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.
In the late 1950s, the concept of 'political culture' was first developed. Towards the end of the Cold War, scholars in International Relations (IR) theory and security studies developed the concept of 'strategic culture'. Over a period, state bureaucracies were thematised by scholars of comparative politics leading to the concept of 'bureaucratic culture'. Lastly, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, a comparative turn in intelligence studies began to emerge with the concept of (national) 'intelligence culture'.
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.
This book is the product of a collaborative effort by the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi; South Asia Institute, Heidelberg University; and Institute of South Asian Studies, National University Singapore. The volume contains papers exploring Kautilya’s Arthasastra in a transcultural perspective, comparing it with the thoughts of Sun-Zi, Nizam al-Mulk, Barani and Machiavelli.
In the Kautilya-Arthashastra, espionage and other ‘operational’ activities of the secret service—notably ‘active measures’ and ‘covert action’—are addressed often and in detail. In contrast, Kautilya seems to say very little about intelligence analysis, assessment and estimates which provide the basis of strategic planning and grand strategy—and arekey components of statecraft. However, the central proposition of this article is that ‘ideas’ (or meanings) underlying these modern intelligence terms are very much present in the Arthashastra.
