A Report

Abstract:

The USI-Centre for Military History and Conflict Studies organised its first workshop of Project Udbhav on  ‘Comparative Perspectives on Ancient Greek and Indian Strategic Thought across West Asian Bridges’ on Thursday, 18 May 2023 in Seminar Room 1 at the USI, New Delhi in hybrid mode (i.e., online as well as in-person).

The workshop aimed to generate awareness, scholarship and debate around the indigenous traditions of strategic thought and statecraft, and start a discourse on their relation to contemporary defence, security, conflict and intelligence studies. India and Greece are two ancient civilisations that have contributed to knowledge creation in philosophy, statecraft and warcraft. The workshop delved into a discussion on the concepts and ideas in the literature of both civilisations to examine their commonality and endurance. Significantly, West Asia (Middle East) as a bridge which helped in the transcultural migration of ideas with its own unique signature in the Persian and Arabic spaces including the Indo-Islamic canvas was explored during the workshop.

Workings:

The day started with opening remarks by Squadron Leader Rana TS Chhina, MBE (retd) who served in the Indian Air Force as a helicopter pilot. He saw active service on the Siachen Glacier and with the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka, as well as in counter-insurgency operations in Mizoram, Nagaland and Tirap. He is a recipient of the prestigious Macgregor Medal for best military reconnaissance in 1986. He is currently the Director of the United Service Institution of India - Centre for Military History and Conflict Studies.

He introduced 'Project Udbhav' which aims to develop an indigenous strategic vocabulary rooted in the culture and civilization of a nation. The speaker mentions that the project was inspired by the Late Dr Michael Liebig from Heidelberg, Germany, who researched the subject. Squadron Leader Chhina emphasizes the multidisciplinary nature of the subject and the need for scholars from various fields to engage with it. He expressed gratitude to the scholars involved and acknowledged the importance of involving young scholars and military institutions in the discussions. The goal of the project is to approach the topic with academic and scientific rigour and explore how ancient texts can be applied to modern circumstances.

The workshop was divided into two sessions with the First Session being moderated by Squadron Leader Rana Chhina and the Second Session being moderated by Professor Syros. The First Session was also attended by Mr Alexandros Boudouris, Minister-Counselor, Deputy Chief Of Mission, Embassy of Greece and Colonel Georgios Rimagmos, Defence Attaché, Embassy of Greece.

Session 1 (Paper 1): Thematic Commonalities in Hellenic and Indo–Aryan Mythic, Epic and Other Narrative Material.

The First Session started with the first paper on Thematic Commonalities in Hellenic and Indo–Aryan Mythic, Epic and Other Narrative Material by Colonel Saikat Bose who was online.

Colonel Bose maintained that comparative, cross-cultural, studies of cultures with a historicist approach are better suited to understanding the past and the present. Illustrating his position with material from the Indo-Aryan and Hellenic worlds, he first presented a working taxonomy of the available texts, and then compared three of several mythemes discerned from these texts, across several geopolitical cultures. One theme was that of military mobilization through sodalities, i.e. once groups of young individuals undergo rites of passage at the outskirts of society but later graduate to political power in certain regions. Comparing sodalities across several cultures between India and Greece highlighted common practices that fostered regimentation and esprit de corps. Next, he explored the concept of diarchy and celestial twins as models of early kingship, and finally, he touched upon various methods of holding and transferring power, using the dramatic instance of the hostile bedchamber as one such early mode, all of which had wider manifestations across the Eurasian context.

These themes were then used to explain the political situation of early South Asia which was the backdrop of the Indian geopolitical tradition, and texts such as the Arthasastra. He reminded that the situation was one of constant strife among endless janapadas (principalities), monarchies, oligarchies, tribal republics and warbands, within which rulers had to engage in constant scheming and plotting to survive. Within this competitive milieu, there was gradual consolidation of power and authority in the eastern plains, where appeared several meritocratic monarchies, the workings of which are outlined by the Arthasastra, a prescriptive and not descriptive work, whose mandala theory provides a sort of a schematic model of contemporary state formations and international relations.

