Kautilya Reincarnated: Steering Arthaśāstra Toward an Eclectic Theory of International Relations
The academic discipline of IR has evolved along the ‘great debates’ including the rationalist-reflectivist debate. It is Alexander Wendt’s Social Constructivism that has plausibly tried to bridge this rationalist-reflectivist gap through a ‘middle-grounded theory’, thereby projecting the fourth great debate as rationalist-constructivist-reflectivist debate. Although these great debates help in clarifying the varied assumptions that IR scholars make in their theories, it is lamented that they contemplate less on how to explain international politics and more on the contests of a quasi-religious belief in the power of one or another ‘ism’. Against these great debates, the ‘eclectic theory’ could emerge as a more progressive pathway to capture the future of international politics. Since Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra does not subscribe to rigid oppositions between rationalist-realpolitik and reflectivist-moralpolitik, it not only absorbs a few claims of Wendt’s Social Constructivism, but also offers a fruitful ground for crafting a non-Western eclectic theory of IR that can potentially uplift both Indian IR and Global IR.
KeywordsSocial constructivism Indian IR Global IR
- Abbott, A. (2004). Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. New York and London: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
- Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (Eds.). (2009). Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Behanan, K. T. (1937). Yoga: Its Scientific Basis. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Behravesh, M. (2011). The Thrust of Wendtian Constructivism. E-International Relations. Available at http://www.e-ir.info/2011/03/09/the-thrust-of-wendtian-constructivism/#_edn3. Accessed 5 July 2018.
- Bhattacharya, R. (2011). Studies on the Carvaka/Lokayata. London: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
- Brown, S. (2008). Fallibilism and the Future of Pragmatism: An Issue of Realism and Constructivism. Cognito-Estudos, 5(1), 33–45.Google Scholar
- Chemburkar, J. (1999). Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra and the Early Dharmasūtras: Some Observations on Rājadharmas. In K. P. Jog (Ed.), Perceptions on Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra: In Commemoration of Prof. R.P. Kangle’s Birth Centenary. Mumbai: Popular Prakashan.Google Scholar
- Chousalkar, A. S. (2004). Methodology of Kautilya’s Arthashastra. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 65(1), 55–76.Google Scholar
- Deb, H. K. (1938). The Kautilya Arthasastra on Forms of Government. Indian Historical Quarterly, 14, 366–379.Google Scholar
- Dunne, T., Kurki, M., & Smith, S. (eds.) (2013). International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Eckersley, R. (2004). The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty. London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Hamchi, M. (2011). IR Fourth Debate: Pluralistic or Hegemonic? Limitations to ‘Bridging the Gap’. Algerian Review of Security and Development, 1(1), 208–230.Google Scholar
- Jakubczak, M. (2014). The Purpose of Non-theistic Devotion in the Classical Indian Tradition of Sāmkhya-Yoga. Argument, 4(1), 55–68.Google Scholar
- Jonardon, G. (2003). Philosophy in Classical India: An Introduction and Analysis. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Kangle, R. P. (1997). The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra: A Study (Vol. 3). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.Google Scholar
- Matilal, B. K. (1977). Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika. In J. Gonda (Ed.), A History of Indian Literature. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
- Mishra, M. (2016). Kautilya’s Arthashastra: Restoring Its Rightful Place in the Field of International Relations. Journal of Defence Studies, 10(2), 77–109.Google Scholar
- Perla, H., Jr. (2017). Sandinista Nicaragua’s Resistance to US Coercion: Revolutionary Deterrence in Asymmetric Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Perrett, R. W. (1998). Causation, Indian Theories of. In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/causation-indian-theories-of/v-1. Accessed 11 July 2018.
- Pillalamarri, A. (2015). Chanakya: India’s Truly Radical Machiavelli. The National Interest. Available at http://nationalinterest.org/feature/chanakya-indias-truly-radical-machiavelli-12146. Accessed 6 July 2018.
- Poddar, P. (2016). The Differential Uses of Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra. Akademisk Kvarter, 14, 96–109. Available at http://www.akademiskkvarter.hum.aau.dk/pdf/vol14/8.PremPoddar_TheUsesOfKautilyasArthashastra.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2018.
- Ram-Prasad, C. (2010). Alethic Knowledge: The Basic Features of Classical Indian Epistemology, with Some Comparative Remarks on the Chinese Tradition. In M. Stepanyants (Ed.), Knowledge and Belief in the Dialogue of Cultures. Washington, DC: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.Google Scholar
- Ranganathan, S. (2007). Ethics and the History of Indian Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.Google Scholar
- Rangarajan, L. N. (1992). The Arthashastra. New Delhi: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
- Shah, K. J. (1982). Of Artha and the Arthaśāstra. In T. N. Madan (Ed.), Way of Life: King, Householder, Renouncer: Essays in Honour of Louis Dumont. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.Google Scholar
- Shahi, D. (2014). Arthashastra Beyond Realpolitik: The ‘Eclectic’ Face of Kautilya. Economic and Political Weekly, 49(41), 68–74.Google Scholar
- Shamasastry, R. (1915). Kautilya’s Arthashastra. Bangalore: Government Press.Google Scholar
- Sil, N. P. (2017). The Analect and the Arthaśāstrsa: Kongzi of Zhou China and Kauṭilya of Maurya India Compared. Sage Open. Available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244017747324. Accessed 29 June 2018.
- Smith, S. (2013). Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith (Eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Weber, M. (1919 ). Politics as a Vocation. A Speech Delivered at Munich University. In W. Runciman (Ed.), Max Weber: Selections in Translation (E. Matthews, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Wiener, A. (2003). Constructivism: The Limits of Bridging Gaps. Journal of International Relations and Development, 6(3), 252–275.Google Scholar
- Wæver, O. (2013). Still a Discipline After All These Debates? In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith (Eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Wisnewski, J. J. (2010). Understanding Torture. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar