Table of Contents
Je kara lathi okara bhains (71st BPSC Essay)
“Power is not an institution; it is a relationship.” — Michel Foucault
In a small village, two farmers had been disputing over a piece of common grazing land. One was poor but honest, while the other was wealthy and influential. When the dispute reached the village elders, everyone knew who was right. Yet no one was willing to challenge the powerful farmer. He had money, political connections, and a group of people willing to support him. In the end, the weaker farmer quietly withdrew his claim.
The incident reflects the deeper meaning of the Bhojpuri saying “Je kara lathi okara bhains.” It is not merely about a stick and a buffalo. It represents a social reality in which power, influence, or force can determine who gets control over resources and rights. In its broader sense, the saying warns us about a society where might becomes the measure of right.
In an ideal society, rights should be determined by law, justice, and evidence. But throughout history, power has often played a decisive role in determining who controls land, wealth, institutions, and political authority. The saying therefore captures a primitive but persistent principle of human society: the powerful can impose their will upon the weak when institutions fail to protect justice.
Lord Acton’s famous observation is particularly relevant:
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.”
Power itself is not necessarily evil. A government needs power to maintain law and order. A police officer needs authority to protect citizens. A judge needs legal power to deliver justice. A democratically elected government needs authority to implement public policy. The problem begins when power becomes unaccountable and is used for personal advantage.
The development of modern civilization can, in many ways, be understood as an attempt to replace the rule of force with the rule of law. In primitive societies, the stronger person could take what he wanted. Modern constitutional democracies were created precisely to prevent such arbitrary domination.
The Constitution of India embodies this transformation. Equality before law, fundamental rights, judicial review, democratic elections, and independent institutions are designed to ensure that no individual is above the law merely because of wealth, social position, political influence, or physical strength.
Yet the spirit of “Je kara lathi okara bhains” has not disappeared completely.
It can still be seen in cases where influential individuals misuse their political connections to obtain benefits that ordinary citizens cannot access. It appears when a wealthy person can afford prolonged litigation while a poor person struggles even to obtain legal assistance. It appears when social status determines whose voice is heard and whose complaint is ignored.
This makes the saying particularly relevant to the question of social justice.
A society cannot be called just merely because its laws promise equality. Equality must also be meaningful in practice. If a poor person technically possesses the same rights as a wealthy person but lacks the resources to exercise those rights, formal equality alone cannot produce genuine justice.
This is why constitutional democracies create institutions and policies designed to protect vulnerable groups. Legal aid, affirmative action, social welfare programmes, labour protections, and safeguards for disadvantaged communities attempt to reduce the gap between formal rights and actual power.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s vision of democracy was deeply connected with this idea. Political democracy cannot remain stable if social and economic inequalities become so extreme that citizens do not experience equality in everyday life.
The proverb also has a strong connection with politics. In a healthy democracy, political authority comes from the consent of the people and remains subject to constitutional limits. But if money, muscle power, criminal influence, or patronage begins to dominate elections, politics can start resembling the world described by the proverb.
The danger is not simply that powerful individuals may win elections. The deeper danger is that citizens may begin to believe that power matters more than principles.
When that happens, democratic trust begins to decline.
A similar phenomenon can be observed in local politics. Panchayats were created to bring governance closer to ordinary people. Yet where local institutions are dominated by powerful families, caste groups, or wealthy individuals, decentralisation can sometimes reproduce the very inequalities it was intended to overcome.
This does not mean that Panchayati Raj has failed. Rather, it shows that institutions alone cannot guarantee democracy. They must be supported by transparency, accountability, civic awareness, and an independent administrative and judicial system.
The saying is equally relevant to the economic sphere.
Economic power can influence political decisions, media narratives, market conditions, and even public policy. Large corporations can possess enormous resources compared with individual consumers or small businesses. This is why modern states require competition laws, consumer protection, taxation systems, labour regulations, and environmental standards.
Without appropriate checks, economic power can become concentrated and eventually influence political power. The result can be a cycle in which wealth creates influence, influence creates greater wealth, and both reinforce each other.
The digital age has introduced a new form of power: control over information and data.
Technology companies and digital platforms possess enormous amounts of personal information and can influence what people see, buy, or believe. The old image of the person holding a physical stick has therefore acquired a modern form. Today, power may come not from physical force but from capital, data, algorithms, networks, or information.
This makes regulation and accountability increasingly important.
At the international level, the proverb also has relevance. Powerful nations often possess greater military, economic, technological, and diplomatic influence. Smaller countries may find it difficult to resist the decisions of major powers. International institutions and international law attempt to create a system where national strength does not become the sole determinant of justice.
However, the answer is not to eliminate power. Power is necessary for governance, security, development, and social transformation. The real objective is to ensure that power remains accountable.
A powerful government can build infrastructure, provide welfare, protect national security, and respond to crises. A powerful institution can defend vulnerable citizens. A powerful individual can use wealth and influence to support education, healthcare, research, or social development.
Therefore, the real distinction is between power exercised for domination and power exercised for service.
The famous principle—
“With great power comes great responsibility.”
—captures this distinction perfectly.
A democratic society must therefore build strong institutions that can restrain arbitrary power. An independent judiciary should be able to challenge unlawful actions. A free media should be able to question those in authority. Citizens should have access to information. Elections should be transparent. Administrative decisions should be subject to scrutiny. Most importantly, the law must apply equally to the powerful and the powerless.
Education also plays a crucial role. An informed citizen is less likely to accept injustice as inevitable. Awareness of constitutional rights enables people to challenge exploitation through lawful means rather than surrendering to fear.
This is where the proverb can be transformed from a description of social reality into a warning against accepting that reality.
The message should not be that the weak must simply accept the dominance of the strong. Rather, it should encourage society to build institutions strong enough to ensure that justice, not force, determines rights.
Eleanor Roosevelt expressed this democratic ideal beautifully:
“Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.”
Ultimately, “Je kara lathi okara bhains” reflects an age-old struggle between might and right. It describes what happens when power operates without accountability, but it also reminds us why constitutional democracy is necessary.
The progress of civilization lies in moving from a society where the strongest person gets his way to one where the weakest person can still claim justice.
A truly democratic society is not one in which nobody has power. It is one in which power is restrained by law, guided by ethics, and made accountable to the people.
The real achievement of democracy, therefore, is not merely replacing one powerful ruler with another. It is creating a system in which no person’s “lathi” is powerful enough to decide who owns the “bhains.” Rights must belong to the rightful claimant, justice must protect the vulnerable, and authority must remain answerable to law.
That is the journey from “might is right” to “right is protected by might of law.”