BREAKING NEWS
It is worth noting that the development of sovereignty and international rule did not bring an end to power politics. Realist thinkers like Hobbes, who traces the roots of realism to human nature, and Morgenthau, who believes national interest is always defined in terms of power at the core of international relations in his famous work Politics among Nations (1948), highlight the connection well. However, following the Second World War and the establishment of the United Nations and the development or expansion of international institutions, reflex and efforts to promote cooperation and prevent the recurrence of large-scale conflict or devastation occurred during World Wars or their preceding periods
“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" is a famous quotation from one of the foundational texts for understanding political realism in international relations. The history of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides was written between 431 and 404 BCE. The book is based on the historical narrative of the war between Athens and Sparta, which Sparta lost, and in return the representatives of Sparta were demanded their submission by stating that power, not justice alone, determines what one can state (not the way we contextualize the meaning in the post-Westphalian international order) and can realistically resist. The stated situation highlights the tension between power and justice, sovereignty and the strong, and the weak. As understood, tension between power and sovereignty lies at the heart of international politics. The binary account exposes the vulnerability of weak political communities when confronted by stronger powers, and later the international order increasingly came to be organized around the idea of sovereign states, while the United Nations chart eventually established a clear permission on the thread of use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of states. Yet the existence of these rules does not eliminate disparities in powered strategic calculation. This is where political realism becomes very relevant; it examines how power, national interest, and security continue to still shape state behavior within an international system that lacks a central authority capable of enforcing or guaranteeing protection. The question is not whether sovereignty exists in law but whether that sovereignty can be protected in practice when it comes into conflict with the interest of a more powerful state.
Emergence of Sovereign States
The most important development came with the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in October 1648. It is regarded as one of the breakthroughs in the evolution of the modern-day international world order, which ended the 30-year war in Europe. Without going into the historical account of how the war unfolded initially within the Holy Roman Empire and later on as a massive struggle for control of Europe, the point is that the treaty is often associated with the gradual development or emergence of a system of territorially defined states exercising its authority within their respective domains. Over time the Western model became a closing link to the principle of state sovereignty, territorial authority, and formal equality of states. Although it will be an exaggeration to say that it established all these principles in their modern-day form, they became an important historical reference point in the development of the sovereign state system and provided a framework within which relations between states could be understood through the interaction of sovereignty, diplomacy, law, and power.
The Paradox and Efforts to Tame the Beast
It is worth noting that the development of sovereignty and international rule did not bring an end to power politics. Realist thinkers like Hobbes, who traces the roots of realism to human nature, and Morgenthau, who believes national interest is always defined in terms of power at the core of international relations in his famous work Politics among Nations (1948), highlight the connection well. However, following the Second World War and the establishment of the United Nations and the development or expansion of international institutions, reflex and efforts to promote cooperation and prevent the recurrence of large-scale conflict or devastation occurred during World Wars or their preceding periods. This optimism gained renewed momentum after the end of the Cold War in 1991, when the prospect of a more cooperative, interconnected international order received considerable attention (complex interdependence as highlighted by Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane). However, the cooperation did not eliminate strategic rivalry, just as international law did not eliminate the unequal distribution of power. Thus, the contemporary movement highlights the crucial question: are we witnessing the return of realism, or is the inducing logic of power becoming more visible as the restraint of international order is challenged?
The Return of Power Politics?
Matsya nyaay is an ancient Indian philosophical concept that translates literally to the law of the fish; it describes a natural state of anarchy with the strong dominating or exploiting the weak much like a large fish shallows small fish. It is a direct Indian equivalent to the modern-day analogy of "might is right" or the law of the jungle. The concept appears in Vedic literature such as Shanti Purv in the epics like the Mahabharata and the Indian state craft text. The famous philosopher Chanakya uses the term to argue that without a governing authority, laws of punishing magistrates that are dand ( punishment)human society quickly degrade into chaos. There are many international developments that call for political analysts to revisit the concept to make sense of what is happening to the international global order and to see if there’s any missing gap that can be filled with more conceptual understanding of this medieval social order, discussed by Chanakya.
(Russia-Ukraine).
Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 challenges the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty enshrined in the United Nations charter. Despite international condemnation and sanctions, the conflict continues and demonstrates the difficulties international institutions face and the restraining of major powers. From a realist perspective, it raises questions about strategic interests, military capability, and security through the lens of matasya nyaya; it exposes the fundamental vulnerability of a weaker state when confronted by a more powerful neighbor.
(United States–Venezuela: Power Versus Sovereignty).