Using a comparative analysis of themes from early India and Greece against a wider Eurasian backdrop, the speaker highlighted the risks associated with the direct and anachronistic application of themes from one period or cultural context to another. He thereby underscored the need for a historicist (as against a functionalist) approach to understanding modern military and geopolitical issues.

Session 1 (Paper 2): Ares, Athena, Poseidon, Homer, Plato, Epicurus meet Brihaspati, Sukra, Vyas, Kshemendra: Moderated by Kautilya.

The second paper of the day was on the above topic by Speaker Colonel P.K. Gautam (retd). He discussed various comparisons between ancient Greek and Indic traditions in terms of strategic thought, warcraft, and statecraft. It highlights the differences like the texts from these two traditions. While Greek texts like Thucydides' "The Peloponnesian War" are based on historical events, the ancient Indic texts, particularly Kautilya's Arthashastra, are more conceptual and normative in nature.

The speaker emphasized the importance of studying texts from different cultures and traditions to enrich the global literature on strategic thought. They mention the shared bond of scholarly friendship between Greek and Indian scholars and suggest that comparing and combining ideas from both traditions can provide valuable insights.

He focused on four specific comparisons: the use and non-use of force and diplomacy, self-control, hubris, and arrogance, negative distortions of characters over time, and the Lokayata/Charvakas in India and the Epicureans of Greece. Regarding the use and non-use of force, the speaker drew parallels between the deities Athena and Ares in Greek mythology and the contrasting values of Spartan and Athenian societies. They highlight the contemporary relevance of this comparison in the context of national security and social science.

He also referred to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and the debate about the appropriate use of force. The argument is that both Athena's wisdom and Poseidon's decisive action have their merits and that a combination of these values could lead to a just victory. Similarly, in the Indic tradition, there is a recognition of the need for a balanced approach that combines diplomacy (mantra shakti) and military strength (prabhav shakti).

The discussion then moved to the concept of self-control and the importance of restraining desires and negative emotions. The speaker cites Kautilya's emphasis on controlling the senses and gives examples from ancient stories to illustrate the consequences of the lack of self-control. He also mentions the causes of arrogance listed by Kshemendra.

He further explores the negative distortions of characters over time and the wrong perception of Kautilya as a Machiavellian figure based on legends and a play called "Mudrarakshasa." Similarly, the character of Odysseus from Greek mythology underwent a transformation when the story reached the Romans, leading to a different interpretation. The speaker highlighted the importance of textual analysis to understand the true nature of these characters.

Lastly, he briefly mentions the Lokayata/Charvakas in India and the Epicureans in Greece and notes that both philosophies faced criticism and negative stereotypes, but recent research has shed new light on their values and principles. In addition to the specific comparisons mentioned, the speaker also emphasizes the need to understand and appreciate the context in which these texts were written while acknowledging that ancient Greek and Indic societies were vastly different, with distinct cultural, social, and political contexts.

He argues that despite these differences, there are common threads and universal principles that can be extracted from these texts. They suggest that scholars can gain a more comprehensive understanding of strategic thought, warcraft, and statecraft by examining and juxtaposing different perspectives.

Furthermore, Colonel Gautam suggests that the study of ancient texts should not be limited to their historical context but should also be approached from a contemporary perspective. Highlighting the relevance of these ancient ideas in the modern world, particularly in the realm of international relations, conflict resolution, and decision-making is important

He concludes by emphasizing the importance of intellectual collaboration and the exchange of ideas between different cultures and traditions. The speaker encourages scholars from diverse backgrounds to engage in fruitful discussions and comparative analyses to further enrich the understanding of strategic thought.

Session 3: Ancient Tamil Sources and Greek (Aristotle) Thought in comparative perspective.

The third paper of the day was by Tamil Bharathan who is a Research Scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University, and New Delhi. He discussed the relationship between the Tamil and Greek languages, particularly in terms of their classical status and historical connections. Despite originating from different continents, Tamil and Greek share some similarities. He mentions that trade relations and historical interactions between the two languages have contributed to their mutual influence and knowledge exchange.

