Then read from the end of page 78 to 79 to trace how Kautilya’s

attitude towards foreign policy and his grand project of the “Indian
King” as world ruler (Chakravarti)

Foreign policy is viewed in the same light. Unlike most political thinkers, modern
as well as ancient, Kautilya (and, one may suppose, his predecessors in
arthashastra) paid as much attention to foreign as to domestic policy. He saw a
close connection between the two. The sole aim is to promote the interests of one’s
own king and country. One should ‘trade with such foreign countries as will
generate a profit’, and ‘avoid unprofitable areas’, unless there are ‘political or
strategic advantages in exporting to or importing from a particular country’ (KA
2.16.18–25). He subjects foreign policy to cost–benefit analysis: ‘the king shall
undertake a march when the expected gain outweighs the losses and expenses’
(KA 9.4.3). The expense of war means that peace is usually prefer- able, other
things being equal.54

Kautilya dealt in detail with the various methods of conducting peace, war, and
neutrality (Ghoshal 1959: 93–4), and with different means of conducting OUP
CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/8/2016, SPi

A World History of Ancient Political Thought war. These included covert

operations (KA 13.1.3–6) and psychological war- fare (KA 13.1.7–10). Relations
between states are compared to a wheel (mandala). The ultimate aim was a ‘world
ruler (chakravarti)’, who would control the whole Indian subcontinent (KA 9.1.17–
21)—as Ashoka did. Various states are ‘bound by hostile, friendly or neutral
relations with an ambitious potentate...as [the] central figure’ (in Ghoshal 1959:
93). A dominant ruler or ‘conqueror’ can‘control the members of his circle of
kings’ by conciliation, bribery, by sowing dissension, or by ‘open, deceptive or
secret war’ (KA 7.16.3–8).