THINKING BEYOND MACHIAVELLI AND KAUTILYA: CAN’T WORLD BE GOVERNED BY A MORE HUMANE SYSTEM? by Dr. Jernail S. Anand

The two divisions of society responsible for the march of mankind are: those who had the power, and those on whom this power was used. It is greed blended with ambition for power, which is the defining factor of humanity. To survive is no greed, but to send others out of existence, for your survival,  is. All homilies on morality soon find their way to the dustbin. The wisdom of my dustbin is greater than the wisdom of human mind.. Rejected wisdom prospers in the dustbins of humanity, marginalized and crying for attention, but we as human beings have always shown scant regard for wisdom.

Inverted Wisdom

On the other hand, the world thrives on the ‘inverted wisdom’ of centuries. India prides itself on the ‘survivory wisdom’ of Kautilya while the West has like specimens of human ‘wisdom’ [read anti-thought] in Niccolo Machiavelli. I sometimes tend to feel that men of such vision visit the earth when they are desperately needed, because in the chaos that world is, there is an invisible patterning power. If apocalyptic beings like Lord Krishna or Christ come with a mission, so can be said of great philosophers who hit the earth with a target. Looking back, it can be safely said, the world would have been worse organized or still in a state of chaos, had the writings great authors not affected the vision of the rulers.

Machiavelli believes that the only end which man can place before himself is the pursuit of his wellbeing in his material values in life. He did not view life as having a moral end and purpose but gave importance to man’s worldly life. He believed that politics is an independent activity with its own principles and laws.

Indian counterpart of Machiavelli is the idea of Saam, Daam, Dand, Bhed, which is basically an advice to Kings or Rulers or Administrators on how to get a task done by someone who may not be inclined to do it. It is part of the Chanakya Niti offered to the then ruling dynasty of the Mauryas in the 4th Century BCE. Saam means cajole, Daam paying him, Dand means punishment and Bhed means physical harm which defines a ruler’s relationship with his subjects.

No surprise, western scholars like Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza, Bayle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hume, Smith, Montesquieu, Fichte, Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche number among those whose ideas ring with the echo of Machiavelli's thought. As soon as Kautilya's Arthashastra was translated into English in 1915, its comparison with Machiavelli's Prince, particularly by the western Indologists, started who wanted to show that Machiavelli's Prince was pale in comparison to the ruthless realism in Kautilya's Arthashastra.

Vitiating the General Flow of Life

We are finally contending with a world which believes in its own survival, whether it is a King or a man from the general public, and this instinct has vitiated the general flow of life. I am trying to put these ideas in the prism of morality and judge how far it is proper to apply these things for the continuation of the power.

We had had a great journey, as mankind, but it has been from survival to survival only. And our survival has always meant the extinction of the other. The world is taken forward ideally by its philosophers and in reality, by its politicians, who are generally blind to idealism or any higher thought. Between both these movements, history finally calibrates life. What finally settles is the politician picking up the philosopher, and pitching his decisions in his philosophic frame, while making his stride for power, disguised as a follower of the great minds, whereas the actual movement is towards annihilating the superstructures of thought which have guided humanity through the ages.

They invoke great men, and their philosophy, for example, Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi are the objective correlatives of goodness and morality in the field of politics. Among philosophers, Tolstoy and Gorky, and Shakespeare are among the titans who rule the psyche of the common man. So, the political elite make it a point to use their names in their sloganeering. I wonder if any ruler has referred openly to Machiavelli or Kautalya. Whenever there is mention of Chanakya Niti, it is always to defend indefensible action of rulers.

A WORLD WITHOUT POWER CENTRICISM:

In fact, it is tempting to ask if there had been no Katilya [Chanakya] or even Machiavelli, what type of the world it would have been. Without Kautilya (Chanakya) or Machiavelli, the world would likely lack the foundational frameworks for strategic political thought and realpolitik that shaped governance and statecraft.

In the absence of Kautilya’s Arthashastra (ancient India, 3rd century BCE), Mauryan India might have been less unified, potentially fragmenting into smaller, warring states which could have delayed or altered India’s historical trajectory, weakening its resistance to later invasions or cultural synthesis.

Machiavelli’s The Prince (16th-century Italy) formalized ideas of political realism, advising rulers to prioritize power and stability over morality when necessary. Without his influence, European Renaissance politics might have leaned more on idealized moralism or religious dogma, possibly slowing the emergence of modern nation-states. The absence of his ideas could have delayed the secular, pragmatic diplomacy that shaped modern international relations.

