean, Security studies, South Asian developments studies.
(The views expressed in this article belong only to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy or views of World Geostrategic Insights).