The Lessons of Chanakya’s Arthashastra: Indian Foreign Policy and the Fruitless U.S. Pivot to Asia

In the contemporary world of geopolitics, the strategic principles of Kautilya, also known as Chanakya, articulated in the Arthashastra over two millennia ago, resonate with increasing relevance. This ancient Indian treatise on statecraft, economic policy, and military strategy has not only influenced India’s diplomatic approach but also sheds light on the inefficacies of recent U.S. foreign policy, particularly its pivot to Asia. Chanakya’s Arthashastra is often hailed as a foundational text in the study of realpolitik. It emphasises pragmatism, adaptability, and the strategic use of power—tenets that have found their way into India’s modern foreign policy.

At its core, the Arthashastra advocates for a foreign policy grounded in the concept of Rajamandala, or the “circle of states,” where the ruler must be constantly aware of the shifting alliances and enmities of neighbouring states. India’s contemporary foreign policy reflects this Chanakyan wisdom. New Delhi’s strategic autonomy allows it to maintain relationships with a diverse set of powers—whether the United States, Russia, China, or regional neighbours like Iran—without being overly dependent on any one of them. This approach mirrors Chanakya’s emphasis on not putting all eggs in one basket, ensuring that India remains a pivotal player on the global stage while maintaining its sovereignty and strategic interests. According to Chanakya’s theory, immediate neighbours are natural enemies, while a neighbour’s neighbour is a natural ally. This is why India is at odds with all its immediate neighbours, such as Pakistan.

It has also exerted pressure on Nepal through economic embargoes and the occupation of parts of its territory. In the south, Sri Lanka often faces difficult choices in balancing its relations with both India and China. Bangladesh, surrounded on three sides by India, has experienced Indian dominance, particularly under Sheikh Hasina Wajed, who recently fled to India. The Maldives has often expressed discontent with Indian interference, while Bhutan is under complete strategic domination by India. While India has good relations with all major global powers and is part of Western alliances like the Quad, it also works closely with Russia and China under the SCO and BRICS. This aligns with Chanakya’s wisdom that immediate neighbours are enemies of a ruler, while a neighbour’s neighbour is an ally. This is why India maintains good relations with China, even though New Delhi sometimes uses rhetoric against Beijing, perhaps to shape a narrative that misleads Washington while actually serving its true interest in maintaining strategic autonomy.

While Washington believes India might weaken China, this is unlikely to be the case, making the U.S. Pivot to Asia policy fruitless. India already has too much on its plate concerning its rough neighbourhood and is unlikely to get into hostilities with China, which is thousands of miles away from Delhi. Moreover, even if one considers India a rival to China, it is not as significant a rival as the U.S. expects, because Chanakya’s theory, which India follows, argues that the further the enemy is from the capital, the lesser the threat. The U.S. pivot to Asia, while strategically sound from an American perspective, has overlooked this fundamental aspect of Indian foreign policy. The expectation that India would enthusiastically align with U.S. interests, particularly in countering China, misunderstands India’s strategic priorities. While India shares concerns about China’s rise, its immediate focus remains on managing its complex relationships within its own neighbourhood. Moreover, India’s non-aligned tradition, rooted in its post-colonial history, further complicates the U.S. pivot. India has historically resisted becoming entangled in superpower rivalries, instead opting for a more autonomous path that allows it to balance relations with multiple powers. This approach is consistent with Chanakya’s theory, where India seeks to engage with distant powers like the U.S. without jeopardising its strategic autonomy or exacerbating tensions within its neighbourhood. 

The U.S. has also misjudged the depth of India’s strategic autonomy. India has pursued an independent foreign policy that often diverges from U.S. interests, whether in its dealings with Russia, its stance on the Ukraine conflict, or its participation in multilateral forums like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). These choices reflect India’s broader strategy of not fully aligning with any one power bloc, particularly when doing so could provoke its immediate neighbours. While India has engaged with the Quad, an informal strategic dialogue with the U.S., Japan, and Australia, it has been careful not to frame this as an anti-China alliance. Instead, India views the Quad as one of many tools in its foreign policy arsenal, useful for balancing China but not at the expense of escalating regional tensions. The U.S. pivot to Asia, therefore, appears increasingly fruitless in achieving its intended outcomes with India. Washington’s strategy has been overly focused on creating an Indo-Pacific alliance to counter China without fully appreciating India’s regional priorities and strategic culture. India, guided by the principles of Chanakya, continues to prioritise its immediate security concerns, which often do not align with U.S. expectations. 

From a Pakistani perspective, the U.S. pivot to Asia, particularly its focus on India, not only misunderstands India’s strategic ethos but also risks destabilising the region. By overlooking the centrality of immediate neighbours in India’s foreign policy, the U.S. has inadvertently strengthened India’s position without addressing the core issues that drive South Asian tensions. For Pakistan, this pivot has resulted in an emboldened India, more willing to assert itself regionally, which exacerbates the security dilemma Islamabad faces.Rather than reinforcing regional stability, the U.S. pivot has inadvertently fuelled the rivalry between India and Pakistan, as India’s bolstered status encourages it to take a more aggressive stance toward its neighbours. This miscalculation could lead to a more volatile South Asia, where the longstanding disputes between these nuclear-armed neighbours become even more intractable. The U.S., if it seeks genuine stability in the region, must reassess its approach and consider the broader implications of empowering one regional power at the expense of others. A more balanced policy, one that takes into account the perspectives and concerns of all South Asian nations, including Pakistan, is essential for long-term peace and stability in the region.