[1] There are debates regarding the exact date the Arthashastra was written. See RP Kangle, The Kautilya Arthashastra (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988), Volume 3, 59 – 116. Indologists date the text from as early as the fourth century before the Common Era to the third after. However, the dating of this text shall have no serious repercussions on our study of its dictums.
[2] Felix Gilbert, Machiavelli and Guiccardini: Politics and History in Sixteenth-Century Florence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965), 154.
[3] Harvey Mansfield, Machiavelli’s Virtue (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 238.
[4] Law of the fishes (matsyanyaya) — big fish eat little fish. The origin of authority and eventually the state is seen as rising from a Hobbesian anarchy. And similar to Hobbes’ thesis, the alternative to the state is anarchy. However, there does not seem to be any social contract as Hobbes or Jean-Jacques Rousseau would suggest in their works.
[5] Arthashastra 1.13.5-7. See RP Kangle, Volume 2, 28.
[6] “Land in itself had little value in Arthashastran India as there was plenty of virgin land to be had for free. The Arthashastra does not even mention land in its list of inheritable property. Land became valuable only when made productive by human labour.” See Abraham Eraly, The Gem in the Lotus: The Seeding of Indian Civilisation (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2000), 380.
[7] Arthashastra 6.1.1. See Kangle Volume 2, 314.
[8] Arthashastra 1.7.9.
[10] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book I, Chapter XXV.
[11] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book I, Chapter XXXIV.
[12] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book I, Chapter II.
[14] Arthashastra 3.1.41. See Kangle, Volume 2, 195.
[15] Kangle, Volume 3, 117 – 118.
[16] Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter III.
[17] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book I, Chapter VI.
[18] Miguel Vatter, Between Event and Form: Machiavelli’s Theory of Political Freedom (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000), 22.
[20] Kangle, Volume 3, 131.
[21] Arthashastra 1.17.51. See Kangle, Volume 2, 48.
[22] Radhagovindha Basak, Some Aspects of Kautilya’s Political Thinking (Burdwan: Burdwan University Press, 1967), 3.
[24] Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 18.
[25] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book II, Chapter VI.
[26] Arthashastra 7.2.1. See Kangle, Volume 2, 325.
[27] Arthashastra 6.2.33. See Kangle, Volume 2, 319.
[28] Roger Boesche, The First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and his Arthashastra (Oxford:Lexington Books, 2002), 109.
[29] Arthashastra 7.1.6. See Kangle, Volume 2, 321.
[30] Bharati Mukherjee, Kautilya’s Concept of Diplomacy: A New Interpretation (Calcutta: Minerva Associates, 1976), 33-34.
[31] Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XVIII.
[32] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book II, Chapter XXI.
[33] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book III, Chapter XL.
[34] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book III, Chapter XLI.
[35] Gilbert, Machiavelli and Guicciardini, 154.
[38] LN Rangarajan, The Arthashastra (Delhi: Penguin Books, 1992), 31.
[39] Arthashastra 8.1.56. See Kangle, Volume 2, 389.
[40] Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XII.
[42] Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XII.
[43] Machiavelli, Discourses, Chapter XXI. See also, Chapter XLIII, where Machiavelli again mentions the “uselessness of mercenary troops, who have nothing to make them fight but the small stipend they receive, which is not and cannot be sufficient to make them loyal, or so devoted as to be willing to die for you.”
[44] Machiavelli, The Art of War, Book I.
[46] The standing army depended upon the king for its existence and was under constant training. This was therefore the best army in terms of equipment, training, and loyalty. Some campaigns the king may wish to lead may need a larger army. The territorial army was next in preference because of its close proximity to the king—it was usually drawn from the capital and the surrounding areas. It was easily mobilised and more obedient. Sreni, the militia, were next because they were drawn from common citizens of the entire realm. These troops were reliable because in the success of the king lay their success. Their expectations for reward and other gains made them useful. Chanakya preferred friendly forces next. They were understood to have similar interests as that of the king, and they were hopefully as well-trained as the king’s own army. Amitra and Atavi were forces Machiavelli would probably describe as auxiliaries—they were not under the direct control of the king. However, they provided bodies if and when needed. Amitra were alien forces whose interests coincided with those of the king’s for a limited period. Atavi were jungle forces—in Chanakya’s time, there were certain jungle tribes that a king allowed to exist in his kingdom that were not part of his jurisdiction. They had no rights as citizens, but were extended the same protection as any citizen. In return, they would provide troops if needed. See Rangarajan, 684-685.
