Late Dr Michael Liebig was a Fellow & Lecturer, Department of Political Science, South Asia Institute (SAI), Heidelberg University, Germany and Honorary Distinguished Fellow, Centre for Military History and Conflict Studies, USI of India.
The recognition of Kautilya’s Arthashastra as a foundational text of international relations (IR) theory has been a cumbersome process, both in India and internationally. The IR community has exhibited a rather neurotic attitude towards Kautilya, ranging from outright denial of his relevance for the discipline to hesitant admission that there are conceptual elements in the Arthashastra which have theoretical eigenvalue as well as relevance for empirical research. The reasons for this uptightness are Eurocentrism and, in the case of Indian academia, lasting post-colonial unease with endogenous intellectual resources. Moreover, very few in the IR community have actually studied Kautilya’s Arthashastra and since their knowledge is second hand, it is inevitably fragmentary and biased.
Kautilya and Non-Western IR Theory by Deepshikha Shahi
More from the author
The recognition of Kautilya’s Arthashastra as a foundational text of international relations (IR) theory has been a cumbersome process, both in India and internationally. The IR community has exhibited a rather neurotic attitude towards Kautilya, ranging from outright denial of his relevance for the discipline to hesitant admission that there are conceptual elements in the Arthashastra which have theoretical eigenvalue as well as relevance for empirical research. The reasons for this uptightness are Eurocentrism and, in the case of Indian academia, lasting post-colonial unease with endogenous intellectual resources. Moreover, very few in the IR community have actually studied Kautilya’s Arthashastra and since their knowledge is second hand, it is inevitably fragmentary and biased.
Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia
BBIN Sub-Region: Perspectives on Climate-water-Energy Nexus