Institutionalizing Kautilya: The Arthashastra’s Legacy in Modern Indian Strategic Culture

Abstract

This paper explores the enduring influence of Kautilya’s political and strategic thought as most prominently articulated in the Arthashastra and examines the ways in which these classical ideas have been institutionalized, reinterpreted, and operationalized within modern Indian strategic culture. Rather than treating the Arthashastra as a static or purely historical text, the study traces its evolving intellectual lineage from ancient statecraft to contemporary policy discourse, highlighting how its core principles continue to inform strategic reasoning in postcolonial India. The paper identifies key institutional pathways through which Kautilyan ideas have entered modern governance structures, including higher education curricula, policy-oriented think tanks, bureaucratic training and doctrine, and political rhetoric. These channels enable ancient norms and concepts to be reframed in response to present-day challenges, allowing Kautilya’s ideas to function as living resources rather than antiquated prescriptions. Particular attention is paid to how such institutionalization shapes India’s external strategic behavior, internal governance practices, and civil–military relations, especially in contexts involving security, diplomacy, intelligence, and economic statecraft.

Methodologically, the study employs textual analysis of classical and modern interpretations, historical contextualization of India’s strategic evolution, and illustrative contemporary examples to demonstrate the practical relevance of Kautilyan thought. It argues that Kautilya’s legacy operates simultaneously as an analytical framework and as a political and cultural resource: on the one hand, it provides a conceptual vocabulary grounded in realism—such as power politics, balance-of-power strategies, alliance management, and covert action—while on the other, it offers cultural legitimacy to modern policy choices by anchoring them in an indigenous intellectual tradition. However, this appropriation is neither uniform nor comprehensive; it is selective and mediated by nationalist narratives, institutional interests, democratic constraints, and changing material and geopolitical contexts.