The relationship between Tamil and Greek is classified into four categories: Archaeological Evidence, Literary Evidence, Historical Evidence, and Philosophical Proof. These sources demonstrate the reciprocal influence and impact on the knowledge tradition of both languages. Notable works such as the Tolkāppiyam in Tamil and the Aristotelicum in Greek reflect the knowledge traditions and provide insights into various aspects of their respective societies.

The Tolkāppiyam is an ancient Tamil treatise on linguistics and poetics, considered the earliest extant grammar in Tamil. Its author, Tolkāppiyar, is believed to have lived before the Common Era, possibly in the pre-Sangam age. The Tolkāppiyam consists of 1602 verses divided into three major sections: Eḻuttatikāram (phonological aspects), Collatikāram (morphological aspects), and Poruḷatikāram (content and literary production). These sections cover topics ranging from language structure to theories of literature, imagery, rhetoric, and the sociology and psychology of literature.

The Sangam Literature, a collection of 18 literary works, is believed to have been written based on the principles laid out in the Tolkāppiyam. These works are categorized into akam (love) and puṟam (society, country, philosophy, war) poems, reflecting different themes and aspects of life.

On the Greek side, Aristotle, a renowned philosopher from Greece, is featured in the Classical philosophical tradition. His works cover a wide range of topics and were compiled by Emanuel Becker in the Corpus Aristotelicum. Aristotle's political writings discuss different forms of government, including monarchy, aristocracy, and constitutional government. He also mentions the perversion of these systems, such as tyranny and oligarchy, and examines the relationship between poverty, wealth, and different forms of governance.

Aristotle's classification of four types of monarchy is mentioned, which include general-judge, hereditary despotic, elective tyranny, and heroic kingship. These classifications describe different aspects of monarchy, such as the role of kings, the nature of power, and the methods of governance. The speaker provided excerpts from Aristotle's Politics that explain each type of monarchy in detail.

He also briefly touches upon the concept of slavery in Greek society, as discussed in Aristotle's Politics. Slavery was considered natural and slaves were not considered citizens. Aristotle expresses varying ideas about the slavery system and acknowledges the need for improvement in the conditions of slaves.

In the Tamil context, the Tolkāppiyam divides the land into different topographical divisions known as tiṇai, each associated with specific aspects of life and emotions. The speaker discusses the three components of tiṇai: mutal (description of land and time), karu (representative tokens of an assigned land), and uri (emotional manifestation of love). These components are interwoven with human life and reflect societal aspects, including war methods based on the landscape divisions.

He concluded by mentioning the existence of different types of societies in the ancient Tamil land based on the landscape and environment. He suggested that the Tamil society during the Sangam period witnessed the emergence of feudal society alongside the archaic community, with the development of private property rights and the state.

Overall, the speaker provided an overview of the relationship between the Tamil and Greek languages, the significance of the Tolkāppiyam and Sangam Literature in Tamil, and Aristotle's contributions to political philosophy and explored various aspects of these traditions, such as language, literature, governance, and societal structures, showcasing their similarities and historical connections.

Session 1 (Paper 4): Kautilya and Aristotle on Knowledge and Reality: Lessons on Conflict, Strategy and Warfare.

The speaker for paper four was Dr Saurabh Mishra. He spoke about how in examining the views of knowledge and reality in Kautilya and Aristotle, he encountered some challenges. Aristotle's explicit discussions on this matter are limited, primarily found in his work "Politics." On the other hand, Kautilya, also known as Chanakya, has written extensively on various subjects, but we have access to only one attributed text, the Arthashastra. Despite these differences, we can identify certain lessons on conflict, strategy, and warfare from their philosophies.

Kautilya and Aristotle were contemporaries, living in the same historical period but in different cultural spheres. While Kautilya hailed from India and held the position of a Brahmin, Aristotle resided in Greece and belonged to the aristocracy. Despite their social and political differences, both philosophers deliberated on the ideals of the state and statecraft, emphasizing practical approaches to governance.

Aristotle's understanding of knowledge is teleological in nature. He believes that all humans have a natural desire to know. According to his doctrine of the four causes, understanding the true nature of an object or event requires explaining it in terms of its material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause. By grasping these four causes, one can gain a comprehensive understanding of the object's totality.

