The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli (New translation by Tim Parks)
Considered
as the Chanakya of the west, this
book is good one in teaching some of the life aspects, although it was meant
for the rulers at the time when it was written, it is useful today also as it
answers some of the questions like what is better to be feared or to be loved?
So a good read of-course it gets necessary to ignore the names if you are not a
history buff. The book also provides a long list and brief history of the
persons mentioned in the text, and it’s useful for the history people. But
still the book has relevance in some of its teachings.
It
starts with different types of the states and how to conquer them and most
important how to rule them and how to retain them. Two important things which
come up is 1. It is very difficult to overcome a hereditary rules, the only way
is to wipe out his full family and then also it’ll be difficult to rule 2.
States won by crime, it is very tough to retain them but it’s surely possible
to retain them, if the rules focus of the welfare of the subjects after he
attains the crown by treachery or heinous crime. We can judge the relevance of
the book in the context of the Indian politics.
It
also states “A man who becomes king with the support of the people, then, must
keep those people on his side. This is easy enough since all they want is to be
free from oppression. But the man who becomes the king against the will of the
majority and with the support of the wealthy nobles must make is an absolute
priority to win over the affection of the common people.
It
also explains various kinds of armies and also the question of mercenary army
support. He says it should be avoided as much as possible as the army built
from within the people of the state is more powerful as it fights with its will
and dedication for its mother land. Even if any state deploys the mercenary
army it can’t get rid of it after the task is over as it can’t be brought under
the rule nor it can be fired so the last choice being to finish them but then
again it weakens the state. I hope our neighboring country or at least its
policy makers read this book. It can learn a lot from it.
The
book also shows what men and particularly rulers are praised and blamed for. If
you want to play the good man in the world where most of the people are not
good, you’ll end up badly. Hence, if a ruler wants to survive, he’ll have to
learn to stop being good, at least when the occasion demands. A good ruler
mustn’t be concerned about the bad reputation that comes with the negative
qualities that are almost essential if he is to hold on to power. If you think
about it, there’ll always be something that looks morally right but would
actually lead a ruler to disaster, and something else that looks wrong but will
bring security and success.
Generosity
practiced out of real good will, as it should be, risks passing unnoticed and
you won’t escape a reputation of meanness. Since a ruler can’t be generous and
show it without putting himself at risk, if he’s sensible he won’t mind getting
a reputation for meanness.
Cruelty
and compassion. Whether it’s better to be feared or loved? Since the people
decide for themselves whether to love a ruler or not, while it’s the ruler who
decides whether they are going to fear him, a sensible man will base his power
on what he controls, not on what others have freedom to choose. But he must
take care that people don’t come to hate him. And a ruler won’t be hated if he
keeps his hands off his subject’s property and their women.
A
ruler and his promises
Everyone
will appreciate how admirable it is for a ruler to keep his word and be honest
rather than deceitful. However, in our times we’ve had examples of leaders
who’ve done great things without worrying too much about keeping their word.
Outwitting opponents with their cunning, these men achieved more than leaders
who behaved honestly.
This
book also shows what a ruler should do to win respect and some hints on the rulers’
ministers and how to avoid flatterers. The sensible ruler must find a middle
way, choosing intelligent men for ministers and giving them and only them the
right to tell him the truth, and only on the issues he asks about, not in
general.
So
people I think all can understand whether to read this book or not, it entirely
rests upon you.