Similarities and Differences Between The Prince and the Arthashastra: Compare and Contrast Essay

Introduction

The comparison between the status of the Arthashastra of Kautilya and the conception of the power and government of the Prince of Machiavelli has often been dealt with by scholars of political affairs. The comparative examination of the society of Ancient India, at the time of Chandragupta Maurya, and of that of the society of Renaissance Italy, allows grasping of interesting analogies between the two works. Both authors laid the foundations for pedagogy in the art of governing and enjoying paternity in many of the ideas of the science of politics.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Both Kautilya and Machiavelli, agree that a ruler must assiduously cultivate his character as much as his image since it shapes the minds of his subjects. Machiavelli grants the ideal prince the title of vir virtutis (man of virtue) whose conduct in the normal field of affairs must be honest and useful, but standing in extraordinary circumstances must transcend all considerations of conscience conventional and trust in virtue so that it defeats fortune and obtains success (Gray, 2013). For Kautilya, the head of a corporation or an oligarchy must remain fair and benevolent in its behavior with its members, be beneficial, come to consolidate agreements and understanding, possess self-control and, having devout men, pursue and achieve the wishes of the general.

Kautilya praises ancient times and deplores the degenerated conditions prior to the invasion of Alexander the Great. Kautilya supports the idea of a Universal Empire that guarantees the maintenance of peace, harmony and political stability. Similarly, Machiavelli laments the corruption of his time, resulting from foreign invasions in Italy, and he appeals to the golden days of the Roman Republic and the First Empire. Machiavelli advises Lorenzo to unify Italy, in the same way that Kautilya advises Chandragupta to create an Empire (Gray, 2013). The Indian counselor encourages the vijigishu (he who wishes to conquer) to become a cakravarti (universal ruler).

Another similarity is that both authors are concerned with the problems associated with the stability and security of the State. Machiavelli and Kautilya were convinced of the constant instability of the world and political spectrum. The swami (king) of Kautilya must ensure the safety of the four social castes and the four divisions of religious life, and act as a guardian to protect the Dharmas from any violation (Duty or moral principles) (Sihag, 2017). Machiavelli believes that the hallmark of good governance is its durability. He praises Licurgo, legendary legislator of Sparta, who for making constitutions gave strength to the government. In his own words,"Lycurgus, who organized in such a way that of Sparta, who distributed the authority between the king, the great and the people, founded a regime of more than eight hundred years, with great glory and perfect tranquility of the State " (Gray, 2013).

One major difference between the two is that Kautilya is sensitive to the economic aspects of power while Machiavelli works with purer political concepts. In the Arthashastra, the material function is exalted, which comes from the aristocratic ideal of action, as well as the virtue of production, even applying an image of economic production to political life.

Machiavelli and Kautilya differ in the objectives and political postulates. Machiavelli as a realistic man, as someone who deals with the actual experience of the political world and does not dream of ideal states in his imagination, crudely emphasizes that people should not create false images of kindness and kindness, which had no place in the redesign and reform of the brutal reality of Renaissance Italy (Boesche, 2002). Kautilya is oriented towards a materialism, for him, the source of man's subsistence is wealth, in other words, the Earth inhabited by man.

However, while the Arthashastra describes in detail the cross-section of Indian society in the perspective of reassuring the possibilities of strengthening the king's power, the Prince proposes a general theory of political science, in the context of the factional struggles of his historical period. As long as human nature remains the same and as long as States continue to seek their own benefit, Kautilya's and Machiavelli teachings will continue to be relevant, even in the twenty-first century. It is possible that some chapters of the Arthashastra, only have a historical interest not applicable in our days, as it is the case of the penal code or the description of the military formations for the battles. But, people can learn from the author's wisdom when he discusses the fundamental issues of economics that propose a just administration and when he analyzes diplomatic relations between states.

References

Boesche, R. (2002). Moderate Machiavelli? Contrasting The Prince with the Arthashastra of Kautilya. Critical Horizons, 3(2), 253-276.

Gray, S. (2013). Reexamining Kautilya and Machiavelli. Political Theory, 42 (6), 635-657.

Sihag, S. (2017). Kautilya and Machiavelli on justice, prosperity and national security. Theoretical Economics Letters, 7(3), 381-397.