What ideas on political theory were present in Asia? After taking a few Ken Peter classes, I developed a great interest in political philosophy. I have always taken particular interest in Eastern philosophy and enjoy reading Mencius, Confucius and Kautilya works. One could write volumes on the different views on governance and politics in Asia, so to narrow this blog I chose to write on two prominent Asian philosophers: Mencius from China and Kautilya from India. Comparing and contrasting their views gives insight into Indian and Chinese Political theory, but I want to be cautious that I don’t imply that these philosophers represent the entirety of Indian or Chinese theory because there were differences in their societies as well. So the views of these philosophers influenced their society, but they shouldn’t be thought of as representing the philosophy of their civilization. Mencius held the common people in a very high esteem because he believed that human nature was inherently good. He believed that all men were born with a sensitive heart, and that the Kings of the past ruled with a compassionate government. Because human nature was inherently good, a ruler should treat his citizens kindly. “A good ruler is always respectful and thrifty, courteous and humble, and takes from the people no more than is prescribed.” He talked a lot about the “benevolent” ruler and “the way”. This was somewhat vague to me, but I think he meant that a ruler who practiced good moral government would be following “the way” and thus be “benevolent.” . I don’t think Mencius would believe in the notion that a ruler should do whatever he could to stay in power even if it was for the purpose of maintaining order. On the other hand, the famous Indian political theorists Kautilya had a very, what we call today, “Realist,” or “Realpolitik” point of view. He believed that the ends justified the means. The widely studied text Arthashashtra, which explores political and economic theory, is compared to Machiavelli’s The Prince. “It describes a repressive civil and military bureaucracy sustained by spies, soldiers, and bureaucrats, where one fourth to one half of all crops were paid into the imperial treasury. Kautilya’s theory on using power was very cold and calculating.