How Kautilya's Rajamandala theory withstands the test of time in international relations

In the past few years the global order established after the War from 1939 to 1944 has been upended. This  was some time in the making but the Covid pandemic and the Ukraine war hastened it. Nations have discovered their own national interests and it is difficult for formerly great powers to make the world sing to their tune; “Globalization” as we know it is dead. Whether this manthan will throw up any ambrosia is for the future to decide. Right now countries are scrambling to make sense of the churn, theorists are preparing concepts and frameworks. The concept of “Swing States”, for example, put forward by Jared Cohen, President, Global Affairs, Goldman Sachs has gained traction, among others. In all this activity , glaring in its absence, is any Indic attempt to understand this churn in our indigenous international relations frameworks. This despite the fact that millennia ago, Kautilya posited the category of Mitr in his Arthashastra and a sophisticated framework of Rajamandalas to understand geo-politics. International relations is first and last, an exercise in Western epistemology with a few sops thrown to Sun Tzu, perhaps, but none to other political traditions and absolutely no mention of the political scientist par excellence, Kautilya. On perusing the different ideas vying for attention it becomes clear that these are not equipped to handle change and arise merely as a result of changes in geo-political patterns.Their understanding, too, is far from comprehensive. What is needed is a framework which can incorporate global states, their characteristics and resources, relations between them, the processes through which diplomatic engagement is carried out, geopolitical objectives and the methods used to achieve these, an agility of viewing points and of course, the ability to reflect change. It is my contention that the Rajamandala Theory of Kautilya can be used to provide the comprehensive and dynamic framework needed. A closer look at Kautilyan theory is required, starting from first principles. Basic Kautilyan principles The Arthashastra begins with an invocation to Brihaspati and Shukra and is concerned with the study of Artha which is the sustenance or livelihood (Vrittih) of men. It is the science which is the means of the acquisition and protection of the earth. Artha is one of the goals of individual human existence; Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha. Understood in the extended sense of the earth where men live and seek wellbeing it assumes the goal of the well being of men in general. Since it is the state alone which can make such general well being possible the protection of the earth and its acquisition which are an essential part of state activity are declared to be the province of the shastra. This can be done only by the state through the two pronged approach of “Paalana” and “Labh”. Paalana This means the sustaining of the means already with the people. Paalana is the subject of internal administration, through the structure of the nation state seen as a composite of seven elements; the Saptaanga State. These seven elements are Swami (King), Amatya (Administration), Janapada (Land and the People), Durg (Fort), Danda ( Army), Kosh( Treasury) and Mitra (International Relations). Labha With the seventh and the last, Mitr, we come into the area of Labha, the extension of the resources of the nation state for the prosperity of its people, the national interest.. So how is the world around the nation-state conceptualized? Rajamandalas or circles of kings At the center is the Vijigishu, the leader of the nation state, the one who wishes to “conquer “ the world. Conquest in this modern context means the achievement of geo-political goals, evaluation and balance of geopolitical risks and opportunities, security in all its aspects; military, economic, food, supply chain and more. This Vijigishu is surrounded by different countries of the world, by the Rajamandala or the Circle of Kings. This is explained in two ways. The first is  a set of 12 relationships including enemies, allies, indifferent countries etc. which bases itself on geographical location and can be used for a neighborhood analysis. The second, which we will focus on, for the moment,  is as a set of four types of Rajamandalas or Circles of Kings.; four types of national or plurilateral groupings. These four types are: 1. Vijigishu (Conqueror)

• Mitra (Friend)
• Mitramitra (Friend’s friend)

    2. Ari (Enemy)

• Mitra (Friend)
• Mitramitra (friend’s friend)

  3. Madhyama (Buffer State)

• Mitra (Friend)
• Mitramitra (Friend’s friend)

  4. Udasina (Indifferent, Far, Strong)

• Mitra (Friend)
• Mitramitra (Friend’s friend)

