Kautilya also known as Chanakya or Vishnugupt and Niccolò Machiavelli were political philosophers existing centuries apart in different parts of the world. They provided rules of statecraft for a stable regime. But terming Kautilya just as a political philosopher is putting limit to the genius of the man.
Kautilya – The Legend
There has not been much concrete information present about the background of Kautilya.His popularity lies in association with originator of Mauryan empire, Chandragupta Maurya and his role in being a Kingmaker to Chandragupta. His influence over the inexperienced king and his guidelines for good governance, has been talked and discussed in legends.
The Arthashastra: The Treatise on Wealth
Kautilya’s most celebrated work has been the Arthashastra, written around 320 BCE, which was a training manual for the kings of the Mauryan empire. Arthashastra consists of 600 sutras, 15 books, 150 chapters and 180 sections. There have been debates about the originality of the work but Kautilya himself has referenced many writers like Bharadwaja, Vishalaksha Parasara, Manu and Kaunapadanta in his work.
Much of the book is devoted to politics and statecraft, military and war, social structures, diplomacy, ethics and secret strategy. The focus was on stable rule and relations with neighbouring states. The writings also favour a strong state and a strong ruler wielding power. One of the famous sayings by Kautilya is “Every neighbouring state is an enemy and the enemy’s enemy is a friend.”
He has given two major theories used in foreign diplomacy: ‘RajaMandala Siddhant /theory’ and ‘Shadgunya (sixfold) Siddhant /theory’. Mandala theory is concentric circles showing different mandalas i.e. a state is circled by presence of friendly and enemy neighbours. Since, land is the source of material welfare, the neighbours aim to acquire the same piece of land which makes the neighbours natural enemies.
The Shadgunya (6-fold) policy is:
(i) Sandhi (treaty), (ii) Vigraha (break treaty and start war) (iii) Asan (stationing of forces near enemy) (iv) Yaan(mobilization of troops) (v) Samashraya (joining hands with those who have a similar aim i.e. enemy of enemy is a friend) and (vi) Dwaidbhava- dual policy, friendship with enemy at a particular time and enmity at other.
The Shadgunya policy is made effective by the use of four-fold upayas i.e., tools to avoid and settle conflicts as mentioned in Arthashastra. These four Upayas are Sama (art of persuasion), Dana (buying loyalty through gifts, bribe or compensation), Danda (punishment) and Bheda (divide and rule).
Ideas of Kautilya
Kautilya thoughts and ideas were rooted in realism. He believed in ‘centralization of power and decision making’ for the reasons of security and prosperity of the empire and also for the purposes of administrative loyalty to the King. His ideas pointed towards a ‘welfare state’ but in event of threats, resorting to warfare to establish power and consequent stability was recommended.
He discussed the importance of and the hierarchy to be followed in the bureaucratic system. Both civil and criminal offences were fined and punished for. The causes and remedies of corruption were analysed in his work. He laid emphasis on good governance which still holds relevance in contemporary times. His views on corruption can be understood by the quote, “Just as it is impossible to know when a swimming fish is drinking water, so it is impossible to find out when a government servant is stealing money”
He wrote that in cases of failure of classical or open strategy, ‘secret means’ could be used to achieve objectives of good governance. He also emphasised on the role of accumulation and use of vital information through espionage and spy networks. They spy could be anybody from courtier to lunatic or beggar on the roads. He believed a state’s superiority is in its military and economic might. He has been compared to another political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli due to similarities in their beliefs.
Niccolò Machiavelli – the Italian diplomat
Centuries later, specifically in 15th century Renaissance, an Italian diplomat and political philosopher named Niccolò Machiavelli lived. He wrote on political theories, histories and historiography, principles of warfare and diplomacy. His most famous works being ‘The Prince’ and ‘The Discourses on Livy’.
The ancient tradition in western philosophy was that politics was strictly bound with ethics. Machiavelli was first among the western philosophers to separate ‘morality from politics’. He critiqued utopian philosophical schemes and moralistic view of authority. His writings were based on experiences and examples from history, instead of, rigid nonflexible logical analysis.
The Prince – ‘a handbook for rulers’
Machiavelli wrote in his work ‘The Prince’, that the ruler should have only one moral objective to follow- the interest of the state. The state is not a means but an end in itself with its own set of interest. To maintain law and order a ruler should have priority as to what is good for the state. He formulated the modern concept of state.
According to Machiavelli, the maxims of individual ethics cannot be applied on state actions. He distinguished public morality with private morality as he believed that ends of both need not and cannot be the same. Hence, it can be understood that Machiavelli prescribed ‘dual code of conduct’. He used examples from history and his experiences of the world to prescribe rules in his work ‘The Prince’.
He has written, that the real concern of a political ruler should be ‘acquisition and maintenance of power’. He believed that a set of good laws and good arms were the dual foundations of a well-ordered political system. He famously said, “It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.”
Machiavelli often used the term ‘Virtù’ or virtue which had different connotations in different context. Virtù was largely a set of personal qualities which ranged from ingenuity, efficacy, wisdom, strategy, bravery, strength and when as necessary ruthlessness, to maintain his state. He also coined the concept of criminal virtue which pointed out the necessary ability of leaders to be cruel in the name of the state. He stated – ‘A prince must combine the qualities of a lion and a fox’.
