*INTRO*

Realist tradition in International Relations (IR) is a most prominent theory to understand the
phenomenon of the discipline. We can understand the realist tradition from the perspective of
various ancient scholars like Greek philosopher Thucydides, Italian thinker Niccolo Machiavelli,
British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, Rousseau etc. In 20' century E. Carr, Hans.
Morgenthau and others emphasized on the realities of International Politics in a very
comprehensive manner and also they have provided so many substantial tools to the study of
International Relations. Neo realist or structural realist such as Kenneth N Waltz, elaborated the
generation of détente after the end of cold war.

*Meaning of Realism*
Realist thinkers emphasize on the prudent behavior of human beings and they believe that the
reality of international relations is rooted in human nature or selfishness of humans. Realist
considers that states are the main actor in the international system therefore states-centrism is
the basic assumption in the entire theoretical paradigm of realism.
States are always concerned for their self-interest and try to maximize their national interest.
National interest is always defined in terms of power. Hence, there is a close relationship
between the power and national interest. According to the realist national interest always
determines the foreign policy of any country. They also distinguish between vital national
interest and non-vital national interest. In the anarchical
world order units never compromise their vital national interest even they can go for war to
protect the same. The realist school of thought believes that ethics and morality are not as much
important as power maximization. Ethics and morality holds a secondary position in comparison
to military strength. However ethics and morality are stable and constant
determinants which are to be followed by general masses and not by the states themselves in
the international arena. The Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli has opined in his famous
book 'The Prince' that the king should not be moral or ethical in his duties rather should make
the subjects moral and ethical so that it becomes easy to rule over them and dictate
terms and conditions for them.

*EARLY REALISTS*
The realist school of thought finds its origins in the work of ancient scholars like Thucydides,
Sun Tzu and Kautilya.
Greek historian scholar Thucydides is considered to be oldest of realist who had studied the
Peloponnesian war (431-404 BC). After analyzing the Peloponnesian war he stated that the
conflicts and competition between the states have its root in unequal distribution of power in the
international politics. He argues that all the state should accept the reality of unequal distribution
of power so that they can improve onto their position in global power hierarchy. The state which
becomes more powerful in a shorter period of time becomes more secure, independent and in
longer terms become a hegemon.

The ancient Chinese scholar Sun Tzu, analyzed the

continuous occurrence of war between several states. Sun Tzu believed that the kings should
not be extreme moralistic in their reasoning while dealing with armed adversary, rather fight with
them with all might to protect their interest and to survive.

In the school of thought of realism, Kautilya, an ancient Indian scholar makes a very rich
contribution. Kautilya conceptualizes power and happiness in the study of
international politics. He states that happiness can be achieved by judicious use of power. He
also states that happiness is also an indication of successful foreign policy. Kautilya’s Mandala
Theory, i.e, Kautilya's identification of non-aligned Kings and neutral indifferent King is unique
contribution to study of
international relations. In Kautilya's understanding of international relations locational
determination of Kings imply that one's neighbor is one's enemy and therefore one's neighbor's
enemy is a friend. Kautilya exhorts the King (Vijigishu) to increase his power and therefore
engage in continuous warfare until he becomes a "Sarvabhauma' (the King of entire earth).
Kautilya therefore had perfected the realist ideas in ancient times where the use of violence was
glorified to achieve power and grandeur in international relations.

*LATER REALISTS*
Carrying over the ideas of realism Niccolo Machiavelli an Italian
thinker, tried to conceptualize the principle of realism in his work 'The Prince'. He tried to
establish the role of King, importance of
nation-states and diplomacy among the nations. Machiavelli asserted that the prince should
be as brave as lion and as cunning as fox as the lion can show his might and courage in
wars, whereas the fox can trace the traps. The Prince therefore should be courageous and
crafty. He believed
that the prince should be brutal and crafty so that he can suppress any kind of revolt against
him in domestic arena. Machiavelli believed that norms, morality and religion should be used
by the Prince only for the general masses. The Prince should encourage people to follow
religion and morality so that they become submissive and obedient. He asserted that if a
Prince could consolidate his power and position in domestic politics he can also consolidate
his power and position in international relations.