As a result, empires and states might have been less stable or slower to form. Without them, interstate relations might have remained more chaotic or ideologically driven. In India, a less unified Mauryan Empire could have diminished the spread of Buddhism or cultural integration. In Europe, a lack of Machiavellian pragmatism might have prolonged feudal or religious conflicts.

Alternative Systems of Governance

Yes, the world could be governed in ways that don't prioritize power as the central mechanism, though such approaches face significant practical challenges. Power, as emphasized by thinkers like Kautilya and Machiavelli, often manifests as control over resources, coercion, or strategic influence. However, alternative governance models—rooted in cooperation, shared values, or decentralized systems—exist in theory and have been partially implemented in practice.

Cooperative Governance based on consensus-based systems, like European Union’s deliberative process and even the UN which aims for cooperative governance. Consensus requires trust and aligned interests, which are hard to sustain in diverse or competitive settings. Power vacuums often invite dominant actors to fill the gap. In Moral or Value-Based Governance focuses on ethical principles, justice, or spiritual ideals, prioritizing the common good over power consolidation. Think of governance inspired by figures like Gandhi or religious doctrines emphasizing compassion. We can quote Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness index prioritizes well-being over economic power. Historical monastic communities, like those in medieval Tibet, were governed through shared spiritual values.

Moral systems can be undermined by differing interpretations of “good” or by actors exploiting idealism for power. They often lack mechanisms to counter aggressive, power-driven rivals. The world can take recourse to Decentralized or Anarchic Systems a governance without centralized authority, relying on local autonomy, mutual aid, or voluntary association, as proposed by anarchist thinkers like Kropotkin or seen in some blockchain-based experiments. Some early hunter-gatherer societies operated without hierarchical power, using egalitarian decision-making. Modern examples include decentralized digital communities or cooperative businesses. However, scaling decentralized systems to global levels is difficult. They’re vulnerable to disruption by organized, power-seeking groups or internal fragmentation. Technocratic or Meritocratic Governance lays store on rule by expertise, data-driven decisions, or competence rather than raw power. This emphasizes problem-solving over dominance. Singapore’s technocratic model prioritizes efficiency and expertise, though it still wields power. Proposals for AI-assisted governance aim to reduce human power struggles. Technocracy can become elitist or disconnected from public needs. It also risks being co-opted by power structures under the guise of “expertise.”

Why Power Persists

Power-centric governance dominates because it’s effective in managing conflict, securing resources, and maintaining order in complex, competitive systems. Humans are driven by self-interest, fear, and scarcity, which amplify power’s appeal. Alternatives often require high trust, cultural homogeneity, or abundant resources—conditions rarely met globally. Even cooperative or moral systems tend to develop power dynamics over time, as seen in revolutions (e.g., the French or Bolshevik revolutions) that began idealistically but consolidated power.

Alternatives to Power Centricism:

A global shift away from power-based governance would require Cultural alignment based on shared values or goals across diverse populations, which is hard without a unifying ideology or existential threat (e.g., climate change) and Robust Institutions to enforce cooperation or fairness without resorting to coercion, like transparent global agreements. Technological support could offer tools like blockchain or AI which could enable decentralized or data-driven governance, reducing reliance on centralized power. Moreover, Incentive Structures could be used to reward cooperation and penalize power-grabbing without recreating power hierarchies.

Small-scale experiments (e.g., cooperative communities, digital governance platforms) show promise, but scaling them globally faces resistance from entrenched power structures—states, corporations, militaries—that benefit from the status quo. It appears a hybrid model, blending power with cooperative or ethical elements (e.g., democratic institutions with strong checks and balances), is more feasible than wholly replacing power.

Conclusion

The world can be governed without power as the sole driver, through cooperation, shared values, or decentralization. However, these alternatives struggle against human nature, resource competition, and the inertia of existing systems. A fully power-free global governance appears to be unlikely, but hybrid systems that temper power with fairness or collaboration are possible and already exist in limited forms. The challenge is scaling them without succumbing to the very power dynamics they seek to avoid.

Dr. Jernail Singh Anand, [the Seneca, Charter of Morava, Franz Kafka and Maxim Gorky award and Signs Peace Award Laureate, with an opus of 180 books, whose name adorns the Poets’ Rock in Serbia]]  is a towering literary figure whose work embodies a rare fusion of creativity, intellect, and moral vision.