Chanakya paradox: India’s spiral within its own strategy

The recent India-Pakistan semi-crisis, triggered by India’s covert aggression into Pakistan’s mainland on May 5th and 6th, has elicited a reaction from Indian politicians, strategists, and media that may seem startling to many readers. However, for scholars familiar with the deeper dynamics of India-Pakistan relations, this behaviour is neither unusual nor surprising. It is, in fact, a familiar echo of India’s enduring political philosophy, rooted in the ancient doctrine of Chanakya.

Revered by India’s ruling elite as the founding father of its strategic thought, Chanakya’s teachings remain the cornerstone of New Delhi’s approach to power, diplomacy, and conflict. India’s strategic mindset is not improvised; it is a deliberate practice of classical realism, seamlessly woven into both perception and policy. What may appear as spontaneous political manoeuvres are, to the discerning eye, calculated moves guided by a doctrine that sanctifies deception, dominance, and long-term state interest.

The Arthashastra, a foundational text of this philosophy, outlines a doctrine that values deception, diplomacy, and coercion as central tools of statecraft. In contrast to Chinese political thought, which emphasizes harmony, indirect strategy, and moral authority, Chanakya’s doctrine is unapologetically aggressive and cunning.

India’s recent aggression against Pakistani territory, portrayed as a symbolic act under the name “Sindoor,” reflects this enduring strategy: presenting the aggressor as the victim. This same political theatre was played out in 1947 when Prime Minister Nehru internationalized the Kashmir issue at the UN, seeking to portray India as a peace-loving democracy rather than an occupying force.

From 1947 to 2025, India’s strategic behaviour shows a pattern of opportunistic realpolitik. In 1971, India executed a successful military operation resulting in Pakistan’s division-an action aligned with Chanakya’s advice to weaken adversaries internally. The subsequent occupation of Siachen Glacier in 1984 was another incremental gain under the same doctrine.

India’s current geopolitical position is arguably more consolidated than during ancient times when Chanakya guided Chandragupta Maurya to overthrow the mighty Nanda dynasty. However, while India’s strategists under the Modi regime have significant control, they remain far from achieving their ideological dream of “Akhand Bharat.”

Military might has always been a secondary tool in the Chanakyan arsenal-deception and politics are primary. This explains India’s unmatched ability to practice multi-faced diplomacy, appearing humble and soft while concealing its hard power and intent.

The abrogation of Article 370 and 35-A was a multidimensional assault on Kashmiri identity. India brought Jammu and Kashmir directly under the control of the Union, dismantling the state’s autonomy. Delhi extended police powers to itself under the guise of “compassion toward rebellion”-but in reality, it was the eradication of resistance.

Thousands of Kashmiris were detained and imprisoned in far-flung jails across India. The creation of special counterinsurgency forces like the Rashtriya Rifles (RR) led to widespread fear and repression. Dead bodies of youth were not returned to families, homes of suspected freedom fighters were demolished, and their properties confiscated-an unprecedented degree of aggression aimed at breaking Kashmiri will.

Scholars trained in research methodology know that both deductive and inductive analysis yield the same conclusion: military aggression cannot solve the Kashmir issue. The world currently has 193 independent states, whereas the UN began with only 51 in 1945. Between 1945 and 1970, over 100 nations gained independence, often through conflict and in defiance of stronger colonial powers.

No freedom movement in history has been led by a force stronger than its oppressor. Despite its immense military power, India cannot reverse this historical trend. Kashmiris are aggrieved, and their families have been killed, humiliated, and marginalized.

Indian analysts treated the Pahalgam incident as an isolated case, devoid of historical context. This intellectual dishonesty only prolongs the conflict. Sane scholars, both national and international, must view Kashmir through the prism of context, not propaganda.

Dialogue confined to bilateral frameworks or composite dialogues will not resolve this blood-soaked conflict. As John Mearsheimer, a renowned scholar of international relations, rightly emphasized: “India and Pakistan must resolve the simmering Kashmir conflict to ensure long-term peace in South Asia.”

The true burden now rests on diplomacy-to forge a path toward something tangible and bring Kashmir to the forefront within the given timeframe. The April 10 episode stands as a pivotal moment-a reminder that wars are no longer waged by high-tech machines alone. A classical dimension has emerged: battles are equally fought through unshakable faith, collective resolve, and the valor rooted in national spirit.

The author is an analyst can be reached at waleed.rasool@ gmail.com