Carrying over the understanding of realist school of thought was prominently articulated
and conceptualized to a greater extent in the work of English political philosopher Thomas
Hobbes. Hobbes' magnum opus, Leviathan was published in1651 in which the state of nature
for the human beings was visualized. Hobbes made three assumptions, firstly, men are equal,
secondly, the men's interest in anarchy and thirdly, they are motivated by competition,
diffidence and glory. The result of these conditions was war of all against all. Hobbes believed
that it was human nature to quarrel, wage war and compete for resources
and glory. The war of one against all, exemplified the anarchical international order which
required a hegemon to stabilize global order. Hobbes believed that the anarchical system in
international relations was predominant and a man has to work hard for his survival. Hobbes
ideas percolated into the understanding of realism in modern times. He therefore played an imp
role in shaping the ideas of realism.
*CLASSICAL REALISM*
Classical realists believe that it is completely favored to make a peaceful world order but the
reality of international relation is security, power struggle and conflicts among the units. So,
to create a peaceful world order it may be a seductive idea but it is not feasible. Classical
realists substantially consider the state as the dominant actor of world affairs and they believe in
the politics of great powers. They criticize the utopian assumptions of liberals
during the world war politics.

*Contribution of EH Carr*
The British historian and journalist E.H. Carr in his propaedeutic work 'The Twenty Years
'Crisis' (1939) distinguish between realism and utopianism. Carr used the foundation state of
realism which is underlay in the writings of Machiavelli. EH. Carr believes that realism is a
well-established path to understand the reality of
international relations. On the other hand utopians emphasized on "what ought to be' and they
try to sustain the world from imaginations. Utopian believes that a peaceful world can be
achieved if international agencies like League of Nations exist. But Carr said that League of
Nations is unrealistic and Treaty of Versailles is the main cause of Second World War. He He
also gave some examples from the war between Japan and Manchuria (1931) and Italy's
attack on Abyssinia (1935) during which the League of Nations kept watching as a mute
spectator at this juncture. Hence, an international agency completely failed to prevent war and
maintain a peaceful world order. Finally, EH. Carr alleged that utopians are also unable to
explain the tangibility of power politics.

*Contribution of HANS MORGENTHAU*

The classical text of Hans J. Morgenthau 'Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power
and Peace' (1948) created a paradigm in the field of discipline. Morgenthau's work is
considered as classic because it described the very fundamental and methodological attempt
to theorize the international politics. Morgenthau invented new tools to understand the real
power politics.
The most authoritative exposition of classical realism is considered to be given by Hans
Morgenthau. Morgenthau explained realism in terms or six principles which are as follows:
*First*, politics is governed by the objective laws that have their roots in human nature. Human
beings have innate lust for power. this principle is called objective laws of human nature.
*Secondly*, national interests are the motivating force of a state9s activity in the sphere
of international politics. The state meets these interests with the help of power. That is
why every nation wants to acquire more and more power. In this way international politics is a
struggle for power . It does not bother about what is desirable immoral.
*Thirdly*, national Interests are dynamic. Inese are Changed and shaped by the circumstances.
Not only interests but power positions of most countries also vary with
time.
*Fourthly*, universal moral principles are not applicable to the actions of states. Prudence is the
supreme virtue in politics; and political ethics judges action ultimately
by its political consequences.
*Fifthly*, political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation
with the moral laws that govern the nation.
*Finally*, realist ponders over the autonomy of political sphere. Morgenthau says that a
political realist thinks in terms of interests defined as a power, as an economist thinks
in terms of utility.

*criticism of Morgenthau:*
Feminist scholar J. Ann Ticker argues that Morgenthau's theory about realism is completely
based on masculinity and gender biased. Ticker believes that the incomplete
and masculine understanding about human nature is partial towards the women. It is premised
on the very exclusion of women and feminine attributes which reflects gender biasness in
order to understand international politics, where women are not included in conceptual
framework of political realism. She said that Morgenthau is only interested in a political
man who is supposed to be prudent, rational but not moral. Morgenthau completely neglected
the ethical dimensions of international politics while morality and ethics is an integral part of
feminine virtues.

*criticism of classical realism*

Behaviouralist believed that classical realism was not a single coherent theory and it
did not satisfy scientific investigation.
Realist scholars failed to evaluate the concept of power as they could not explain that
how much power is sufficient to nation-states for their security and survival. They
also provided less importance to the other factors beyond the power politics amongst
nations.
Critics also pointed out that Realism also failed to answer some of the real world questions like
national security, military
arms and weapons.
Political Realism lack precision despite large number of contributions. It provides
bleak opinions about concepts like balance of power, national interest and deterrence.

*Neorealism*
Neo-Realism or structural realism is considered as a mainstream or foundational theory in
international relations. Neo-realist believes that the basic structure of international politics is
anarchic so the behavioral dynamics of the state is determined from this systemic structure.
There are two dimensions to neorealism- Defensive & Offensive. Key contributors of
neo-realism are Kenneth N. Waltz, John Mearsheimer, Joseph Grieco and
Stephen Walt etc.

