A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c9.90

c9.90

discussion followed by Machiavelli in his "*Prince*," and those involved in Kauṭilya's definition of the Arthaśāstra and implicitly adopted by him in his work. This comparison however serves to emphasize an essential difference between the ideas of the two masters. To Machiavelli politics is informed with the ideal of territorial aggrandisement, while Kauṭilya's goal as we have said in another place is, next to the security of the State, its achievement of political influence over the circle of States. Finally, as regards the attitude of these authors towards religion and morality, it appears at first sight that Kauṭilya rivals and even surpasses Machiavelli in his sacrifice of these principles to the end of public welfare. Nevertheless it has to be remembered that Kauṭilya reserves his immoral statecraft in general for extreme cases, and he advocates, as in his rules relating to the acquisition of territory, the kind and even benign treatment of the subjects. Kauṭilya's politics, we cannot help thinking, is based upon a deeper knowledge of human nature than that of his European counterpart.