Jaishankar’s Kautilyan Moment

The failure of the G20 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Atlanta last month to produce a joint communiqué was an unmistakable reminder of the fractures in the international order. Conflicts in Ukraine and West Asia, disputes over trade and competing geopolitical interests exposed the limits of multilateral consensus. Yet, amid these divisions, India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar used the forum to advance a diplomatic agenda that combined national interest with a larger concern for global stability. His performance invites comparison with Kautilya, the ancient Indian master of statecraft whose ideas on power, alliances and diplomacy retain an unusual contemporary relevance.

Working Relationships

India’s foreign policy has long rested on strategic autonomy and multi-alignment. Rather than becoming an appendage of any geopolitical bloc, New Delhi has sought to maintain working relationships with competing powers while protecting its independent decision-making. Jaishankar’s interventions in Atlanta reflected this approach: pragmatic in their assessment of power, but firmly anchored in the case for dialogue, economic resilience and international cooperation.

Whether in Ukraine or West Asia, the consequences of prolonged warfare have disrupted global trade, destabilised energy markets and have imposed disproportionate costs on developing economies.

India’s position is an insistence that military escalation cannot become the default instrument of international politics.

Counterterrorism remains another central pillar of India’s diplomatic engagement. Jaishankar consistently argued that terrorism cannot be selectively condemned according to geopolitical convenience. Tactical calculations and short-term political interests must not obscure the dangers posed by terrorist networks. Pakistan’s sponsorship and tolerance of terrorist infrastructure have long been at the centre of New Delhi’s security concerns. The larger message to the international community was that terrorism undermines democratic institutions, economic development and civilian security everywhere.

Perhaps the most consequential aspect of India’s engagement in Atlanta was its emphasis on the economic vulnerabilities of the Global South. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has repeatedly sought to place developing countries’ concerns at the centre of international deliberations. Jaishankar carried that argument forward by highlighting how geopolitical disruptions, attacks on civilian shipping and rising transport costs affect poorer economies disproportionately.

The consequences are particularly visible in the three essentials of food, fuel and fertilisers — the so-called three Fs.

India’s argument was that global economic governance cannot remain the preserve of wealthy nations. The priorities of developing countries must inform decisions on energy security, trade and international supply chains.

Rewiring Supply Chains

Jaishankar’s intervention in the G20 plenary on supply chains offered a further illustration of this thinking. He called for the right to industrialise, resistance to predatory practices and the de-politicisation of markets. He also advocated diversification and de-risking to prevent excessive concentration of production and the weaponisation of economic dependencies.

This challenges an international economic architecture in which developing countries can remain vulnerable to decisions taken by a handful of powerful economies.

Kautilya’s Arthashastra offers a useful framework for understanding this diplomatic method. His Saptanga theory identified seven constituent elements of the state: Swami (ruler), Amatya (ministers), Janapada (territory and people), Durga (fortifications), Kosha (treasury), Danda (armed force) and Mitra (ally). The last of these is especially relevant to contemporary diplomacy. Alliances and strategic partnerships are not ornamental additions to state power; they are essential instruments for protecting national interests.

Jaishankar’s bilateral engagements in Atlanta, including his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and participation in the Quad Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, reflected the importance India attaches to maintaining multiple diplomatic channels. Engagement with Russia, cooperation with the United States, Japan and Australia, and dialogue with European and other partners are not contradictory impulses. They are expressions of a foreign policy that seeks room for manoeuvre in an increasingly fragmented world.

The Atlanta meeting did not resolve the G20’s differences. But Jaishankar succeeded in placing several of India’s enduring concerns — counterterrorism, energy security, food security, resilient supply chains and the developmental needs of the Global South — firmly within the multilateral conversation.

Kautilya understood that statecraft requires a careful balance between internal strength and external alliances. Jaishankar’s diplomacy reflects a modern interpretation of that principle. In a world where power is increasingly contested and interdependence frequently weaponised, India’s ambition is not merely to find its place in the international order, but to help shape it. That, ultimately, is the Kautilyan lesson from Atlanta.

(The writer is a political commentator. Views personal.)