[47] Machiavelli, The Art of War, Book I.
[49] Arthashastra 9.2.21. See Kangle, Volume 2, 412.
[50] In Hindu society, people were divided into four broad groups. The brahmins, the highest group, were priests, scholars, and counselors in the royal court. Kshatriyas were nobility, and were considered the warrior caste. It fell to them to rule and to defend society. The next caste, the vaishyas, were merchants, financiers, and artisans. The lowest caste, the shudras, worked in service industries and were artisans. Outside the caste system were the non-Aryans, mlecchas. Chanakya does not consider them in his work.
[51] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book 2, Chapter XIX.
[52] RP Kangle translates the opening line of the Arthashastra as, “This single treatise on the Science of Politics has been prepared mostly by bringing together the teaching of as many treatises on the Science of Politics as have been composed by ancient teachers for the acquisition and protection of the earth.” (emphasis mine). See Arthashastra 1.1.1. Kangle, Volume 2, 1.
[54] Arthashastra 6.2.13-28. See Kangle, Volume 2, 318-319.
[55] Harold Nicholson, Diplomacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958)
[56] Kangle, Volume 3, 208.
[57] William Wiethoff, “A Machiavellian Paradigm for Diplomatic Communication,” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 43, No. 4, (November 1981): 1093.
[58] Memoriale a Raffaello Girolami quando al 23 d’Ottobre parti per Spagna all’Imperatore, in Opere, ed. Alessandro Montevecchi (Torino: Unione Tipografico, 1971), 2: 223.
[60] Arthashastra 1.16.8-12. See Kangle, Volume 2, 37. For general rules of diplomatic conduct, see Arthashastra 1.16.8-35 in Kangle, Volume 2, 37-39.
[61] For the Arthashastra on treaties, see Rangarajan, 580-603. Chanakya also states that any contract made with fraudulent intent is invalid. See Rangarajan, 501.
[62] Arthashastra 7.6.13. See Kangle, 339.
[63] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book 2, Chapter III.
[64] Roger Boesche, “Kautilya’s ‘Arthashastra’ on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India,” The Journal of Military History, Vol. 67, No. 1 (Jan. 2003): 24.
[65] Benoy Kumar Sarkar, “Hindu Politics in Italian,” Indian Historical Quarterly, Volume I (1925), 551-552.
[67] Prostitutes were educated in their craft at the state’s expense (!) and were taxed at a uniform 12.5%.
[68] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book II, Chapter X.
[69] “I maintain, then, contrary to the general opinion, that the sinews of war are not gold, but good soldiers; for gold alone will not procure good soldiers, but good soldiers will always procure gold. Had the Romans attempted to make their wars with gold instead of with iron, all the treasure of the world would not have sufficed them, considering the great enterprises they were engaged in, and the difficulties they had to encounter. But by making their wars with iron, they never suffered for the want of gold; for it was brought to them, even into their camp.” See Ibid.
[70] In modern nuclear parlance, this is the difference between Chanakya’s MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) and Machiavelli’s MUD (Mutually Unacceptable Damage). The theory is that it is not necessary to have the power to obliterate the planet as the US and USSR did during the Cold War. French, Israeli, British, and now Indian nuclear programs are far more modest—they possess enough nuclear weapons to make any potential aggressor think twice before attacking. Similarly, Chanakya’s king had a global vision, while Machiavelli’s prince was content to rule a strong but bounded power.
[71] Machiavelli, Prince, Chapter 15.
[72] Arthashastra 7.5.16-18. See Kangle 335.
[73] Machiavelli, Prince, Chapter 8.
[74] Machiavelli, Discourses, Book I, Chapter IX.
[76] George Modelski, “Kautilya: Foreign Policy and International System in the Ancient Hindu World,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 58, No. 3 (Sept. 1964), 558.
[77] Hannah Arendt, On Violence (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1970), 44-46.
[78] See Sebastian de Grazia’s Machiavelli in Hell (New York: Vintage Books, 1994).
[79] Introduction to LA Burd’s edition of The Prince (Oxford, 1891), xxxiv.
[80] Machiavelli, Art of War, Book I.
