2025

Kautilya Is Indian Machiavelli: Why?

Author(s): Sumit Mondal

Abstract

Both Kautilya and Machiavelli have been compared for their practical guidance on State Craft, Power, and governance in their respective works, ‘Arthashastra’ and ‘The Prince’ Both agree that anarchy is a condition that arises from human self-interest, ambition and lack of effective control, where Lawlessness and disorder are predominant. It is agreed upon by them that in this state, force or strict Control is necessary to prevent chaos and maintain political stability. Both place State welfare ahead of ethics or religion. Both prioritized realism over idealism and had imperial ambitions to maintain stability. They offered a practical Solution for rulers facing real world challenge by providing an example and focusing on power acquisition and maintenance. Kautilya strongly advocated for monarchy as an ideal form of government, believing that a powerful central ruler was necessary for State security. Machiavelli provided conditional endorsement for monarchy, particularly in ‘The Prince’, advocating for a strong prince to unify and stabilize and unstable state like Italy. Both dealt with ethics in Pragmatic manner during statecraft. Both acknowledged the importance of realism in politics, recommending that rulers adapt to human flaws and use power strategically. Their recommendation was to separate politics from ethics when required, utilizing deception, force (Kautilay’s dandaniti and Machiavelli's fear or love) and espionage to safeguard the realm. Kautilya and Machiavelli share many similarities in their realistic approach to statecraft, Kautilya being called the ‘Indian Machiavelli’.