The US military operation in Venezuela in January 2026, which resulted in the capture of President Nicholas Maduro, raised serious questions about state sovereignty and the international legal limits on the use of force. The incident provides an opportunity to examine whether powerful states pursue their strategic objectives and geopolitical interests based on international law. It connects to the prevalence of matasya nyaya by raising the question of whether a state's sovereignty can be adequately protected when there is a significant imbalance of power in favor of an aggressor state.
(China–Philippines: Strategic Competition and International Law)
The continuing dispute between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea illustrates the tension between international legal rules and strategic power alignments. In 2016, the arbitral tribunal rejected key aspects of China’s maritime claims, but China rejected the ruling outrightly. The dispute demonstrates that legal recognition of rights does not necessarily guarantee their effective protection. From a realist perspective, maritime capabilities and regional influence remain important. Through Chanakya's lens, the case raises the question about the ability of a less powerful state to defend its national interest against the stronger one, mainly China in this case.
Sudan: The Breakdown of Effective Authority
The Sudan civil war, which began in April 2023 between Sudanese armed forces and Rapid Support Forces, illustrates a different dimension of the Matas Nyaya. The problem is not simply one state breaching territorial sovereignty and the boundary of another but the breakdown of effective authority and the inability to protect civilians from competing armed actors. The resulting violence and humanitarian crisis demonstrate how vulnerable populations suffer when institutions and restraints fail. It provides a useful parallel to matasya Nyaya within a different context where the concern outweighs the traditional, interconnected, international system.
Taking together these cases raises the question about whether international institutions can effectively restrain power when strategic interests are at stake. They do not necessarily prove that realism has returned because power competition has persisted throughout modern history. Rather, they allow you to investigate with contemporary international politics reflecting the resurgence of our power politics and the weakening of the restraint intended to protect sovereign equality. This is where Kautilya's concept of matasya nyaya becomes relevant: Are international rules still capable of restraining the powerful, or are weaker states increasingly vulnerable to the exercise of power?
Between Order and Anarchy
It is to be highlighted here that contemporary international politics cannot be reduced to a simple resurgence of realism or an inevitable return to matasya nyaya. While geopolitical rivalries and conflict reveal the enduring influence of power, international organizations continue to facilitate diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping, and cooperation. Their limitations are evident, but so is their continuous relevance. The international system is neither collapsing entirely nor moving inevitably towards anarchy; rather, it is evolving amid tensions between power and restraint and competition and cooperation. The question, therefore, is whether emerging power dynamics will strengthen the existing international order or weaken its capacity to protect sovereign equality. Matasya Nyaya serves not as a definite description of the present but as a warning of what may emerge when the restraint on power becomes ineffective.
India's Role in Preserving International Order
India's recent diplomatic initiatives demonstrate that international politics need not be governed by power competitions but rather through multilateral and regional organization. Institutions can contribute to dialogue and peaceful dispute resolution and collective security. These are the three relevant examples to understand this.
BRICS (Sep 2023): India's engagement with BRICS provides a platform to promote peaceful settlement of disputes, greater representation for developing countries in global governance, and cooperation on international challenges. Such initiatives can help ensure that the interests of less powerful states are not entirely overshadowed by major powers or their self-interest.
BIMSTEC (October 2026). India's engagement with the Bay of Bengal initiative for multisectoral technical and economic cooperation highlights the importance of regional cooperation. Joint efforts against terrorism, drug trafficking, and human trafficking and challenges posed by cyber threats demonstrate how states can address shared security concerns through coordination rather than unilateral actions as the is witnessing.
United Nations and Multilateral Reform 2026.
India continues to advocate a more representative international system and a stronger voice for developing countries, or the Global South. Its engagement with the United Nations reflects the view that international institutions should help manage power differences, facilitate diplomacy, and provide a framework for cooperation.
These initiatives illustrate that although power asymmetries remain a central feature of international politics, states can still pursue collective solutions. India's role should not be portrayed as having prevented global disorder but as contributing to efforts to strengthen cooperation and reduce the risk of unilateralism. The BRICS declaration specifically emphasizes diplomacy, conflict prevention, peaceful settlement of disputes, and reform of multilateral institutions, especially the United Nations, which, via its security council’s permanent membership, still reflects post-World War II power dynamics and international structure, ignoring the role of third-world and Asian countries like Japan, India, Korea, etc.
Finally, the question is not whether the strong will remain strong but whether the world will allow only strength and power to become the law. Matasya Nyaya reminds us that when power goes without restraint, the weak will pay the price. The future of international order will depend on whether nations choose the rule of law over the law of the jungle or allow the biggest fish to rule the pond.
