Arthashastra has shifted attention from political philosophy to political science. Greek thinkers like Plato and Aristotle emphasized on political philosophy, whereas Kautilya focused at practical realism. The aim of Arthashastra is to show how a state ought to be ruled.
It did not mean a perfect state or an ideal state-involving communism, abolition of property and even of family. Arthashastra speaks in terms of a highly materialistic world, perceived by Kautilya keeping the moral angle aside. The purpose of it was the practical aim to show how the government ought to be run.
There is a fundamental difference as regards to the aims and objectives of Machiavelli’s ‘Prince’ and Kautilya’s ‘Arthashastra’. The ‘Prince’ was written with the intention of advising the king how to perpetuate his rule, whereas the message of Arthashastra is yogakshema and rakshana of the subjects.
Kautilya, like Max Weber, was keen on the efficiency and rationality aspects of administration. Kautilya’s maxims of administration included features like hierarchy, defined competence of each office, selection by merit, promotion by seniority-cum-merit, compensation, training and discipline.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Webers’ concern for separation of officials from the means of administration is rooted in his advocacy of high ethical conduct in bureaucracy. Likewise, Kautilya’s stress on controls and even on a spy-network to keep surveillance over the officials highlights his concern for a ‘clean’ administration.
The basis of Weberian bureaucratic model is “authority”, which implies a willingness to receive and obey orders, while Kautilya focuses on the concept of ‘control’ – which, in Weberian analysis, would be akin to power around which coercive instruments are used to get the orders obeyed. Thus, Kautilya and Weber differ on the basis of legitimacy of authority.
Mackenzie Brown rightly salutes Kautilya for accomplishing with superb competence in one work, which was attempted separately by Aristotle, Machiavelli and Bacon.