A PROJECT REPORT

ON

COMPARISON
BETWEEN
KAUTILYA AND MACHIAVELLI

POLITICAL SCIENCE(MAJORS)
3RD SEMESTER
B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

SAURAV SARMAH KUSHAL KEDIA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF POL SC. ROLL NO. 16105
GROUP NO: 16
COMPARISON BETWEEN KAUTILYA AND MACHIAVELLI

Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 2

KAUTILYA ................................................................................................................. 2

MACHIAVELLI .......................................................................................................... 3

GOVERNANCE OF STATES ................................................................ 4

Kautilya ...................................................................................................................... 4

Machiavelli ................................................................................................................ 6

1
COMPARISON BETWEEN KAUTILYA AND MACHIAVELLI

INTRODUCTION

KAUTILYA

Nicknamed as Indian Machiavell Chanakya was born on 371B.C.His notabke works

include Chankaya Niti and Arthashastra. . He was an Indian teacher, philosopher and
royal advisor to the King of the most powerful dynasty of India at the time. He
expressed detailed views on State, War, Social Structures, Diplomacy, Ethics, Politics
and Statecraft very succinctly in his book called “Arthashastra”. The early life of
Kautilya, father of Indian political thought, is shrouded in mystery. Kautilya had two
other names- Chanakya and VIshnugupta. Since he was born in Chanakya village, he
was called Chanakya. He was names Vishnu Gupta in the Naam karan ceremony.
Kutala was a pot in which Brahmanas stored grain. Hence he was named as
Kautalaya. Being a Brahman of strong determination and firm will, he made up his
mind to avenge insult inflicted on him by Nanda- King of Pataliputra. He left the
capital feeling humiliated and on his way, came across the young, Chandragupta. He
found the latteer a promising man and started the campaign for his installation on the
Throne of Magadha. First attempt was a defeat but in later attempt Chandragupta
regrouped his forces, overwhelmed the border state and launched group onslaught on
his capital. The wicked King-, Dhanananda best of Nanda dynasty, was killed in 322
BC. Thus a new Dynasty, The Maurya, was established with Chandragupta Maurya
enthroned as the King of Magadha in 321 B.C. and reigned upto 298 B.C. The credit
for this goes to KAutilya ehose Diplomatic skill and Encyclopaedic knowledge of
administration enabled Chandragupta, his pupil not only to triumph against Nandas
but also consolidate his empire. Foe the first time the writ of one empire ran in
country through a hierarchy of centrally appointed officers, an administrative work
framework designed by Kautilya, his mantri

Kautilya definition of state of exhaustive and refers to seven elements of Saptanga

theory. Kautilya’s account of the State signifies the King exercised political authority
and the officials advised him on administrative matters. The King ruled over his
territory his territory from a fortified capital. The stability and security of his rule was

2
COMPARISON BETWEEN KAUTILYA AND MACHIAVELLI

ensured through army and treasury The allies rendered him assistance in safeguarding
the Kingdom. In words of Dr Parmar “the treatment of the seven elements in the
Arthasastra is systematic and thorough and there is no parallel to this in other political
texts.”

MACHIAVELLI

Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian diplomat, historian, philosopher, politician and

diplomat who lived from 1469 A.D to 1527 A.D. He was a secretary in the Republic
of Florence, and when he lost his position, he wrote his fist masterpiece, “The Prince”
which lays down one of the earliest proponents of modern political science – political
ethics to be more specific. He was considered to be such a frank political realist, that
modern political scientist called him “a teacher of evil”. “Macheviallinism” is the term
used to characterize “cunning, scheming or unscrupulous, especially in politics.”.
From Greek philosophy to renaissance all philosophers and thinkers dealt with the end
of the state. They thought that the political power of the state would be used as a
means to achieve further end. All Political thinkers from Plato, Aristotle to the Middle
age( till 16th century) had concerned itself with the central question of the end of the
state and had considered state-power as a means to higher and had conceived in moral
terms, but Machiavelli adopted a different line. To him the power of the state is the
end of the state i.e, Every state must aim at maximizing its power. The failure of the
state it the enterprise will throw it into great turmoil. Consequently he confined his
attention to the means best suited to the acquisition, retention and acquisition of
power. According to him “State is the highest form of human association. It is
indispensable for the promotion of Human welfare. State is to be worshipped even by
sacrificing the individual for the interest of the state, A ruler must remember that
whatever success he achieves is due to power. For acquiring political power he can
use any type of means. Political statesman plays important role in organizing state,
and providing it with safety and security. Hence the major theme of The Prince is
acquiring power. Modern power politics cannot be thought of without any reference to
Machiavelli and his book The prince.

3
COMPARISON BETWEEN KAUTILYA AND MACHIAVELLI

According to Machiavelli “A prince cannot observe all those things for which men are
held good, since he is often under a necessity, to maintain his state, of acting against
faith, against charity, against humanity, against religion. And so he needs to … not
depart from good, when possible, but know how to enter into evil, when forced by
necessity1.”

