Might is right

 Might Is Right

“Justice is the interest of the stronger” replies Thrasymachus, answering the question asked by Plato, what is justice? The same goes with might is right. The meaning of this proverb is that the powerful are always right. Although might is right its reverse isn’t correct which is right is might. So might is always right but right is always not might. Which means the weak can also be right. Might is right not because it is right but because of their power and position, no one can object to that. So whatever the mighty says is considered right. We will try to discuss it further by starting from the individual level and ending at the international level. 

At the individual level, some people are stronger and mighty. For example, there are two people one who is very powerful both connection-wise and physically. If you indulge in a fight with him/her, not even a fight if s/he is doing something wrong you can’t do anything. And our not objection to that particular act makes his/her actions right. Until we object to it as wrong it would be considered right. Let us try to understand this concept with a bit of more ground reality. You are standing in a queue. A strong mighty man comes and stands before you or he directly goes to the counter. There are more chances that you don’t raise your voice but hypothetically speaking you, with your full guts object that ‘sir this is a line you can’t violate it’ and in return what you get to listen is ‘shut up’. You won’t dare to speak again. Your closed mouth justifies his actions. So might is always right. This is true at the community level also.

Might is right is true at all levels. Coming to the community level. A strong community would overrule the weak one any day. And the weak can’t fight back. Even if the weak fights back there are always fewer chances of them winning. Let’s understand this with an example. The concept of democracy is very broad and comprehensive. It isn’t only about the rule by the people it also includes giving due recognition and consideration to the minority issues and opinions. Because until there is a setup that ensures that the might does not suppress others, the might would be right. So if there won’t be a democratic and constitutional setup, the minority would be suppressed by the majority. The term minority here means in a multidimensional manner not only restricting to a religious minority but a minority of any type be it cultural or linguistic. So this whole setup to give equal consideration to the minority is basically to handle the problem of might is right.

At the state level, it is also true. It is said that the state has the power to the legitimate use of violence. No one can be mightier than the state in a polity. So the state is might here and that is the reason it is always difficult to speak against the authority. One of the reasons Gandhi was against the state because the state is soulless. At one point the mightier individual can listen to his soul and doesn’t use power or force but there is not an iota of chance with the state because the state is soulless. That’s is why we see states using violence against the protest or anyone who dares to speak against their order because they think they are mightier and they are right. 

The same thing goes to the international level. Mighty states always tend to subdue the weak state. The might at the international is based on the economic, political, ideological, the military power of a state. Whatever the USA did in Iraq is a perfect example of might is right.

Due to this same reality of might is right Indian constitution contains several provisions which ensure free living of individual and a life without fear. Constitution tries to establish an atmosphere where this situation of might is right doesn’t emerge. And if the type of situation emerges the state would ensure that the culprit is punished as per law. 

If the state tries to do the same thing then for that also constitution had given us certain rights in our defense. We are provided with certain fundamental rights. Which are provided against the state and some of them also against the individual who tries to violate these rights of others. For example, article 19 gives us freedom of speech and expression. This ensures that we can speak freely and when someone tries to create hindrances to that the court will ensure that those obstacles are removed. Art 29 and 30 give certain rights to the minority community. So that their culture, religion, or language is not clouded by the majority and they can act as per their beliefs and speak in their mother tongue freely.  Art 14 ensure everyone is equal in the eyes of law. Art 15 ensures that no one is discriminated against only because they belong to a particular religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

At the international level, it is ensured by international organizations like the United Nations, WTO, and IMF, etc. Do they work properly? That is debatable.

So in a democratic setup special focus is given to ensure that everyone is equal and able to live freely without fear with some fundamental rights. In short, it ensures that might doesn’t translate into right.

As we have seen from individual to international level the realist nature of human relations is might is right and if not checked by proper measures it would eventually lead to a chaotic society, an anarchic state. With the proper functioning of the constitution, there are few chances that might is right.