Gandhi vs Machiavelli

In one of the masterpiece book about politics The Prince, Machiavelli defined the notion of politics as war and politics form an organic whole while war is a political instrument, politics itself is warlike activity. In this perspective, violence seen as an inevitable factor in politics. focus the unity of ends and means. This argument claims that the means creates the kind of end that ultimately is achieved; violence and unjust action as means will simply reinforce those kinds of behavior in whatever end is achieved.
The idea of excusable means for public ends is
This is an important point because without it the idea of excusable means for public ends is seriously weakened: means then could be looked upon as being good in themselves so that no value could effectively be placed upon the end to which they aim. Essentially, the beast of violence would be combined with the reasonable law-making man (though he asserts this in a weaker way in regard to the natural tendency of men to want to acquire). The use of violence to maintain a state does not differ substantially from the use of violence to hold newly acquired states. The important principle is that it is essential to induce a degree of fear from the people. Acts and appearances which maintain a healthy degree of fear and respect will be the most effective in maintaining the state and its ruler's position.

To sum, he identifies with the ideal ruler image with a faker who gives a reliable impression constantly.
Well used cruelty would be a good moral decision in that it enforces the power of Prince. At this point, it is not hard to say that Machiavelli’s general view of violence in politics is closely related to his point of view on the human nature. A view that human nature represents our primitive side which arises in us because of the biological need of survival from the life, it constantly triggers the fear of death. During this survival, “The best way of defense is to attack”. In animal