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

• 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

• 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.”