In last week’s article, I highlighted the permanency of the neighbouring state in the prevalent international system. Also, insisted on a better understanding among the neighbouring states to resolve their disputes peacefully. However, the realists reject such ideas as being too idealistic and hence support the wars and conflicts in the garb of interests and security. In this article, I am going to challenge our own Chanakya Kautilya who insisted on the notion that your immediate neighbour is always your enemy but a neighbour’s neighbour can be your friend. While we do not own Kautilya, though he was from the Taxila, now in Pakistan for the last 76 years, India owns him and follows his precepts in letter and spirit. Therefore, it is no surprise that India had developed more cordial and strategic relations with Iran and Afghanistan, perhaps to keep a check on Pakistan to fulfil the desire of Kautilya. I fully understand the significance of the state’s interest in the international system and fully subscribe to Lord Palmerston’s idea that there are no permanent friends and foes in international relations but interest only. However, my concern remains with the loss of lives and property during unnecessary wars and conflicts, particularly between the Unequal Military Powers (UMPs). Even at this time, there are at least two full-blown wars: Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine, which are causing deaths, destruction, and devastation to the people, particularly in Gaza. How many more centuries are needed to reject the notion of Kautilya that your neighbour will always be your enemy and only a neighbour’s neighbour can be your friend? How many more centuries are needed to reject the notion of Kautilya that your neighbour will always be your enemy and only a neighbour’s neighbour can be your friend? Since neighbours cannot be changed, therefore why can’t the neighbours be looked at as friends if not as brothers in international relations? This may sound idealistic and will be rejected by the realists without even a brief consideration. Therefore, it is understood that the wars and conflicts will continue uninterrupted and the people from smaller states will continue to lay down their life and property during the unnecessary wars. This implies that wars and conflicts are unavoidable and there is no way that these will ever come to an end. There is little doubt that these wars and conflicts will be between the UMPs because the Equal Military Powers (EMPs) have not fought wars directly since the establishment of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) during the peak of the Cold War era. Does it mean that the only way to avoid wars and conflict between the UMPs is to join anyone major alliance to avoid the wrath of a revisionist state? And, is the prevalent international system nearing that state where the smaller states will look up to emerging powers like Russia and China to avoid being routed by the sole superpower at this time, the United States. Perhaps it is time that states realize this particular aspect in the prevalent and evolving environment and resolve their disputes through the available conflict resolution and management mechanisms, instead of getting extended security from an alliance leader. No dispute cannot be resolved through dialogue provided the stakeholders have sincerity of purpose and the negotiators are competent to resolve the disputes through dialogue instead of adopting an easier course of action of initiating physical violence. In my opinion, serious thought may be given to this suggestion that it is time to reject the notion of Kautilya and engage the neighbours productively to resolve protracted conflicts. It is time for the smaller states to unshackle themselves from the influence of the bigger powers and that will only be possible if the age-old unnecessary conflicts are peacefully resolved. Thereafter, the hefty defence budgets can be utilized for much-needed human security rather than physical security of the territory that is anyway protected to some level in the prevalent international system. I sincerely believe that it is doable if the stakeholders realize that unresolved disputes are only benefitting the bigger power’s Military Industrial Complex (MIC). For a moment think of the pressing causes of the abject poverty in South Asia versus the benefits to the people of the region if the two nuclear neighbours, India and Pakistan only decide to discuss the resolution of their protracted conflicts. The two states are spending billions of dollars on arms and equipment that only come from the arms exporting countries around the world. This expenditure can be drastically reduced if the two states can only reach a peace agreement for the time following some serious and productive engagement toward the resolution of the protracted conflicts. Begin with a pledge that the time for physical violence is over and the neighbours do not have to be enemies, always. Neighbours can be friends too for the sake of their people’s prosperity, and mutual development. This may hold good for all states and neighbours, and not only South Asia. I sincerely urge the academics and the practitioners to start a dialogue to further improve on this suggestion, if nothing else. The writer of this article has authored three international books: “Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan” “South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace” and “Understanding Sun Tzu and the Art of Hybrid War.” The writer of this article has authored three international books: “Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan” “South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace” and “Understanding Sun Tzu and the Art of Hybrid War.”