GOVERNANCE OF STATES

Kautilya

The Mauryan era of ancient India gave the world a significant treatise, the
Arthashastra of Kautilya. It offers deep insights into political statecraft. Kautilya is
known as the Indian Machiavelli because of his ruthless and shrewd tactics and
policies reflecting an approach to statecraft including warfare.

When the country was being ruled in anarchy and there was a rule in which the
mightier wins, it was Kautilia’s philosophy that brought a change. He changed the rule
of “MIGHT IS RIGHT”. King would receive one-sixth of the grain and one-tenth of
merchandise and gold, as his due. It was with this money that he was able to ensure
the safety of the citizens and ensure prosperity among them.

According to him there are 7 essential elemcts of state whoch are written in his
“SAPTANGA” theory.

(i) Swami (The Ruler): It is the most essential person. Swami means the monarch. He
prescribed some essentials requirements for someone to become a ruler.
 He should be a native of the soil and born in a noble family.
 He should be Valiant and well educated because he makes all the important
appointments and administers the government.
 He has to be virtuous and he placed high importance to moral values.
Kautilya has given substantial powers to the monarch but those powers are meant for
the well-being of the subjects.

1
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince, translated by N.H. Thomson. Vol. XXXVI, Part 1. The Harvard
Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14;

4
COMPARISON BETWEEN KAUTILYA AND MACHIAVELLI

(ii) Amatya (The Minister): It refers to the council of ministers as well as the
supporting officials and subordinate staffs. They perform regular affairs of the state.
Amatya gives suggestions to king, collects taxes, buid new villages and cities, ensure
defense of the state and all other tasks as assigned by the king.

(iii) Janapada (The Population): It refers to both thr territory and people of the state.
The territory of the state should be fertile and should have abundance of forest, rivers,
mountains, minerals, wild life etc. It should have have good climate. People should be
loyal to their king, hard working, disciplined, religious, ready to fight for their
motherland, should pay taxes regularly and happily.

(iv) Durga (The Fortified Capital): It refers to forts. The state should have sufficient
number of forts across its territory at strategic locations for ensuring defense against
foreign invasions. Forts should be built near hills/mountains, deserts, dense forests
and big water bodies. They garrison soldiers, store food grains for emergency and also
serve as a hideout for the king when his life in danger.

(v) Kosha (The Treasury): This means treasury of the state. Finance is life blood of
any state without which it is almost impossible to run it. Money is needed for paying
salaries, building new infrastructure, etc. The treasury should be full of money and
valuable metals and gems. It can be increased through taxation and plundering enemy
states in war.

(vi) Danda (The Army): It refers to military. The state should have a regular, large,
disciplined and well trained military. It is crucial for the security of the state. The
soldiers should be recruited from those families which are traditionally associated
with military. The soldiers should paid well and their families should be taken care of
in most suitable way. Proper training and equipment should be made available. Well
fed and well trained soldiers can win any battle. The king should take care of the
soldiers and the soldiers will be ready to sacrifice even their life for him.

(vii) Mitra (Ally and Friend); It refers to friends of the king. The monarch should
maintain friendly relationship with traditional friends of his forefathers. He should
also make new friendships. He should send gifts and other pleasantries for his friends.
They should be helped in times of emergency. They should be loyal. Friends add to
the power of the state. They are also important from foreign trade view point.

5
COMPARISON BETWEEN KAUTILYA AND MACHIAVELLI

Machiavelli

Accprding to Machiavelli the power of the state is the end of the state i.e. Every state
must aim at maximizing its power. The failure of the state it this enterprise will throw
it into great turmoil. Consequently he confined his attention to the means best suited
to the acquisition, retention and expansion of power. State is the highest form of
human association. It is indispensable for the promotion of human welfare. State is to
be worshipeed even by sacrificing the individual at the interest of the state. A ruler
must remember that whatever brings success is due to power. For acquiring political
power he can use any type of means. Political statesman plays important role in
organizing state, and providing it with safety and security. Hence the majot theme of
The Prince is the process of acquiring power. Modern power politics cannot be
thought of without any reference to Machiavelli and his book ‘The prince’.

Machiavelli lived in Renaissance Italy and was greatly influenced by the new
spirit if Renaissance. The intellectual awakening injected rational scientific approach I
every sphere of human life, renaissance replaced the faith by reason. Italy being the
leader of Renaissance is the most modern and Urbanized country of Europe. But with
artistic and intellect achievements came moral degradation and political chaos. There
was rampant corruption and selfishness among the Italian rulers and the church
officials Machiavelli represents the culture which was undergoing a period of deep
political crisis. Italy consisted of very large number of small but 3 Independent states.
Some of these states like Florence and Venice were republics, while others were ruled
by despots. Internally these states were the home of fierce political rivalries and
personal ambition and externally they were involved in constant struggle with one
another. The political division of Italy and the struggle between the State made the
country weak and a prey for the ambitions of the powerful for neighbouring States of
France, Prussia and Spain. France invaded Italy and defeated the Medici rulers.
Machiavelli was witness to this tragedy. It was out of this traumatic experience, that
made Machiavelli conclude that unless Italy was united under a strong central
government, the country would always remain under the threat of conquest and
annexation by neighbouring countries.