Aristotle emphasizes the importance of starting with what is more knowable and obvious to us, gradually progressing towards clearer and more knowable aspects of reality. While credible beliefs (doxa) hold value, the ultimate goal is to use them as starting points in our journey towards knowledge. Aristotle recognizes that purpose (telos) is present in reality, even if we may not always observe the agent deliberating.

On the other hand, Kautilya's knowledge system revolves around the concept of Anvikshiki, which encompasses four sciences: Sankhya (philosophy), Yoga (discipline), Lokayata (worldly wisdom), and Shastra (treatises). Within the realm of Shastra, Kautilya explores the inherent dialectical and contradictory nature of reality. While Aristotle suggests that objects or events reach their telos and become static, Kautilya's worldview incorporates cycles of destruction and recycling.

Despite these technical differences, both Aristotle and Kautilya seek to understand reality through dialectical methods and tools. They emphasize contemplation, inference from empirical experience, and a priori reasoning in the pursuit of knowledge. Kautilya highlights the importance of a king with knowledge of various disciplines, such as Anvikshiki, for making effective decisions. Similarly, Aristotle praises a contemplative life with leisure, associating it with the highest form of the good.

Regarding war, Aristotle does not present a coherent theory of war or peace. His ideas on the subject are context-dependent and arise from his exploration of ideal states and comparative studies of contemporary political systems. While he discusses war and peace in "Politics," it is not a comprehensive treatment of the topic. Kautilya, on the other hand, holds a more realistic view, acknowledging that war is deeply ingrained in human life and political systems.

In conclusion, while comparing the views of Kautilya and Aristotle on knowledge, reality, and their understanding of conflict and warfare, certain challenges are encountered due to their different cultural contexts and the limited explicit writings of Aristotle. However, both philosophers share a practical approach to statecraft, emphasizing the importance of contemplation, a comprehensive understanding of objects and events, and the pursuit of knowledge through empirical experience and reasoning. Their perspectives offer valuable insights into the nature of reality and the practical aspects of governance, albeit with some differences in terms of teleology and the cyclical nature of existence.

Session 1 (Paper 5): Soft Power in Ancient Greek and Indian Political Thought: Xenophon and Kautilya.

Paper five was by Professor Vasileios Syros. In his talk, the speaker explores the concept of political power and its different forms, specifically focusing on the distinction between hard power and soft power. He discussed how hard power operates through force, military strength, and economic sanctions, while soft power relies on incentives, privileges, and cultural manifestations to win support.

The speaker argues that both Kautilya's political thought in ancient India and Greek philosophy contain valuable insights into diplomacy and the interplay between soft and hard power. He highlighted the work of Xenophon, a disciple of Socrates, who presents an idealized model of leadership in his work "The Education of Cyrus." Xenophon emphasizes Cyrus the Great's ability to use gifts and benefits to win over diverse populations, showcasing the power of soft power approaches.

Drawing parallels between Xenophon's ideas and the concept of soft power, the speaker suggests that these ancient sources provide a rich repository of ideas on diplomacy and power dynamics. He pointed out that Kautilya's work also includes a theory of four approaches to political power, including conciliatory tactics, the use of gifts, tricks to sow discord, and military force. These approaches reflect the distinction between soft and hard power and offer insights into strategies for persuasion and influence.

The speaker believes that exploring these ancient Indian and Greek sources can provide valuable lessons for understanding and addressing current global issues. He proposed that India's rich civilization and its contributions to political thought can offer a unique model that capitalizes on soft power approaches to avoid warfare. He also suggested that India's balanced approach to contemporary challenges could be showcased as an alternative to traditional power dynamics.

However, the speaker acknowledges the limitations of directly applying ancient ideas to modern problems. They emphasize that these ancient sources should be seen as sources of inspiration and part of a broader canon of political thought, including various Greek thinkers and other traditions. By studying the past, the speaker argues for a new framework to be developed that helps us reexamine and address the complex issues facing the world today.

The speaker briefly mentions the use of psychological operations and propaganda throughout history, highlighting that these concepts have existed since ancient times. They mention a recent paper they wrote on how the Medici in Florence employed psychological operations to change the regime. This illustrates the relevance of historical phenomena to present-day challenges.

