The heroic resistance put up by the Islamic Republic of Iran can be analyzed from one of the most notable thought leaders in India’s strategic culture.
Pranay Kumar Shome
Within the context of exercising power, the strategic culture of an actor matters a lot. Alastair Johnston, a renowned authority on the idea of strategic culture, defines it as a “mental map or software program of shared beliefs that tells a state how to respond to threats.”
Most of the major state actors in the Middle East are hell-bent on destroying Tehran, clearly highlighting the need for Iran to fight back with everything it has got
Ever since the United States of America and Israel launched their illegal and imperialist war against Iran on February 28, military strategists the world over have been trying to deconstruct almost every single facet of the war so as to enhance their respective countries’ security.
When it comes to Iran, the Islamic Republic is exercising force that, interestingly, is based on the lessons of one of India’s most celebrated statesmen—Kautilya.
Kautilya, popularly known as Chanakya, was an ancient Indian statesman who served as the prime minister of the first pan-Indian empire in its history— the Mauryan Empire. He is known for his treatise Arthashastra, or the ‘science of statecraft.’ Divided into 15 books, the treatise serves as a foundational guide for a ruler on how to carve out an empire and enforce good governance. While the treatise deals with a multiplicity of subjects such as taxation, maintenance of law and order, agriculture, etc., it deals mostly with war and statecraft.
In the context of the ongoing war in the Middle East and Iran’s resistance against the U.S.-Israel duo, three key ideas of Kautilya are applicable.
Mandala Theory
This theory represents a concentric circle of states where the core circle manifests itself through the Vijigishu, a Sanskrit word denoting an aspiring conqueror. In the context of the ongoing war, there are two ‘aspiring’ conquerors—Israel and the U.S.A. The next circle is the Ari, a Sanskrit word for “foe”; in this context, the foe of the duo is Iran. The next circle, which supersedes the Ari, is the Mitra, a Sanskrit word for ally. The Gulf Arab states in the region represent America’s and Israel’s direct and indirect allies.
This effectively means that most of the major state actors in the Middle East are hell bent on destroying Tehran, clearly highlighting the need for Iran to fight back with everything it has got.
Shadgunya Niti
As the aspiring conquerors of the Mandala theory are trying their level best to try and harm the Islamic Republic, Iran is fighting back by enacting policies that broadly correspond to the six-fold policy theory of Kautilya. These are Sandhi (peace), Vigraha (war), Yana (preparing for war), Samshraya (seeking alliance), and dvaidhibhava (dual policy—alliance with one power and hostility to others).
Iran opted for the policy of Sandhi by extending the olive branch to the Americans and Israelis by opening diplomatic negotiations on its nuclear program via third countries, only to be betrayed by the duo. Therefore, the Islamic Republic had no option but to respond to the violations of its sovereignty by defending itself; in doing so, Iran gravitated towards the policy of Vigraha. At present, Iran is pursuing dvaidhibhava, under which, despite enforcing a de-facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran is allowing the shipping vessels of friendly countries to pass, even as it continues to block the maritime shipping assets of hostile countries, particularly the U.S. and Israel.
Four Upayas
Linked to the Shadgunya Niti, or six-fold policy of Kautilya, are the four upayas, or expedients. Kautilya articulated these as steps that can enable a ruler to deal with other kingdoms in a pragmatic, calculated way. These four upayas are — Sama, Dana, Danda and Bheda. Sama means a policy of conciliation, dana means offering concessions in order to earn the goodwill of the negotiating parties, danda means exercising the use of force to fulfil one’s national interests, and bheda means sowing the seeds of dissension in another kingdom so that the concerned kingdom unravels from within.
In the context of the ongoing war, Iran sought conciliation with the U.S. and Israel. Despite marked contradictions in their respective societies, institutions, and outlook towards world politics, Iran tried negotiating in good faith; it even offered concessions, or dana, in the form of its long cherished nuclear program, which was long perceived in global intellectual circles as the crown jewel of Iran’s scientific development; however, Iran’s goodwill was rebuffed. Hence, left with no other choice, Iran chose to defend itself and hence resorted to the exercise of the option of danda.
In order to make the cost of the war prohibitive for the aspiring conquerors, Iran is engaging in what Kautilya called the Gudha Yudh; it relies on the use of clandestine assets to erode the conventional military advantage of the enemy. This Iranian strategy is manifesting itself in the formidable network of allied non-state actors (known as the “Axis of Resistance”) that it has created in the region and its use of information war as a means to ensure that the cost of waging war by the conquerors would be prohibitive in a bid to shield the Iranian populace from the attacks of the imperialists.
Therefore, it can be concluded that despite being over two millennia old, the theoretical lessons contained in Kautilya’s Arthashastra continue to animate global intellectual conversations. Therefore, Iran must continue utilizing the lessons from the Arthashastra in order to emerge victorious in this paradigm-shaping war.
Pranay Kumar Shome, a research analyst who is a PhD candidate at Mahatma Gandhi Central University, Bihar, India
No comments:
Post a Comment