Each can be seen as a set of national or plurilateral groups which agree on an international rules based order. (Or refuse to do so.) Each of the states in each grouping has the seven  Angas we have seen above. Here they are called Prakritis, except Mitra. Prakritis are elements or characteristics. The first is the Swami or the political leadership of the state, the Raj Prakriti , the other five are as detailed above , internal organization and administration, land and the people (thus including both human and physical resources as well as geography), security,  army and the financial resources of the country. These five are called the “Dravya Prakriti”; material and non-material resources and wealth, analyzed from every angle. Six Prakritis of each state give us 18 for each group. It may be noted that the Prakritis are individually specified  and numbered, even placed according to importance while the number of states may be taken as indicative and dependent on changing situations. Kautilya has in separate sections given theoretical guidelines about how to judge the excellencies and vices of each of the Prakritis. These can be adapted to modern circumstances and serve as a solid basis for understanding any nation-state. Relations between nations and groups Now each of these kingdoms and groups have relations amongst them. These relations are classically of three types, whatever name may be given to them. Kautilya has set them out long ago as Mitra, Ari and Bhritya. A friend or ally, an enemy  and a vassal state. Alliance, enmity or subordination. Diplomatese may cover up and give numerous names to these relations and some between but this is what it boils down to. Chinese foreign policy, for instance, focuses on making India accept Bhritya or subordinate status and this is a major source for the tensions between the two countries. There are other reasons such as the border disputes but if India accepted subordinate status they would be resolved easily. It remains to see how this framework is to be operationalised. This happens through the exercise of foreign policy. Six measures of foreign policy or Shadgunyam****.   They  are Sandhi (peace), Vigraha (hostility), Asana (remaining quiet), Yana (military expedition), Sanshraya (seeking shelter) and Dvaidhibhava (a combination of Sandhi and Vigraha.) The normal rules are that Sandhi is to be followed when one is weaker than the enemy. It is forced on one because of comparative weakness; but is a temporary measure to be abrogated when one has grown in strength. Hostility or Vigraha can be simply defensive or actively offensive and is to be used if the Vijigishu is stronger than the enemy. Shades of NSA Shri Doval’s defensive offense doctrine? Asana is used when both the states are equal in power, it means waiting in the hope that the enemy becomes weaker. If one is very strong then yana should be resorted to, it goes hand in hand with Vigraha. Sanshraya is to be used if one is much weaker than the enemy and cannot defeat it. Dvaidhibhava is recommended when, with the help of another source, one’s enemy can be fought, so Sandhi with one state runs congruent to Vigraha with another. This is not a separate policy but merely a combination of two policies to be used when circumstances warrant.Think the modern US policy of “congagement”; containment and engagement. Upayas: The implementation of foreign policy Foreign policy is implemented through four Upayas through royal envoys of which there are different types with varying remits from the King in terms of what was to be achieved diplomatically. There was also what we may call a Foreign Service Manual detailing the rules of conduct for foreign envoys. The four Upayas are as follows: Saaman or conciliation, Dana or conferring benefits of money, Bheda or creating dissension, Danda or force.They can be used singly or in different combinations as per the situation and the targeted party. Application of the Rajamandala t****heory So here we have it; the board is set with the Rajamandala or the Circular Permutation of States. The analysis can be from the point of view of any chosen state. The Vijigishu as the starting point can be India, the US, China, Russia, the EU; any state or grouping whose strategic options the foreign policy analyst wishes to understand. The Rajamandala will throw up a comprehensive view; the internal situation with the five Dravya Prakritis, its friends, its enemies, its buffer states , in fact a 360 degree analysis.   It is dynamic as changing positions can be factored in , in terms of the five Dravya Prakritis and changing friends and foes. The end of the Cold War and the rise of China , for instance, would not need any change in the Framework. The USA and China would simply be put alternately in the place of the Vijigishu and the resulting patterns studied. US Foreign Policy, on the other hand, is still trying to come out of the Cold War Framework and consequent mindset. Its mandarins struggle to cope with the importance of States as far apart as India , Guyana and the DRC. These become important depending on different combinations of the Dravya Prakritis or resources but the thinking is only in terms of two hostile camps and which camp each country has joined. Think of missteps such as those at the beginning of the Ukraine War when India was to be coerced into the NATO point of view with threats. An analysis of the Raj and Dravya Prakritis could have told them that India was past the stage of being pushed around. The needle has now swung to Saaman and offers to be a Mitra of the Indian State. In point of fact, the Rajamandala theory which has been largely ignored in India’s Foreign Policy set up, needs to be used to understand and calibrate global relations. Whether it be the QUAD, the AUKUS or the IPEF, all these can profitably be studied using this framework. A comprehensive circular permutation framework should also be set up with important States being alternatively placed as the Vijigishu at the center. This will contrast our National Interest with those of chosen states and open more strategic, even tactical possibilities. The Kautilyan theories of the Vijigishu and the Rajamandala   have been infantilised, colonialised and dismissed as incapable of explaining modern global complexities  as they belong to the time of tiny Janapadas of that backward feudal country called Bharat. Nothing could be farther from the truth and it is time to use one of the most brilliant international relations frameworks extant for our own national interest. The writer is a Switzerland-based scholar, ex-bureaucrat and historian of ancient India. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost_’s views._ Read all the  Latest News ,  Trending News ,  Cricket News ,  Bollywood News , India News  and  Entertainment News  here. Follow us on  Facebook,  Twitter and  Instagram.