In conclusion, the speaker's talk explored the concepts of hard power and soft power in political thought, drawing from ancient Indian and Greek sources. He suggested that studying these sources can provide valuable insights into diplomacy, power dynamics, and strategies for persuasion and influence. By considering ancient ideas in a broader context, He proposed a new framework that can inform our understanding and approach to contemporary global issues.

Session 2 (Paper 6): Borderless Philosophy for Global International Relations: Theoretical Interpolations from Adi Shankara and Parmenides of Elea.

Dr Deepshikha Shahi who is the Associate Professor at O. P. Jindal Global University (JGU), India and Mr Raghav Dua who is an M.A. in International Relations, Security,and Strategy student presented the sixth paper.

 

They spoke about an extensive body of literature on Global International Relations (IR) that draws inspiration from a variety of previously unexplored sources of knowledge. Its aim is to challenge the dominant Western-centric perspective in IR and promote a rational reconciliation of the West-non-West divide. In this context, the concept of "borderless philosophy" assumes particular significance. Borderless philosophy encourages the exploration of philosophical concepts that transcend the constraints of place and time, presenting a reality where borders, edges, and discontinuities are not inherently real but contingent on their purpose.

While both Western IR and non-Western IR (including postcolonial/decolonial debates) often rely on (neo-)Kantian dualistic knowledge frameworks to reinforce fragmented borders and divisions in socio-cultural and political experiences between the West and the non-West, this paper aims to demonstrate how the temporally and spatially distant monist knowledge frameworks of Adi Shankara and Parmenides of Elea can jointly give rise to a borderless philosophy. Such a philosophy has the potential to rationally reconcile the West-non-West binaries, thereby making a valuable contribution to the existing Global IR literature.

They structured the session into three sections. The first section examined the emergence of the idea of Global IR, which challenges the compartmentalized and divisive knowledge frameworks of both Western and non-Western IR, emphasizing the need for reconciling the West-non-West divide. The second section illustrated how the epistemology, ontology, and methodology of Adi Shankara and Parmenides advocate for the unity of absolute reality, while also emphasizing the illusory nature of language and its role in creating arbitrary divisions that are mistakenly perceived as "real" by individuals across the globe. Finally, the third section explored the potential of employing the shared monist knowledge frameworks of Adi Shankara and Parmenides to transcend arbitrary divisions such as self-other, us-them, and West-non-West. This section proposes an alternative theoretical and practical understanding of an undivided "Global world."

The speakers discussed the potential of Adi Shankara and Parmenides' philosophies to contribute to Global International Relations (IR) by challenging Western-centrism and bridging the gap between Western and non-Western perspectives. The Global IR agenda seeks to de-centre IR knowledge from the West and reconcile the West-non-West binaries for a more comprehensive understanding of global multipolarity.

Raghav Dua explained that the dominant Western-centric approach to IR has overlooked non-Western perspectives and historical events, perpetuating self-other interactions between various binary groupings. The 2007 financial crisis and the decline of US hegemony created an opportunity for greater non-Western intervention in IR, leading to derivative and exceptionalist discourses. However, these discourses often maintained a dualistic framework that reinforced Western-centrism.

Global IR aims to overcome these limitations by recognizing complementarities between Western and non-Western actors, worldviews, and narratives. Adi Shankara and Parmenides' philosophies offer insights into these complementarities. Despite being temporally and spatially distant, both philosophers emphasize a non-dual reality and a collapse of the subject-object distinction in true knowledge. They share similarities in their epistemological, ontological, and methodological approaches.

Adi Shankara's Advaita philosophy recognizes different layers or realms of consciousness, including the ultimate reality of Brahman, the dualistic world of appearances (Jagat), and non-being (Tuchchha). Parmenides' philosophy also acknowledges a world of appearances and a concept of "not-being" that cannot be experienced. While there are minor variations, both philosophies challenge Western dualistic frameworks and offer insights into a borderless philosophy that can contribute to a global understanding of reality.