Email:------------------------------ namishajha501@gmail.com
It is worth noting that the development of sovereignty and international rule did not bring an end to power politics. Realist thinkers like Hobbes, who traces the roots of realism to human nature, and Morgenthau, who believes national interest is always defined in terms of power at the core of international relations in his famous work Politics among Nations (1948), highlight the connection well. However, following the Second World War and the establishment of the United Nations and the development or expansion of international institutions, reflex and efforts to promote cooperation and prevent the recurrence of large-scale conflict or devastation occurred during World Wars or their preceding periods
“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" is a famous quotation from one of the foundational texts for understanding political realism in international relations. The history of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides was written between 431 and 404 BCE. The book is based on the historical narrative of the war between Athens and Sparta, which Sparta lost, and in return the representatives of Sparta were demanded their submission by stating that power, not justice alone, determines what one can state (not the way we contextualize the meaning in the post-Westphalian international order) and can realistically resist. The stated situation highlights the tension between power and justice, sovereignty and the strong, and the weak. As understood, tension between power and sovereignty lies at the heart of international politics. The binary account exposes the vulnerability of weak political communities when confronted by stronger powers, and later the international order increasingly came to be organized around the idea of sovereign states, while the United Nations chart eventually established a clear permission on the thread of use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of states. Yet the existence of these rules does not eliminate disparities in powered strategic calculation. This is where political realism becomes very relevant; it examines how power, national interest, and security continue to still shape state behavior within an international system that lacks a central authority capable of enforcing or guaranteeing protection. The question is not whether sovereignty exists in law but whether that sovereignty can be protected in practice when it comes into conflict with the interest of a more powerful state.
Emergence of Sovereign States
The most important development came with the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in October 1648. It is regarded as one of the breakthroughs in the evolution of the modern-day international world order, which ended the 30-year war in Europe. Without going into the historical account of how the war unfolded initially within the Holy Roman Empire and later on as a massive struggle for control of Europe, the point is that the treaty is often associated with the gradual development or emergence of a system of territorially defined states exercising its authority within their respective domains. Over time the Western model became a closing link to the principle of state sovereignty, territorial authority, and formal equality of states. Although it will be an exaggeration to say that it established all these principles in their modern-day form, they became an important historical reference point in the development of the sovereign state system and provided a framework within which relations between states could be understood through the interaction of sovereignty, diplomacy, law, and power.
The Paradox and Efforts to Tame the Beast
It is worth noting that the development of sovereignty and international rule did not bring an end to power politics. Realist thinkers like Hobbes, who traces the roots of realism to human nature, and Morgenthau, who believes national interest is always defined in terms of power at the core of international relations in his famous work Politics among Nations (1948), highlight the connection well. However, following the Second World War and the establishment of the United Nations and the development or expansion of international institutions, reflex and efforts to promote cooperation and prevent the recurrence of large-scale conflict or devastation occurred during World Wars or their preceding periods. This optimism gained renewed momentum after the end of the Cold War in 1991, when the prospect of a more cooperative, interconnected international order received considerable attention (complex interdependence as highlighted by Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane). However, the cooperation did not eliminate strategic rivalry, just as international law did not eliminate the unequal distribution of power. Thus, the contemporary movement highlights the crucial question: are we witnessing the return of realism, or is the inducing logic of power becoming more visible as the restraint of international order is challenged?
The Return of Power Politics?
Matsya nyaay is an ancient Indian philosophical concept that translates literally to the law of the fish; it describes a natural state of anarchy with the strong dominating or exploiting the weak much like a large fish shallows small fish. It is a direct Indian equivalent to the modern-day analogy of "might is right" or the law of the jungle. The concept appears in Vedic literature such as Shanti Purv in the epics like the Mahabharata and the Indian state craft text. The famous philosopher Chanakya uses the term to argue that without a governing authority, laws of punishing magistrates that are dand ( punishment)human society quickly degrade into chaos. There are many international developments that call for political analysts to revisit the concept to make sense of what is happening to the international global order and to see if there’s any missing gap that can be filled with more conceptual understanding of this medieval social order, discussed by Chanakya.
(Russia-Ukraine).
Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 challenges the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty enshrined in the United Nations charter. Despite international condemnation and sanctions, the conflict continues and demonstrates the difficulties international institutions face and the restraining of major powers. From a realist perspective, it raises questions about strategic interests, military capability, and security through the lens of matasya nyaya; it exposes the fundamental vulnerability of a weaker state when confronted by a more powerful neighbor.
(United States–Venezuela: Power Versus Sovereignty).