Machiavelli also used the word Fortuna which meant fortune, ‘antagonist of virtue’. Fortune was treated as a fickle entity which brought both goodness and evil to men. But Machiavelli mostly termed fortune as enemy of political order and ultimate threat to state. He believed fortune may be resisted by humans by usage of virtue and wisdom just as a flood ravaging river can be controlled by use of embankments and dykes.
Comparison between Kautilya and Machiavelli
There have been numerous works on political systems and statecraft but most of them bordered on idealism and how an idealist state should look like. Here in, differed Machiavelli and Kautilya from other political thinkers, bringing in a sense of realism in diplomatic maneuvering despite existing centuries apart.
A direct comparison between Kautilya and Machiavelli is not feasible due to differing domestic political conditions influenced by religion and social systems in ancient India and 15th century Italy. Nonetheless, they were quite similar in their philosophies and approach to statecraft.
Converging ideas: Kautilya and Machiavelli
Both of them made distinction between ethics and political science or statecraft. Their focus was on ‘how one rules’ rather than ‘who rules’. Their focus was not on utmost moral development of man – ruler or citizen or on achieving an ideal state. Instead, they emphasised more, on how a nation is to be ruled or what threatens the security of the state.
Kautilya and Machiavelli consider usage of force as dominant method for societal order. One called it Dandneeti (science of the stick) and the other believed in that the ruler/ Prince should choose reputation based on fear over love and respect.
But the point to be noted is that both advocated against excessive force. For Kautilya, it violated Rajdharma and could possibly lead to social instability and hatred towards the ruler. He has clearly stated that, “In the happiness of his subjects lies his happiness; in their welfare his welfare. He shall not consider as good only that which pleases him but treat as beneficial to him whatever pleases his subjects”.
For Machiavelli, excessive usage of force destabilises state , which goes against Virtu. At times morality has been ignored in larger context when he has said, “ Do all the harm you must at one and the same time, that way the full extent of it will not be noticed, and it will give least offense, one should do good, on the other hand, little by little, so people can fully appreciate it.”
Both Kautilya and Machiavelli believed in one strong state and endorsed imperialism. They longed for a world order where at the centre was ‘state’ and had peace, social and economic justice.
But highlighting only similarities between Kautilya and Machiavelli and also terming Kautilya as ‘Machiavelli of India’ is largely oversimplification of the philosophy they propounded. The Nobel laureate Amartya Sen in his book ‘The Idea of Justice’ , has mentioned it to be amusing that an ancient Indian political analyst of pre- Christian era should be presented as a local version of an 15th century European writer. The similarities have been derived from few selective readings of Arthashastra quoting sections on spies and internal/ external security.
Divergence in ideas
There are major dissimilarities between Kautilya and Machiavelli. Kautilya’s approach was mainly people-centricwhereas Machiavelli’s approach was king-centric. Kautilya has mentioned many times in Arthashastra that the main objective of his work, is the ‘yogakshema’ and ‘rakshana’ of the subjects, that is, the welfare, protection, and administration of the citizens.
He does not glorify the king as in contrast to Machiavelli. Machiavelli’s work had the primary objective to maintain the rule of the king using principles like ‘one need not be ethical but appear ethical’ and use of the maxim ‘ends justify the means’. Machiavelli has been famously quoted, “For although the act condemns the doer, the end may justify him.”
The dominant theme in The Prince is how to attain and maintain power. It has been written for the purposes of self-preservation of a ruler. It also talks about how to achieve ‘la gloria del mondo’ i.e. worldly glory. The Arthashastra on the other hand, has kept economics as a stable foundation for prosperous and progressive society and state, hence terming Kautilya as political economist would be in better sense.
The Arthashastra literally means ‘The Treatise on Wealth’ and the book has sections based on branches of knowledge: Varta (economic policy), Dandaneeti (law and enforcement), Anvikshiki (philosophical and ethical framework) andTrayi (cultural context). For Kautilya, focus was on success of the state and thus, using statecraft for greatness of state.
In this respect, Kautilya’s Arthashastra finds more resonance with Adam Smith’s idea of invisible hand and importance of mutual sympathy i.e. trust in society. Nevertheless, both Kautilya and Machiavelli have been criticised as ‘soulless materialist’ and also enlightened pragmatists. For them, sometimes to achieve noble ends , one has to engage in distasteful acts.
Their writings have led us to a moral dilemma: Can a positive result be regarded as objectively good if it is attained by negative means? Also, are their philosophies applicable for democracies or just monarchies? Are they still relevant in contemporary world? Indian Foreign policy experts have hinted towards application of Kautilya’s principles time and again by Indian political leaders. But Machiavelli’s work, The Prince has mostly been a bedtime read of President like Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
However, the major takeaway is that both Kautilya and Machiavelli emphasised on importance of knowing statecraft as can be understood by Kautilya’s quote, “A wise king trained in politics, will, even if he possesses a small territory, conquer the whole earth with the help of the best fitted elements of his sovereignty and will never be defeated.” Complementing Kautilya, Machiavelli’s saying could defend both him and Kautilya for their beliefs, when he says , “my profession is to govern my subjects, and defend them, and in order to defend them, I must love peace but know how to make war.”