They further discussed Kant's influence on Western IR, particularly his distinction between the phenomenal and noumenal worlds. This dualism has shaped Western approaches to knowledge production and limited the understanding of diverse actors and dynamics in world politics. The Global IR agenda seeks to challenge this partition and reconcile the visible many-ness of the phenomenal world with the invisible oneness of the noumenal world.

Global IR recognizes the interconnectedness of cultures and emphasizes the capacity of human consciousness to transcend the limitations of the phenomenal world. By promoting borderless thinking and acknowledging the universal nature of ideas, Global IR aims to establish a genuine global spirit in IR theory and practice. The speakers spoke about the need for a more inclusive approach that goes beyond the Kantian framework and incorporates a broader understanding of human consciousness and interconnectedness.

Session 2 (Paper 7): Comparing Panchatantra Stories about Statecraft with stories from Kalila wa Dimna, Fables of La Fontaine and Aesop‘s Fables.

The speaker for paper seven was Mr Rohit Kumar who is a research scholar. He spoke about the historical experiences and cultural-philosophical outlook of a nation have a significant impact on shaping the thinking and strategic culture of its people. He mentioned that this influence can be observed in India's foreign policy, as mentioned by Jawaharlal Nehru, the country's first Prime Minister. India's policy decisions are rooted in its historical and cultural foundations, which emphasize a preference for consensus and a middle path rather than extremism.

Fables have played a crucial role in transmitting cultural knowledge and values across generations. Fables are stories that use animals or inanimate objects to convey lessons and moral teachings. They establish a connection between the fable world and our own, teaching us about our history and values. Two notable collections of fables are the Panchatantra from India and Aesop's Fables from ancient Greece.

The Panchatantra, believed to have been composed around 200 BCE, is a collection of stories that primarily uses animals to teach various facets of governance and statecraft. It is divided into five books, and each book contains multiple stories within a frame narrative. The Panchatantra is one of the earliest works of Indian literature that extensively uses animals in storytelling.

Aesop's Fables, attributed to the Greek storyteller Aesop, originated around the fifth century BCE. The fables in this collection are mostly disconnected stories, although some include Aesop himself as a character instructing others. While not strictly limited to animal stories like the Panchatantra, Aesop's fables share similarities with Indian fables. Both collections feature stories such as The Donkey in Lion's Skin and the Lion, Fox/Jackal, and Deer/Donkey.

He spoke about how statecraft, the art of governing and conducting the affairs of a state, is a prominent theme in both the Panchatantra and Aesop's Fables. Sovereignty, the concept of supreme authority, is indirectly referenced in both collections. The Panchatantra specifically mentions sovereignty in three instances, highlighting the importance of wise and just rulers. The stories in both fables also depict the roles and responsibilities of envoys, emphasizing their diplomatic immunity and the importance of their work.

He also mentions that alliances and warfare are discussed in relation to statecraft in both collections. The Panchatantra provides lessons on securing allies and considering their capacity and limitations. It advises against forming alliances with foes and highlights the consequences of entering into alliances without assessing the relative strength and weaknesses of the opponent. Aesop's fables similarly caution against forming alliances with stronger or untrustworthy parties. Both collections stress the importance of diplomacy and the use of force as a last resort.

The fables also address the pursuit of peace and the challenges it may entail. They teach lessons on mediation, warning against involving wicked or weaker mediators. Aesop's fables emphasize the importance of maintaining resources necessary for warfare and not becoming callous in their management.

While summarising the speaker mentions the historical and cultural experiences of a nation shape its worldview and strategic culture. Fables, such as the Panchatantra and Aesop's Fables, serve as vehicles for transmitting cultural knowledge and values. They offer insights into statecraft, including the concepts of sovereignty, alliances, warfare, and peace. These timeless fables continue to provide valuable lessons for individuals and nations alike, guiding their understanding of governance and decision-making.

Session 2 (Paper 8): Impact of Aristotelian Ethics on Mughal Rule through Tusi‘s Political Treatise Akhlaq-i-Nasiri.