The US military operation in Venezuela in January 2026, which resulted in the capture of President Nicholas Maduro, raised serious questions about state sovereignty and the international legal limits on the use of force. The incident provides an opportunity to examine whether powerful states pursue their strategic objectives and geopolitical interests based on international law. It connects to the prevalence of matasya nyaya by raising the question of whether a state's sovereignty can be adequately protected when there is a significant imbalance of power in favor of an aggressor state.
(China–Philippines: Strategic Competition and International Law)
The continuing dispute between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea illustrates the tension between international legal rules and strategic power alignments. In 2016, the arbitral tribunal rejected key aspects of China’s maritime claims, but China rejected the ruling outrightly. The dispute demonstrates that legal recognition of rights does not necessarily guarantee their effective protection. From a realist perspective, maritime capabilities and regional influence remain important. Through Chanakya's lens, the case raises the question about the ability of a less powerful state to defend its national interest against the stronger one, mainly China in this case.
Sudan: The Breakdown of Effective Authority
The Sudan civil war, which began in April 2023 between Sudanese armed forces and Rapid Support Forces, illustrates a different dimension of the Matas Nyaya. The problem is not simply one state breaching territorial sovereignty and the boundary of another but the breakdown of effective authority and the inability to protect civilians from competing armed actors. The resulting violence and humanitarian crisis demonstrate how vulnerable populations suffer when institutions and restraints fail. It provides a useful parallel to matasya Nyaya within a different context where the concern outweighs the traditional, interconnected, international system.
Taking together these cases raises the question about whether international institutions can effectively restrain power when strategic interests are at stake. They do not necessarily prove that realism has returned because power competition has persisted throughout modern history. Rather, they allow you to investigate with contemporary international politics reflecting the resurgence of our power politics and the weakening of the restraint intended to protect sovereign equality. This is where Kautilya's concept of matasya nyaya becomes relevant: Are international rules still capable of restraining the powerful, or are weaker states increasingly vulnerable to the exercise of power?
Between Order and Anarchy
It is to be highlighted here that contemporary international politics cannot be reduced to a simple resurgence of realism or an inevitable return to matasya nyaya. While geopolitical rivalries and conflict reveal the enduring influence of power, international organizations continue to facilitate diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping, and cooperation. Their limitations are evident, but so is their continuous relevance. The international system is neither collapsing entirely nor moving inevitably towards anarchy; rather, it is evolving amid tensions between power and restraint and competition and cooperation. The question, therefore, is whether emerging power dynamics will strengthen the existing international order or weaken its capacity to protect sovereign equality. Matasya Nyaya serves not as a definite description of the present but as a warning of what may emerge when the restraint on power becomes ineffective.
India's Role in Preserving International Order
India's recent diplomatic initiatives demonstrate that international politics need not be governed by power competitions but rather through multilateral and regional organization. Institutions can contribute to dialogue and peaceful dispute resolution and collective security. These are the three relevant examples to understand this.
BRICS (Sep 2023): India's engagement with BRICS provides a platform to promote peaceful settlement of disputes, greater representation for developing countries in global governance, and cooperation on international challenges. Such initiatives can help ensure that the interests of less powerful states are not entirely overshadowed by major powers or their self-interest.
BIMSTEC (October 2026). India's engagement with the Bay of Bengal initiative for multisectoral technical and economic cooperation highlights the importance of regional cooperation. Joint efforts against terrorism, drug trafficking, and human trafficking and challenges posed by cyber threats demonstrate how states can address shared security concerns through coordination rather than unilateral actions as the is witnessing.
United Nations and Multilateral Reform 2026.
India continues to advocate a more representative international system and a stronger voice for developing countries, or the Global South. Its engagement with the United Nations reflects the view that international institutions should help manage power differences, facilitate diplomacy, and provide a framework for cooperation.
These initiatives illustrate that although power asymmetries remain a central feature of international politics, states can still pursue collective solutions. India's role should not be portrayed as having prevented global disorder but as contributing to efforts to strengthen cooperation and reduce the risk of unilateralism. The BRICS declaration specifically emphasizes diplomacy, conflict prevention, peaceful settlement of disputes, and reform of multilateral institutions, especially the United Nations, which, via its security council’s permanent membership, still reflects post-World War II power dynamics and international structure, ignoring the role of third-world and Asian countries like Japan, India, Korea, etc.
Finally, the question is not whether the strong will remain strong but whether the world will allow only strength and power to become the law. Matasya Nyaya reminds us that when power goes without restraint, the weak will pay the price. The future of international order will depend on whether nations choose the rule of law over the law of the jungle or allow the biggest fish to rule the pond.
Email:------------------------------ namishajha501@gmail.com
© Copyright 2023 brighterkashmir.com All Rights Reserved. Quantum Technologies