6
COMPARISON BETWEEN KAUTILYA AND MACHIAVELLI

Machiavelli was not interested in idealistic conception of State. His chief interest
was concentrated in the unity of body political and power. He adopted an empirical
method. He seriously studied the past, from 4th century to 15th century of the medieval
age. This age was characterized by the Feudal state. In this order King divided the
dominions into many parts. Each part granted to a noble or tenant chief. There were
no common laws and central authority. In short feudal system was a confusion. Out of
this church emerged as a superior authority. Result was that there was a conflict
between spiritual and temporal authorities. Pope claimed authority over all the
princes. State was merely the police department of Church. Thus a true national life
could not grow in this system. He X-rayed the entire Italian Society. The feudalism
and the church could not only destroy the identity and importance of the state, but the
state was considered sub-ordinate. But Machiavelli completely divorced religion from
politics. He broke the medieval tradition that the political authority is under the
control of church. He made the state totally independent of the church by saying that
it has its own code of conduct to follow, state is highest supreme and autonomous. He
said the state is superior to all associations of Human society. He rejected the feudal
system and propounded all powerful powerful central authority, who is supreme over
all institutions. According to Machiavelli a ruler must remember that whatever bring
success is due to power. For acquiring political power he can use any type of means.
He said politics is constant struggle for power. All politics is power politics. For
Machiavelli absolute state was the end and for this Means was power. He said the sole
aim of the Prince was to make country strong and united, establish peace and order
and expel the foreign invader. To achieve this end any means would be satisfactory.

Thus Machiavelli and Kautilyas biggest priority was the unification of the State. This
meant that the imperialism of the emperor was of utmost importance, and expansion
of the territory an important goal. They both characterised the King. “Kautilya’s King
is, therefore, a respectable, wise and courageous individual who comes from a well-
respected family and conducts himself with absolute dignity. Thus, Kautilya’s King is
essentially a doer and not just a thinker.”The King cannot afford to be disliked by his
subjects. He should be willing to take any step to protect his subjects and protect them
as a patriarchal figure, while guided by the ideas of dharma. The King was the
upholder of the Law, and could “conquer Earth upto its four ends”. Machiavelli, on

7
COMPARISON BETWEEN KAUTILYA AND MACHIAVELLI

the other hand, said that the idea of having a State in place was to impose order on its
subjects. Whether rule and order came about by fear or genuine respect did not matter,
as long as order was established. He goes on to say that it is safer to be feared than to
be loved, as too much love and make the Prince vulnerable. He also stressed on the
fact that an ideal prince would be one who was ruthless and willing to eschew the idea
of conventional morality to maintain his power. The virtue of a Prince was not guided
by a strict code of moral conduct, but rather by what was the need of the hour, and
what proved to be a necessity at that point of time. Machiavelli compared the Prince
to the lion and fox, stating that he should be both mighty and forceful, but also, sly
and duplicitous when such a necessity arose. Machiavelli said that the King should
appear to have all the good qualities that had been enumerated by him. He should
appear to be ‘merciful, genuine, humane, religious’ even if he wasn’t any of those
things. People should look at the Prince as someone who would be Supreme and had a
ready, capable and competent mind of his own. Kim Jong-un of North Korea seems to
be a very good example of a ruler with Machiavellian traits. The people of North
Korea fear Kim Jong-un, but at the same time look up to him as an extraordinary and
charismatic leader. They are the subjects under his rule, and they have accepted that.
They also know that, he will not hesitate at any time to employ any means of physical
violence to curb any dissent or bring down any threat which is posed to his country or
his position as the supreme leader of DPRK..

There is a similarity between Kautilya and Machiavelli is behind the ‘need’ and
purpose of a State. They both share the view that human beings are weak, and to keep
them in check, someone has to govern them. In such a scenario, one can only think of
rulers that are required to maintain order, which is why politics have to be kept
separate from morality. Kautilya and Machiavelli both looked at religion and morality
as secondary to the welfare of the State.

Kautilya was a firm believer in the existence of the religious system. He felt it acted a
method of unification of the masses, also, helped depoliticize the subjects when faced
with State Power. This helps the State remain in power. An example of an extensive
merging of religion and unification would be a theocracy. In Saudi Arabia religion is
the divine rule that super cedes all. The bond between Islam and the people of Saudi
Arabia is so strong that it is also called the ‘Home of Islam’. People unite in the spirit

8
COMPARISON BETWEEN KAUTILYA AND MACHIAVELLI

of Islam, and are ruled by laws that are in consonance with their Holy Texts. If they
try to go against the State, they will be labeled as rebels or dissenters of the Religion,
and will be punished accordingly. Thus, people are coerced, in a way to accept State
Power in the disguise of consent.

However, Machiavelli, condemned religion and thought that religion had corrupted
the people in Italy at that time, turning them into perverse and ignorant individuals..