Kautilya's Arthashastra and the Modern India-Pakistan Conflict

As tensions flared up once again between India and Pakistan, with two weeks of uneasy standoffs culminating in two days of sheer military display, if one can't help but wonder what ancient Indian wisdom would prescribe for such a conflict, the question isn’t merely of modern strategy; it’s of timeless statecraft. What would Kautilya, the shrewd strategist of ancient India, have advised if he were observing this saga today? The Arthashastra, the magnum opus of Vishnugupta aka Kautilya aka Kautilya on governance and military strategy, has clear guidance for handling hostile neighbours.

Kautilya's doctrines would say the use of force is not the first recourse but the last resort—yet it is fully justified when the enemy is a "natural and innate adversary" with whom tensions have hit a tipping point. In this case, the recent terror attack in Pahalgam, which horrifyingly claimed 26 civilian lives and left many injured, serves as a textbook example of jus ad bellum—the justification to go to war. For Kautilya, terrorism is enough to meet the threshold for retaliation.

India's response, Operation Sindoor, measured and targeted at terror infrastructures, reflects what the Arthashastra would describe as jus in bello—how war should be waged. It’s strategic, proportionate and it avoids escalation. Pakistan’s retaliatory actions—unprovoked firing along the Line of Control (LoC) and attempts to engage military targets across northern and western India—were met with equal force, neither subdued nor excessive. Outmanoeuvring the enemy is what Kautilya would have seen as necessary: not merely fighting but fighting wisely. Keeping the pressure up is important.

Preparation and strategy: Lessons from Kautilya

Kautilya would have expected that India’s years of preparation across diplomatic, economic, informational and military fronts would now bear fruit. It’s not merely about the battlefield; it's about isolating Pakistan on the global stage, labelling it as a hub of terrorism and leveraging economic pressures through international partnerships and institutions. The goal? To strangle its resources and support networks while simultaneously boosting support for separatist movements within its borders.

Kautilya, ever the sharp-eyed realist, would also advise a swift and decisive military outcome. For him, the idea of a long, dragged-out war is a fool’s errand. Victory should be swift, absolute, and decisive—not just militarily but politically and economically as well.

Seven operational factors

The Arthashastra outlines seven practical factors that any state should consider before engaging in war. These are not just theoretical musings but actionable points:

1. Relative strength – Assess your power in comparison to the enemy.
2. Place (terrain) – Choose battlegrounds wisely, leveraging geographical advantages.
3. Time – Wars should be quick; the longer they drag, the costlier they become.
4. Season – Avoid conflict during crop seasons, as it disrupts economic stability.
5. Possibility of revolts – Ensure domestic stability; internal disorder is a weakness.
6. Likely losses, expenses and gains – Measure the costs and benefits meticulously.
7. Likely dangers from allies or heel catchers – Be wary of indirect threats from enemy allies.

India’s response so far seems true to the Kautilyan script, staying proportional yet assertive, avoiding unnecessary escalation but also not backing down. As far as Kautilya’s strategy goes, the path forward is clear: De-escalation is not on the cards. Swift military success is.

Kautilya would not settle for half-measures or appeasement; he would expect a finality that secures both national pride and strategic advantage. In his vision, true victory is not merely about outgunning the enemy but outsmarting them—diplomatically, economically and militarily. The Arthashastra’s wisdom remains as relevant and potent today as it was centuries ago.