The last paper of the day was by Dr Adil Rasheed. He spoke about how Aristotle's work "The Nicomachean Ethics" has had a significant influence on various religious and philosophical traditions, including Judaic, Christian, and Islamic scholasticism. In the Islamic context, Muslim political philosophers like Al-Farabi, Al-Ghazzali, and Ibn Miskawaih were influenced by Aristotle's ideas, and Khwaja Nasir Al-Din Al-Tusi's political treatise "Akhlaq-i-Nasiri" played a crucial role in introducing Aristotelian political ideas to medieval India.

Al-Tusi, born in 1201, was a polymath who made significant contributions in various fields such as astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, philosophy, and theology. He is credited with the creation of trigonometry as a mathematical discipline and made advancements in astronomy by developing accurate tables of planetary motion and critiquing Ptolemaic astronomy. Al-Tusi's works were highly regarded during the Mughal period in India, and his "Akhlaq-i-Nasiri" was widely studied by Mughal rulers and nobility. The Mughal emperor Akbar was particularly fond of the book and had it read out in court.

The influence of Al-Tusi's treatise extended beyond the Mughal rulers, as simplified versions of the book were published as practical manuals for Mughal officials. These versions were titled "Akhlaqi-i-Humayuni" and "Akhlaqi-i-Muhsini." Other recensions of Al-Tusi's work were also written, such as Ak-Dawwani's "Akhlaq-i-Jalili" and Nurul Din Qazi Al Khaqani's "Akhlaq-i-Jahangiri."

Although Al-Tusi's association with the Mongol conqueror Hulagu Khan and his role in the destruction of the Shia Nizari Ismaili rulers and Baghdad have been criticized, his supporters argue that he acted pragmatically to preserve his scientific work in the face of the Mongol invasion. Al-Tusi's political treatise, "Akhlaq-i-Nasiri," had a cosmopolitan worldview and departed from the strictly Shariah-focused views of other contemporary works.

The speaker mentions that in "Akhlaq-i-Nasiri," Al-Tusi follows an Aristotelian perspective on ethics and politics. He emphasizes the importance of civilization and the city-state (polis) for achieving collective happiness. Al-Tusi divides civil society (tamaddun) into categories such as the ideal city-state, misguided city, evil-doing city, and ignorant city. He discusses different forms of government, including kingship, aristocracy, and community rule, and emphasizes the role of a Philosopher King who organizes and governs these forms. Al-Tusi's concept of a Philosopher King includes both divine inspiration and religious law-giving.

Al-Tusi's treatise also highlights the importance of love (muhabbat) in achieving social harmony and cooperation. He argues that love is a higher and nobler ideal than justice (adl), as love inspires voluntary participation from individuals belonging to different communities. While justice is enforced through regal power, love generates natural unity and cooperation.

He also mentions that the Mughal rulers' adoption of "Akhlaq-i-Nasiri" as a guide for political governance allowed them to embrace non-Muslim traditions and retain their pre-Islamic Mongol observance. The Mughal emperor Babur, despite being a Hanafi Sunni, was influenced by Shia rulers and regularly read Al-Tusi's treatise. This openness to diverse traditions and the celebration of pre-Islamic heritage can be seen in architectural marvels like Fatehpur Sikri, envisioned as a "virtuous city"  based on the principles outlined in "Akhlaq-i-Nasiri."

The speaker concluded by saying that Nasir Al-Din Al-Tusi's "Akhlaq-i-Nasiri" had a profound impact on Mughal politics and intellectual thought in medieval India. It introduced Aristotelian ideas on ethics and politics, emphasized the importance of civilization and the city-state, and promoted a rational and secular conception of justice and governance. The treatise's influence extended beyond the ruling elite, as simplified versions were published for Mughal officials. Al-Tusi's work allowed the Mughals to incorporate non-Muslim traditions and maintain their cultural practices while governing a diverse empire.

 

Conclusion:

The day ended with fruitful discussions between the speakers and the attendees. Squadron Leader Chhina delivered the Vote of Thanks wherein he mentions that this workshop was just a very engaging start to what is to come in the future. The topics mentioned need further discourse and dialogue so as to engage in a thought-provoking academic exercise. He also expressed his thanks to the Greek Chair and the Embassy of Greece for being so supportive in this endeavour and hopes that the future dialogue project the larger aim of 'Project Udbhav'.^[1]