We consider the often-repeated parallel between Kautilya and Machiavelli, and we must indicate some remarkable coincidences as well as contrasts. While Machiavelli occupies as the first modern political philosopher a unique position in European history, Kautilya was preceded in Ancient India by a long line of individual authors and schools who may justly claim to have introduced a number modernist political ideas into the stock of our ancient thought. Between the range of sujects covered by the "Principe", the "Discorsi", the "Istoriae" and "Arte della Guerra" on the one hand and those treated in Kautilya's Arthasastra on the other, it is true, we may trace a general resemblance: but the conception of a single branch of knowledge comprising all these topics such is associated with the line of Indian thinkers ending with Kautilya is not shared by the Italian.
On the other hand the empirical method of Machiavelli supported as it is by frequent references to the history of classical antiquity, has it is by frequent to Indian traditional history. For of Machiavelli, has has been well observed, applies historyto point a moral which has been already set forth and adorn a tale which has been alreaady told the same judgement may likewise be applied to Kautilya. We may also draw a distant parallel between the heads of discussion principally followed by Machiavelli in his "Principe", namely, the preservation. But the detailed account of the organisation and working of the State-administration which constitues such a prominent feature of Kautilya's work is wanting in Machiavelli's statecraft and those of Kautilya.: in both we find mingled with symapthy for feeling and sentiments of subjects a tendency to apply the weapons of force and fraud in the interst of the State.
Neverthless while Machiavelli singles out the class of aristocrats as the object of his ruthless policy, their place in Kautilya is taken by antisocial elements of the population and the clandestine public enemies and the enemies outside.
A more fundamental difference may be observed between the objectives of the two sets of policies. In Machiavelli there lay behind all his thought the urge of burning patriotismwhich sought passionately for the deliverance of his unhappy motherland, and the picture of Italy that draws in the dosing chapter of the "Principe" is one of the most moving on record.
The aim of Kautilya's statecraft, by contrast, was much more limited and selfish, for it consisted in ensuring the security and stability of the King's rule inside the Kingdom and its progressive advance towards the goal of universal dominion ouside the same.
Casalino Pierluigi, 17th October, 2013