*CONTRIBUTION OF K.N Waltz*

Kenneth N. Waltz published his phenomenal work about the foundation of neo-realism in
"Theory of International Politics' 1979. Waltz substantial contribution to the sphere of
political science is the creation of neo-realism, which posits that state actions can often be
explained by the systemic pressure which limits their choices. He argues that the international
order exists in a state of perpetual anarchy. Waltz believes that in domestic regime there is
hierarchy with the existence of a central agency that can regulate the irrational and evil behavior
of individuals. Central
authority in domestic regimes set up a bunch of norms, rules and regulation, provision of
punishment to maintain the order of hierarchy. But in international system there is absence of
a powerful central or universal authority, lack of central enforcer means the state act in a way
that ensure their security above all or else risk falling behind. He believes that without the
existence of the international agency there is a system of anarchy and every state have to
survive on its own. Accordingly, in the systemic pressure states have to maximize its security
through
relative powers/gain. Therefore, states are the security maximizers and the main concern of
nation states to ensure their survival. In this manner Waltz argues that states are different in
their capabilities but similar in their task. State according to Waltz uses two kinds of means to
achieve their ends. First, internal efforts i.e., to increase economy and military strength. Second,
external efforts i.e. increasing own alliance and shrinking one’s opposition.

*Defensive Realism*
Primarily relied on Waltz9s notion of neorealism, defensive neorealism suggests that our
assumptions of relations with other state depend on whether they are friends or enemy. It
is arqued as: "Defensive realism holds that the international system provides incentives for
expansion only under certain conditions. Under anarchy, many of the means a state uses to
increase its security decrease the security of other states. This security dilemma causes states
to worry about one another's future intentions and relative power. defensive realism predicts
greater variation in internationally driven expansion and suggests that states should generally
pursue moderate strategies as the best route to security. Under most circumstances, the
stronger states in the international system should pursue military, diplomatic, and foreign
economic policies that communicate restrain. This means defensive realism emphasises on
security and stresses upon "security maximisation".

*Offensive realism*
The main representative of offensive neorealism is considered to be John Mearsheimer.
Offensive realism although inspired by both neorealism and classical realism, but in order to
depart fundamentally from their premises, it gives primacy to "the hostile and intolerant nature of
the international system as the cause of conflict." Mearsheimer observes that "there are no
satisfied status quo states: rather all states are continuouslv searching for opportunities to gain
power at the expense of other states. Contrary to Waltz. Mearsheimer argues that states
recognize that the best path to peace is to accumulate more power than anvone else."
Therefore, for offensive realism, states are "power maximiser" than "security maximiser". He
argues that all states attempt to maximise their relative power because only the strongest states
can guarantee their survival. They follow expansionist policies when and where the benefits of
doing so outweigh the costs.

*DIFFERENCE*
Both defensive and offensive neorealisms are considered to be the important off-shoots of
neorealism. However, the two differ with each other on many counts: (a) Defensive. neorealist is
considered to be more optimistic than offensive neorealist. (b) States actions in the international
system by defensive neorealists are viewed as security maximiser, while
by offensive neorealist as power maximiser. c) Defensive neorealism sees conflict unnecessary
only in a subset of situations, for instance in economic relations; while, offensive neorealism
does not appear to give such considerations. d) Defensive realists raise questions on offensive
realists argument on whether leaders can be certain on an aggressive move by state is an
expansionary action intended to challenge the existing order or simply a preventive policy aimed
at protecting their security.

*Criticism of neorealism*
In recent years the fundamental postulates of neorealism has attracted profound criticism.
First and foremost is its failure to predict changes in the international system. This happened
with the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the bipolar international system.
Secondly, the question is posed against to what extent anarchic structure can influence the
state behaviour in the international politics.
Thirdly, neorealists premise that long lasting peace can only be possible in bipolar system is
contradicted by democratic peace theorist. Their arguments are based on the fact that it is
democracy which can prevent war. Historically, no democracies fought wars.
Fourth objection against neorealism is derived from the fact that it fails to explain intervening
variables in domestic politics.

*Conclusion*
Realism is an important approach to international relations. Realists invented a new framework
of study to understand the key concepts like power, security, deterrence, anarchy, position of
state, relevance of ethics and morality. The realist tradition has been successful in explaining
the causes of war in international relations. From the times of Thucydides, Kautilya and Sun Tzu
to the contemporary times of international relations; the meaning of power and security has
been satisfactorily explained. In doing so the realist tradition has successfully guided world
leaders and military generals in accomplishing their
goals.